and this was enacted in 1996, established a mechanism under which dhs can enter into a cooperative law enforcement agreement where the state and local law enforcement or correctional agency and under that provision the state officers may exercise authorities of ice officers including doing checks in appropriate circumstances, but the act makes clear whether it's an agreement like that the state and local officers have to act under the supervision of officers and have to follow the priorities in terms of law enforcement. >> under g10 it says no -- not with standing. no provision of this act will stop the -- nothing in the subsection shall

be construed to require an agreement under this subsection in order for any officer or employee of the state or political subdivision of the state to communicate with the attorney general regarding the immigration status of any individual including reporting knowledge that a particular person is not lawfully present in the united states or otherwise to cooperate with the . . removal of aliens not lawfully frent in the united states. so 287g officers are under the ag, but under g10, this doesn't stop regular officers from doing exactly what i've read. >> our position is not that they're not authorized to. our objection is that the state statutes mandates it. >> they can state how they want to use their people, right?

>> i don't think so with all do with respect. an greermt is not required for state officers to cooperate, but the important language is cooperate with the attorney general. when one utilized law enforcement officers to assist a second sovereign, i think the background understanding would be it's the second sovereign whose laws are enforced who takes the lead and the other officer here, the officers of arizona is assisting the second sovereign of the united states. >> that's nice and well as subsection be, but listen again. to communicate with the attorney general with regard to the immigration status, it doesn't say communicate when the tone -- attorney general wants you to communicate. this is a right under the federal statute for the local people to communicate with the attorney general. >> section 10 says that's part

of a broader relationship, and again, this is demonstrated again i think by the text, paragraph a says to communicate with the attorney general, and b says otherwise to cooperate. >> besides communicating? >> but the otherwise to cooperate, the otherwise refers back to a. the communication is part of the cooperative relationship between the state and the federal government. >> isn't the obligation of the federal government made very clear by sections 1373c, 8usc1373c which is entitled obligation to respond to inquiries? the immigration of the naturalization service shall, mandatory word, respond to an inquiry by a state or local agency seeking to verify or ascertain the immigration status

of any individual ect., ect., ect.. it doesn't say whether we want to or in our discretion or when we have funds available. it says shall. >> our point doesn't turn on the response that dhs makes. it turns on the conduct of the state and local police officers who would be -- and by hypothesis are making inquiries of the aliens before we even get to what is submitted to united states. they stop someone and prolonging that stop by hypothesis they mite not otherwise do it in the absence of the 1070. >> they might not do it or they might do it and this is a facial challenge. you have to prove every time they would stop someone that's an unconstitutional stop. >> no, our burden is to show every time the mandatory application is inpermissible because it takes away the

discretion of the local law enforcement to decide whether to persue a local -- >> what about section ii? it says if you have reasonable suspicion if it's practicable, if it won't interfere with the investigation, then you can request the immigration status. >> those circumstances it is mapped toir, and those -- mandatory and that first sentence does not provide for the state or local officer to take into account federal priorities. the only thing taken into account is the state and local officers own set of priorities. >> what set of priorities? >> well, as we explained in our brief, the secretary of homeland security through ipes established priorities for example in the enforcement of the immigration agent.

>> there's nothing established by ipes as responding to the obligation to respond to inquiries. >> yes -- what i'm describing here doesn't go to the response to the inquiry but the conduct by the believer when he en-- encounters someone on the beat. >> you want him to say what would the feds do in this case? >> no, what would i do if left to my own law enforcement judgment knowing what the feds approach is with respect to particular problems. >> they're told what to do. they've been told by the arizona legislature and by the governor what to do which is if you have reasonable suspicion, if it's practicable, if it won't interfere with the investigation, run an immigration check. it takes 11 minutes according to the last speaker. >> and, again, our problem is that the state has mandated it.

>> let me ask you this. before arizona passed this statute, this provision, and let's assume no cooperative agreement, could the sheriff of some local county say to his officers, whenever you make a stop and you think there's reasonable suspicion that the person you stopped is here illegally, you run a check with ins. >> that presents the same problem. >> why? it's not mapped toir. the state didn't say it's mandatory. >> well, the slfer has. if the sheriff adopts a policy and for these purposes and another a policy for the sheriff in how matters are to be conducted should be regarded as having the force of law intended to bind the officers who work for him. >> it's priorities. the sheriff decided in his discretion in running his officers and directing his

department. in that situation it's not solely the sheriff's concern coming to the enforcement of the immigration law. >> the officers say, i made a stop, looks like this guy is illegal. he says -- i'm going to call. i'm going to check. what's wrong with that? >> well, you know, at some point what an individual officer does may not rise to the level of the legal problem, but even in the case of an individual officer, if there was an issue, that would be worked out in the cooperative relationship between the federal government and the states. >> i don't understand why an officer couldn't independent of this law and even in light of the existing federal law we talked about, couldn't he on his own call about a particular person he detained? >> he certainly can, but let me

-- >> it seems to be permissible. >> it is. but there's another aspect that is important in underscoring what they are trying to accomplish here and that is the private right of action. >> no, let's not get away from this point. i read your brief. i read the district court. i heard your argument, and i don't understand your argument. we are dprent -- dependent as counsel being responsive, focusing, trying to help us not go down and fall like soldiers in the defense of some position that's -- you keep saying that the problem that a state officer is told to do something. that's not a matter of preemption. it's an appeal and cut off

communications. we don't want to have this information fought, but it hasn't done so. it makes clear to you it has not done so, and, i would think the proper position would be to conceive this is a point where we don't have an argument. >> with respect, we do believe we have an argument, and if i could make two other points that we think critically underscore that. first of all, the mandatory nature of section 2 be is coupled with the private right of action that provides any citizen of the state, not just the sheriff running the department, but any citizen of the state can bring a private right of action if there's a policy of not enforcing the immigration law to the maximum ebbs tent possible. this is a powerful incentive to pursue questioning and circumstances which ordinary law

enforcement would not call for. the state has singled out this one subject matter of immigration for the extraordinary mandatory requirement in a subject matter that is exclusively federal in prosecution and enforcement. the other extraordinary thing about this is it's geared to the reasonable suspicion standard. that is a familiar standard, but it's familiar in terms of authorizing or permittings law enforcement. it is a purposely low standard, lower than probably cause, but it's a standard whose application daily depends upon the individual judgment of law enforcement officers in the field often not exercising that power to the hilt because of the recognition that maybe they should be applying a standard above this. this standard is now transposed from a permissive authorizization in its usual application to a mandate every time a state or local officer

encounters someone on a beat and all the circumstances might lead to a judgment that there's reasonable suspicion that that person is unlawfully here. that officer must pursue the manner and ask questions. >> is it national crimes center to see if there's any warrants? >> that is a regular part of police -- >> or every time you stop a person, you have to take his fingerprints? >> in that circumstance, the state is regulating its own state law enforcement. if the state wants to say -- >> not necessarily. if the national center has outstanding warrants from the state of california, that is not

an arizona crime. >> that's the information the officer might find from the ncic, but in terms of pursuing the ncic the difference is the state singled out immigration saying pursue immigration in the way you don't pursue any other state responsibility. >> there's no interest in seeing the illegal aliens should be removed? >> the state certainly has an interest in that, but it's important to focus on the fact that the incutter between the local law enforcement officer may be on the street or in the school with a student who's been in a fight and the officer may have some suspicion that the student in school might be unlawfully present. all the sudden this law requires that that i accident be

pursued. the state cannot remove or prosecute the person. it is an intake for ultimate federal enforcement of the law. >> but the state can deliver an illegal alien over to the federal officials, and they may result in that person being removed from the state of arizona. >> but in the field the cooperative relationship again which all federal state cooperation law enforcement works is there's communication about that. before the person would be brought in, there's communication between the local law enforcement officer saying what do you want me to do in this circumstance? what this provision, 2 be does, is stand as an obstacle in every encountered to cooperative relationship between the states and federal government because it creates a state enforcement priority and a state mandatory enforcement approach. that's by this private right of action and geared in an

unprecedented way to the use of the reasonable suspicion standard which as i said has always been -- >> okay. >> one to be authorized, but not used in a way to compel law enforcement. >> your time is rapidly decreasing here, and i'd like you to respond for a few moments to the argument with respect to section vi. >> okay. with respect to section vi it presents the problems that the district court identified for starters. as the district court pointed out, the section vi, the parties agreed in the lower court is geared to a situation where the crime is committed outside of arizona because there's authority within the state of arizona to arrest someone to make a warrant of an arrest of someone. >> no if that person already served a sentence. arizona couldn't allow a warrant for arrest. >> no -- >> but this section does allow

that. >> no, that -- that's true, but that is not a justification there was put forward in the lower court. >> it's a justification they talked about in this opinion. >> she noted it. >> she -- >> the parties didn't address it, and if that's an justification, that can be considered. this is just an injunction stage. >> if you're to win, and if that were considered, you would be likely to lose. >> no, i think it continues to present the problems that the court identified because there's no requirement in section vi that the state or local officer contacted to find out whether a defense is removable. the officer has to make a judgment as to whether the public offense in the other state is a public offense in arizona and decide whether it would lead in turn to a removal.

>> like suggested earlier, second degree murder is the crime. >> well, in that situation, it would probably, you know, it would probably be possible to make that determination. .. >> is that they can sense this? >> pardon me? >> is that a confession?

>> if not in written in the wake. it was written in a way that required that ice be consulted before the convict was taken. after all, the statute was only on aliens. and that is the concern. so if it was written in a way that required the trigger, we think that might be different, but it's not. if i could just come back -- >> could it be construed that way? >> it's not a question of construing. >> you are the counselors say, arizona seems quite willing to accept the construction of it. >> well, i think they discussed that in to be. in six there is no language that could be read into the statute or construed to require a prior checking with i.c.e. >> they look at the stan schuett as a whole. to communicate with the federal government. >> but there's no requirement

that be done before the local officer make a judgment on its own and we think that's contrary to the general cooperative law enforcement. if i could just return for a moment because i see my time is -- >> i let you go one minute. but make your point and that's it. >> i just want to say the arizona statute with its extraordinary mandatory investigation has to be considered in light of what would happen if every state in the union did this. and the united states nation as a whole is responsible for other nations for the ways in which their citizens are treated within the united states. if every state did this, we would have a patchwork of laws that support circuits decision, which struck down a similar law concluded. and it's also important that the supreme court recognized in hines first whip it good how this can affect the citizens because another important fact for under law and immigration is to respect the civil liberties

and not put people to surveillance because of the mandatory requirement is not minimal reasonable suspicion we think raises the concern very profoundly. >> thank you. >> just a few quick points. >> sure. >> if this is about regional, minimal -- reasonable, minimal decision, i -- lopez took care of that. ins lopez beat the nose. whether the supreme court specifically said that reasonable suspicion was a suspicion standard to protect those lawfully in the country. so it's been a time-honored standard. i don't know how sudden it

becomes so minimal. secondly, this pure speculation -- again, we're talking about a facial challenge here. but it's pure speculation that faith officers will check out people they otherwise wouldn't have checked out in their discretion. the idea of the statute is to admit those people who were previously been subject to sanctuary policies to make those checks. the third thing -- >> it does make a reasonable attempt shall be made. it does seychelle. >> we encourage them to do it. we've got to know was there. >> by the generous reading of shall. [laughter] >> thursday, -- >> i'll take it. >> pardon me? >> i'll take it. >> thirdly, you mention to case to case management to look at it

during the argument a little bit. i guess the point i would emphasize is that particular case addressed whether dhs had the authority to enact those regulation and did not address the subject of whether the states in the exercise of their power as indicated by decanted and other cases could address that particular subset. in the national center case also failed to apply the presumption against preemption of state law because they weren't dealing with state law. they were dealing with an administrative application. >> is mr. perkins then rationalize the intent as whether to punish employees as a condition of bonding amount? >> yes, sir. >> why isn't that general premise what the intent of

congress was, applicable not only when dhs does it, but when the state does it? >> dhs doesn't have any police powers to begin with. secondly -- >> that was the intent of congress. if the intent of congress is not to be black by judge ferguson, just because it is in one room another room, dhs or the state, doesn't stop it from being black. >> i was tried to address your question about, even if you agreed with me, which you weren't sure you did, but the legislative history, whether you are bound by that opinion. and my answer would be i don't think you are because he did not address the specific subject before you. he did not address the subject of preemption against preemption or the police powers of the state. and i think he was wrong with all due respect on legislative history and would take a five

person committee of three people present to say that the legislative history. that's a little bit of a stretch. >> euro for your time. i'll give you a minute to sum up your points. >> okay. your honor, we think that all these provisions are consistent with congressional objectives. its congressional objectives that cannot rather than this administration's priorities. and you know, there is no reason why arizona should stand by and software the consequences of a broken system in arizona has 15,000 well-trained and capable police officers, law enforcement police offers on the ground who can help fix the system. that is what arizona wants to do, so we ask that you vacate this injunction and allow arizona to get on with taking care of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens and i appreciate your time. >> thank you. we appreciate your argument.

the matter will be submitted at this time in the court appreciates the vast interest in this case. thank you. will be in recess for 15 minutes. >> all rise. [inaudible conversations]

>> president obama is an indonesia. he met with business leaders. tomorrow, he travels to new delhi to meet with indian government officials and will meet with the parliament on monday. tuesday, the president goes to jakarta and indonesia. he will speak to u.s. troops on veterans day. the g-20 summit begins later that day and continues into friday when president obama will hold a closing news from france

-- news conference. he will travel to japan where he will attend meetings. he returns to washington on sunday. we will have continuing coverage of the president's trip on the c-span networks. >> this weekend on the booktv is "in depth," joan of goldberg discusses the election results, the conservative movement and the next wave of leaders on the right. join us with your calls, e- mail's and tweets. >> changes need to occur in congress and it is only going to occur if the people in our country really begin to get involved and begin to run for congress and come over here and make the changes that are necessary. john painter at a round table or coverage of events.

you can learn more about the speaker of the house through his own words. that is on line on the c-span video library. is washington your way. >> now, a discussion on president obama's policy and his trip to asia. this is about 45 minutes. >> ""washington journal" continues. host: as a result of the election this week, does this impact foreign-policy decisions by the president? guest: it probably will to some degree. i think it is difficult where the republicans will want to take things when they get into especially the house of representatives. i think there may be an effect on afghan policy. as we all know, the president has called for the beginning of

a reduction of u.s. forces in afghanistan by next july. there is a great deal of debate about whether that can really be done, if the mission continues to be to defeat the al-qaeda, to deny them presence in afghanistan. there will certainly have to be progress with the taliban insurgency. also, there probably is going to be in little bit of pressure on the president regarding israel and palestinians it. these talks have began -- have gone nowhere, essentially. they have not broken down completely, but the united states has been trying to keep pressure on the israelis in regards to their settlement policy and the west bank and east jerusalem. the united states under president obama has been pushing

the israelis to hold back on settlement policy, something the palestinians are demanding. i think there is going to be if the bit of a push for him to be -- to draw back a little bit on that from the republicans when they take control in the house of representatives it printed on russia, -- in the house of representatives. on russia, the president hoped to have that ratified by the senate. it takes 67 votes, as you know. they are going to try it in the lame-duck president word this morning, i just saw, senator bob corker from tennessee is now suggesting even though he voted on this private lee in the committee is wanting to push it back until the next session of congress. senator dick lugar, who will be

the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee -- won't be, i am sorry. he will continue to be the minority figure their. he is for the treaty, but he has been talking about maybe we should wait. i think there is a question even if it will get to the floor during this lame-duck session. it would probably have a better chance of being ratified that it does in the next session of congress. what is really important here beyond the treaty itself -- the russians have made it pretty clear that obama's desire to reset relations, which have become very bad in the last years of the bush administration, hang on this treaty. the russians are saying this is something you have to show us, and it should be noted that the

russian duma recently reversed itself on calling for a vote on the duma on this treaty because it has to be ratified their as well, saying they will wait to see what the americans do. host: my guest will be with us until 9:15. the telephone numbers are on the bottom of your screen. is the e-s [an.orspan.org mail. there is an announcement today that there is a trade deal coming out of the president's asia trip. some of the political undertones of what is going on?

guest: there are many things to say about that. this was a trip that was planned after having much of it postponed a couple of times because of domestic problems and issues facing the president. it was planned before the election took place, timed for after this midterm election. having said that, it gives the president after this significant backstay for his democrats in the congressional elections a chance to be abroad, to be standing as the president, the person in control of american relations with the rest of the world, and perform that job and to show himself as still the leader of the country that is the only superpower, the largest economy, and so forth and so on. as he goes into this trip, he has had meetings already in

mumbai, india, to date. i think there is a chinese drapery that hangs over much of the visit. the indians are concerned about the chinese it. they are in competition with them economically. there is a degree of competition geopolitically because they are in the same part of the world. the chinese have become much more assertive as of late, said the president is there not only to try to cement growing economic relations with the indians, but also to provide them with assurance that the americans are standing with them. i have read where the united states and india has more joint military exercises than any other u.s. partner in the world, which was surprising to me, but

it also shows the importance that the united states places in india. he is going to be moving on to indochina, a place where he lived for a time during his youth. they are building democracy in that country. there are still concerns about the military and how it operates there. there is still a great deal of corruption. the president will be talking about that. it is a visit with the president is saying i and here, i am paying homage to my country, my boyhood home. he will be meeting with the chinese leader. the south koreans are still very concerned about the north, as is the united states and the rest of the world, the nuclear program. again, the chinese will be a big presence in these discussions before he goes on to japan.

then there is the other summit of the asia-pacific countries, the southeast asia countries. also, after a difficult period of u.s.-japanese relations, he will be patching up a new political structure in that country. so, a huge agenda host: do leaders in pakistan show concern? guest: they will be showing concern because one of the great problems the united states has had in afghanistan has been that pakistan traditionally and almost wrote lee looks towards india as an enemy. it is very difficult for the pakistanis to about face and start looking to the west end toward afghanistan, where the united states is frankly having a great deal of difficulty especially along the border

areas. there has been a traditional link between the pakistan military forces and the taliban. the pakistanis are going to be saying wait a minute. the president is visiting india while he is trying to get our support for fighting the taliban and al-qaeda along our western border and in afghanistan, so there is this great tension there. as far as the indians are concerned, the united states has been pouring huge amounts of money into the pakistani armed forces it. when these two countries clashed, it is always militarily. host: over the last few days, there has been a lot of stories about the cost of this trip. guest: the president is spending the night in the taj mahal hotel in mumbia where is that

terrorist attack took more than 140 lives. there is certainly a great cost just in securing the president in that structure. then you spread them out into mumbai and more largely offshore, it has to be a huge cost, but i have no idea what it is host: the first call for you is from cleveland, ohio. caller: i wondered what your thoughts were about partaking in the u.s. caucus over there about human rights violations against the united states about the treatment of women that we are getting criticized by iran and mexico. what are your thoughts on that guest: i am not quite sure what you are referring to.

it is not necessarily a matter of international relations, also is it slops over into the relationship with mexico. i think there is a list -- i think there is still a great deal of debate about that issue in the united states. on both sides of the issue, there are strong arguments. with these two sides are going to have to come together and reach some sort of solution because it has become a problem that the tracks from states like arizona and all of the border states, from focusing on more major problems. if they can get this one salt, they will be in a much better position. the iranian complaints about the u.s. treatment of women, i think, is probably very typical of the i iranians trying to perhaps change the subject a little bit and turning the

argument around on the united states. host: vancouver, washington, the republican line. caller: do you know if the [unintelligible] has any way of knowing about the convention and if you will bring it up to south america or anything like that? my daughter was taken down there by my ex-wife. i have been going through this for years now. i realize to do not work for the state department or anything. does he have any plans to visit south america? guest: nothing that i know of it. he is certainly going to have to do that during the course of his presidency because it is enormously important to the united states, and it is

increasingly important especially economically. we have countries like brazil moving into the no. 4 spot in terms of the world's largest economies. host: falls church, va., on our independence line. caller: i was going to ask a generic question initially, and then maybe focus it. i know the u.s. congress once sworn in gets the visit by the special interests, covering many areas of the world. the most influential of being the american and israeli political action committee. part of the paralysis that sort of, you know, made up the situation in the middle east is because the congress is so the holding to eipac aipac througho.

do you think they have a general interest in seeing the palestinians have their own state as is dictated by our foreign policy? guest: i would hesitate. in fact, i will not speak to the wishes of that organization. i would recall, for you, that dennis ross, who is a very important figure in the u.s. middle east foreign policy establishment, recently spoke to that organization and he very carefully but did not pull any punches outlined what the obama administration is trying to do. he talked about the necessity -- the necessity of there being some sort of give on both sides

and mentioned this whole issue of doing sentiments in the west bank and east jerusalem. obviously, apec is an enormously powerful force because it influences in congress and throughout the united states. i think that, at heart, it is an organization that also knows it has to deal within the united states political system and also has to understand that some sort of commentary between these two forces and agreement will at some time come and is necessary, and that is necessary not only for the desires of the palestinians, but the long range security of israel. host: are there any future meetings planned? guest: i think there are

meetings going on right along, and what is encouraging, there are a lot of meetings going on in the middle east between the players. this is not something that is only between the israelis and palestinians. it is something that affects the larger middle east. we have seen a lot of egyptian involvement in the meetings with the egyptians. some other gulf states, jordan -- as that begins mixing it up, there is a far greater chance that there is going to be some kind of movement. the central issue is still held are the israelis and palestinians going to find -- give from both sides, come together, and start dealing with these issues? the question basically is, what happens to the border between the israelis and palestinians of the west bank?

if that can be solved, i think most problems fall in place. host: letter on, the president will travel to jakarta on tuesday and will make an address on wednesday. it in an op ed in the new york times, the president spoke about the economic gains from this trap. what hurdles does he have to cross to open up exports to these countries? guest: he is pushing the indians hard as he is on every stop for an easier time for american industry and businesses to get u.s. products into those countries. he just is preparing to announce a deal with boeing that boeing and finally struck to sell transport planes, a big amount of money. ge is talking about having gotten a deal with the indians

for electricity generation equipment. he is going to be going into korea where there is a pending free-trade treaty that he wants to see past but is being held up because many of the united states think koreans are not allowing enough u.s. goods in. the same thing with the japanese. overlying this, of course, is currency. the big problem for many in the u.s. congress, going back to that issue, is the concern over the way the chinese manipulate their currency. what they do is keep the value of their currency artificially low. what that does is make chinese goods less expensive for americans to buy, and american

goods more expensive for the chinese to buy. so there is a great deal of pressure that has been going back and forth especially from the americans to get the chinese to raise the value of the currency. they are doing it very slowly and probably not going to do it to the levels that anybody would like. there is a similar problem with the koreans, and the japanese. host: the republican line. caller: the economic plans that the president has today, what this trip basically would do for us -- i think you basically answer that to some extend. another thing, what with the president do or what could the

president do on the fair tax act? with that not help our world trade now and is that possible? basically it is going to help -- i know there is a lot of criticism about this trip. but everyone has to realize that is necessary for his duties. so, your comment on any type of fair tax act that might help. i guess they're trading and the marking up of their currency, would it not be true that if we could lower our taxes on our corporations that they could compete worldwide and not have to negotiate? guest: let me step back a bit and say, yes, you are right

regardless of criticism about the cost of this trip. the president has the obligation to represent the united states and work in its interest abroad. we have to remember after the president had a flurry of overseas activity in the early days of his presidency, he has now in the meantime spent an enormous time on health care, financial reform regulations, and then this election. a lot of what has been going on between the united states and the rest of the world, it is in process. secretary clinton has been promoting u.s. interests, but the president has not been able to focus on. it is presidential focus that brings u.s. focus and world focus to these international

relations, these very important international relations, not only geopolitically, but economically, especially now when the u.s. economy is hurting so bad. as to taxes, i am far from an expert on that. i think the problems that the u.s. industry faces, more than taxation, is the health industry and many other countries around the world receive in terms of subsidy from their governments to promote exports. i am sure you could say if we lower taxes on u.s. industry that would be an equal subsidy, but i don't think the two measure up. i think the united states will be fighting an uphill battle on that front no matter what happens. caller: good morning. how are you?

associated press? do you have time for a small debate? guest: i will leave that to my host. caller: how much of foreign policy is done without any american money? host: what do you mean by that, caller? caller: we have a world based economy, is that correct? guest: that is certainly correct. caller: how much of foreign policy in any matter would the united states achieve with american money? guest: i still don't understand your question. caller: foreign policy and money, period. host: we will leave it there,

caller. caller: sector for taking my call. -- thank you for taking my call. how long will the press continue to allow the republicans in gross whatever the president does, especially in foreign policy? right now, they are engrossing what it will take for the president to have this visit, talking about one-tenth of the navy has to escort him. but they probably and gross anything he does in a muslim country, being that his father was muslim. they engrossed and lied about the health policy, and the press allowed these and grossman's go through without challenge. how long are you going to do that? guest: i think there is a great

misunderstanding in what you are saying. there are portions of the media that promote one point of view or another point of view. then there are journalists like myself who are required to look at the points of view of all of the major players on any particular issue and report what those people are saying about those issues, bringing into that the context and the fax of that debate. it is my job -- it is not my job as a journalist to decide who is right and wrong, but to present the view and offer the available facts on a particular issue. then it is up to you to make your own mind. obviously, from the tone of your question, you have a point of

view. but it is not our job in the media to say that the point of view that is opposite yours or contrary to yours is wrong. it is our job to present the arguments, present the facts, and allow the citizens of the united states to make up their minds. that is the function of the press. as i said, there is a great confusion abroad in the united states about many media outlets that do promote one point of view or another point of view, but they are not doing journalism. they are promoting points of view. host: how about foreign policy going forward having to deal alongside with terrorism? guest: a huge amount. this brings into focus the need for our foreign policy to be much more directed toward what is causing terrorism, where it

is, and how foreign-policy can help to alleviate that, if possible. the situation in yemen is a nightmare, i think, for foreign- policy professionals in this administration, out of this administration, because what you see popping up is not somalia necessary, and it opens the lead for another way for terrorists who want to attack the united states to operate quite freely. there are many terrorists in yemen, as i understand it, but because of the nature of the country they operate pretty much at will. host: your organization is reporting that a judge in yemen has ordered the arrest of a terrorist after america putting

pressure on them to put pressure on terrorists. guest: it is among the united states, as they work overseas, would do the same way. they were out to capture or kill him. there is a great deal of debate because he is a u.s. citizen about the constitutionality and morality of doing such a thing. the u.s. government putting out an order to, perhaps, kill a u.s. citizen. he operates very freely in yemen and is heavily into the internet. he has had contact with a man who did the shooting in fort hood, or who is alleged to have done that shooting, and is supposedly tied up with the young man tried to blow up the plan going into detroit last christmas.

i do not pretend to be able to make a comment for decision upon new brightness or wrongness of this, but certainly we can see the focus of the u.s. government in yemen. the people in yemen are saying the same thing suggesting they are bound to u.s. pressure to get tougher. host: does the president indicate more involvement in this issue? guest: i think there's a great deal of involvement that we do not know about. there's a considerable use of the cia drones over yemen. i think the united states would rather do anything than get involved on the ground, and yet it is another hostile environment. host: naples, fla., for steve hurst who is a white house correspondent for the associated press. caller: thank you very much and good morning. i have not read about an issue

that i think may be important with respect to the president's travels which is how does our dollar affected to the country is going to? guest: the dollar has been somewhat lower lately which helps u.s. exports. what that means is that people in india, for example, are able to purchase u.s. products at a lower price because the exchange rate means you can get more rupees per dollar. that helps the united states economy greatly. something to think about in all of this, and i am not an economist, but there is some talk that the recent action by

the federal reserve to purchase several billion dollars in u.s. securities is something that is also forecast to lower the value of the dollar which, again, with help of the u.s. economy but it is causing some concerns abroad that it may also cause inflation in places like brazil and these other booming economies. host: the front page of "the financial times" talks about the g-20 meeting coming up. the governor of the global imbalances. what does this mean for the president? guest: he will have a tough talk when he sits down with hu jintao. i think the meeting will be in the seal when he is there for the g-20. there forl when he's the g-20.

the chinese know that in order to sustain their economy going forward that they will have to turn away, if they can come from an export driven economy to one where people consume things. as they begin moving more towards a consumer economy, as more and more people in china have the money to purchase goods, the united states wants to be in on that gigantic market. the problem the united states has in getting into the gigantic market is the fact that the chinese have kept their currency artificially low. that means it is easy for them to export and sell things, but it is hard for importers, like the united states, to get their goods into the marketplace because they are more extensive than the chinese counterpart. that is the argument in its essence. the united states will be trying

to solve that yet again. the chinese have let their currencies rise slightly. one question you could ask the administration is, "how tough do you want to get"? there is a point where the united states could impose a tax on the exchange of currencies that would help the united states currency. it would bring money into the treasury. do they want to get that stuff with the chinese? and they are now the second- largest economy and that they hold all of this american debt. i do not know. that is a decision that needs to be looked at by this administration and congress. host: 10 more minutes. new york is next. good morning to robert on our independent line. caller: lately i have been hearing a lot about jobs and how we will become more competitive with places like india and china

for middle class jobs. i am wondering if the president will be addressing how we will compete more so we are not -- companies, even though they are investing over there, will not be losing a lot of jobs over here, these middle-class, white collar jobs to countries overseas? guest: the president is on his bully pulpit right now telling americans that they have to get behind him in an effort to prevent the american companies that are going this so called "outsourcing." you hire people in india to run these call centers. you end up talking to someone in mind why -- mumbai. that could have been done here in the u.s., but it is being done in india and because they can do it for a much lower rate.

there is a possibility that the united states could impose a tax of some sort on u.s. companies that ship these jobs overseas. is that likely to happen in a republican controlled house? probably not. what he has to do is use his bully pulpit. there is some word from the chairman of ge, immelt, who indicated that ge is beginning to understand that perhaps u.s. industries and corporations have gone a bit too far in outsourcing and moving jobs and production overseas. they might be willing to draw back a bit. perhaps the president is winning a bid using his bully pulpit,

but this is economics. and simple. if you can get something done more cheaply and you are a corp. looking at your bottom line wanting your stock price to go up, what do you do? you try to save money. it becomes a matter of political philosophy, and i guess you might say patriotism, whether a president can convince those companies to begin drawing back from that kind of policies. who knows? host: to form governments look at these elections and it think the president is weaker? guest: i think we will see him politically weakened at home. now, what they have to understand is that at the same time while he may be in a dicey political situation at home, he is still the guy when it comes to dealing with the world abroad. the congress can have effects on

the way he deals with the the world abroad, but he is still the one who directs policy, lays out policy, and can take enormous initiatives. we have not talked about a run, for example. -- we have not talked about iran, for example. i think we will feel pressure to get tougher on i ran a. what can he do? on the one hand, the use of military force. on the other hand is a capitulation and acknowledgement that they will become a nuclear power. there are steps in between those two then points. the president will be the one who decides where he will come down in that spectrum of possibilities. the iranians should take note that the outcome of this election will affect where he

comes down. host: jacksonville, fla., on our republican line. caller: you have almost answered my question today. i wondered why the president has to go. the't we used to send secretary of state or the secretary of treated to deal with all of these problems? then the president could settle the things back home. i am just a very curious to know why we have suddenly come to this business of sending our very top man there who is really not knowledgeable in these things and has to take all of these people with him. guest: these top people tell him what is going on. believe me. we have a president right now who is well versed in foreign

affairs and world events. the very point of a president -- and there is a long history of this, it is to signal the importance of the u.s. plays in various relationships between the united states and india, for example. you will recall that the first state visit under president obama was the indian prime minister. this is an important relationship. obama going there takes time and it costs a lot of money and it becomes a distraction internally, but it signals to the indians have won four in the u.s. believes the relationship is with them. host: the trip will continue on until the 14th. on november 11th, the president will attend the g-20 summit in south korea. the following day will be the news conference at the g-20 closing. he will be in japan on november

13th. this is a long trip in comparison to others? guest: a very long foreign trip. it is more or less dictated by the fact that the president had to cancel the couple of times especially with indonesia. he is spending more time with india, for example, that he has spent in any foreign country so far in his presidency. this signals to the indians just how important this is. the president of the united states does not travel hours and hours and hours a plane to take him away from what are difficult domestic problems right now to spend three days in a foreign country unless he wants to signal to that country just how important he views, and the united states views, their

relationship. this is also dictated by the g- 20 summit which is something he would not want to mess and the meeting in japan. these are important meetings and these are lining up together right now. it just happens they come after the election. a just so happens, also, that the news, as it affects the president, shifts away from domestic politics toward foreign affairs. as these trips are ranged, deals are made, agreements are made, and the leaders announced them. this looks good for president obama and the presidency and leaders of the other countries. everyone benefits. host: michigan, how one on our democratic line. caller: on one them to get out of afghanistan and iraq.

-- i wanted them to get out of there. president bush should have gone out of there. host: any elements of iraq policy to be dictated? guest: no. in iraq, the die has been cast. that does not mean the guy can be broken, but we pulled out combat troops earlier this year and there are about 55,000 other troops in support still there which will be out by the end of this year. president obama and everyone in the united states, i am sure, once that to happen. that is an agreement made with the iraqi government. they could still come back and say things are really too dicey for you to go home. this could fall apart, although i doubt it. things may get very dicey in

iraq before the u.s. is finally out of there. host: last call from our republican from ohio. caller: i have many consumer -- i have been a consumer of your company's products. i wish was more available to the public so we could pay attention to what you guys find out. let me make a few quick points. i think the guy that was confusing to you was basically trying to say how much foreign policy would there be without the u.s. foreign-aid helping to take care of a disaster? it ends up competing against the system which is another thing. that is when you got confused about. in reference to the sending jobs overseas, specifically the service sector, a new company came on line a few days ago

which is basically providing 6000 new jobs. these people answered the telephone and they are here in the united states. even when you talk to someone in the philippines, you do not understand. we just do not get it. my big deal has to do with the human being a total failure -- with the united nations. a total failure. kudos to the lady about the secretary of state's drawbaugh. i think hillary is not getting a fair shake. she could do a lot more. that lady has a lot of capital she can years overseas. guest: you walked up and down the waterfront quite a ways.

82 foreign countries -- on a debt to foreign countries, there is this idea that the u.s. gives away a lot of money in foreign aid which is simply not true. it is a little bit more than 1% of the budget. countries like japan and the terms of a percentage of their budget give a far more than the united states. that is an argument that its turnaround a great deal. it is, in my opinion, far less in terms of what it should be with helping fellow human beings abroad. hillary clinton has done a bit of service. i think she gets a great deal of the coverage for what she is doing. she has dived into a very tough job at a very tough moment for a president who she fought mightily against in the lead up to the race for the presidency.

i cannot think of everything else you said. >> we'll leave it there. thanks for spending time with us. >> great pleasure. >> tomorrow on washington journal, a look at how the newly elected congress will work with president obama. we'll hear from gail russell chaddoc and susan passenger. also a discussion of the voting patterns from the 2010 election with scott keeter of the pew research center. then s tfer uart rothenberg on the election of president obama and who his potential challengers will be. live on c-span at 7:00 eastern. in this weekend following the midterm elections president obama calls for compromise between democrats and fluns

addressing issues facing the nation including era of bush tax tax cuts for middle-class americans. then marco rubio of florida gives the republican weekly address and talks about his party's principles and the legislative. >> i do too. so i congratulate all this week's winners, republicans, democrats and independents. but now, the campaign season is over. and it's time to focus on our shared responsibilities to work together and deliver those results, speeding up our economic recovery so that can

be back in reach. that's why i asked them to sit together so what question do together over the next few weeks we're going to have a chance to work together. here's why this lame duck session so important. early in the last decade president bush and congress enacted a series of tax cuts that are designed to expire at the own thf year. what that means if congress doesn't act by new year's eve middle-class familys will see their taxes go up on new year's day. but the last thing we should do is raise tax on middle-class families. they saw their incomes fall and too many jobs go overseas. they're the ones bearing the brunt of the resefplgts that they're the ones having trouble making ends meet. their the ones that need relief

light now. i believe there's room for us to compromise and get it done together. let's done where we agree. all of us want certainty for middle-class americans. none of us want them to wake up on january 1st with a higher tax bill. that's why we should permanently extend the bush tax cuts for family makes less than $250,000. that's 98% of american people. we need to cut down our deficit. that's going to require everyone to make some tough choices. in fact, if congress were to implement my proposal to freeze discretionary spending for three years, it would bring the deficit to its lowest in 50 years. but at a time when we're going ask folks to make some difficult sacrifices, i don't see how question afford to borrow an additional $7 billion to make all the bush tax cuts

permanent even for the wealthiest 2% of americans. we'd be digging ourself into a deeper fiscal hole or passing the burden to our children. i recognize that both parties are going stro work together to get something done here. i want to make my priorities clear from the start. one middle-class families need permanent tax relief. and two, i believe we can't afford and bow >> -- bar row another $7 billion. there are new public servants in washington but we still face challenges. this is a great opportunity to show thearch we've got message that, we're willing in this post election season to come together and do what's best for country we all love. thanks. >> hi, i'm marco rubio, with election day now behind us, it's an honor to talk to you what's now before us, an toubt put america back on track. for too long washington has

taken our country in the wrong direction, bigger government, reckless spending and run away debt. and though i'm a proud republican, here' the truth -- both parties have been -- are to blame. people have said enough is enough. this election is a second chance. a second chance for republicans to be what we said we were going be. america's the greatest single nation on earth, a place of quality in the history of mankind where the employee can be the employer, where someone like me, the son of a bar terned and maid can become a united states senator. i know about the unique exceptionalism of our country, not because i read about it in a book. i've seen it through my own eyes. you see, i was raised in a

community of exiles but people who lost their country, people who once had dreams like we did today but had to come to a foreign shore to find it. for some their dreams were answered here in america. but many other found a new dream -- to lead their children with opportunities they did not have. that is what we must do as a neigh. to fulfill our sacred obligation to leave a better america than the one we inheritted. and that's what this election was about in the past two years, republicans listened to american people and what they said was that it was time for a course correction. the past two years provided a frightening glimpse of what could become of our great nation. wasteful spending, a growing debt. and a government ever further into our lives even into our health care decision. it is nothing short of a path to ruin, a path that threat pens to diminish us as nation

and a people, one that makes america not exceptional, not unique but more like the rest of the world. our focus must not be simply winning elections it must be to ensure that next generation inherit as strong, free and prosperous americans. we will govern as public servant who is understand that being in office is to offer alternatives. the challenges are too great, too generational in scope to be merely opponents of bad policy. instead we should have the courage to fight for you this means repealing the disastrous health care bill. it means simplifying a tax code and tackling a debt that's

pushing us to the brink of our own day of wreckening. for many of us coming to washington for the first time and others returning to serve, it's a long way from home, a long way from the people who's eyes we looked at town halls, at diners and round tables and promised that this time it would be different. that if you elected us to office, we must not squandter chance. and we must not. because nothing less than the identity of our country, what kind of future we will leave our children is at stake. that is our commitment. and from you we ask this -- hold us accountable to the ideas and principles we campaigned on. this is our second chance to get this right, to make the right decisions and the tough calls and to leave our children what they deserve, the freest an most exceptional society in all of human history. thank you for listening.

god bless you and your family and may god continue to tpwhress united states of america. >> next a series of panels from the national journal forum this week. we'll begin to look at the impact of the elections then post election comments from dick army. >> this weekend on book tv's indepth. joana goldberg, best-selling author and editor in large discussing the election results, the conservative movement and the leaders on the right. join our conversation with your calls, e-mails and tweets sunday on c-span's 2 book tv. >> on wednesday the national journal hosted a series of forums examming the results of tuesday's election. in this panel, the focus is on

policy winners. this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> as editor, jason is responsible for accurate, credible and insightful and intelligent coverage you get every day in the issues that you received as a subscriber. i'm going to turn it over to jason and the distinguished panel. >> thank you for coming to a policy discussion so early in the morning. we are going to focus on policy today. we'll have plenty -- discuss the politics earlier. there will be a lot of that. we want to turn to the next issues of the next congress that will find itself facing.

i want to introduce our panel. directly to my right is representative bart burton, chairman of the house science and technology committee. he's also the senior member of the commerce committee and a senior blue dog. he has been around town for a long time. he had a front seat table as blue dog, member of the energy and commerce. he's also retiring at the end of this congress -- >> voluntarily. >> voluntarily, yes. next is senator norm coleman, he's the chief executive officer of the american action forum. his time ran from 2002 to 2008 while he was mayor of st. paul. when he was in the senate, he was chairman of the help lead investigations on the senate permanent investigations including oil for food program. we're going to talk about some

of the investigations they might conduct. next is bruce us in sell. and finally, brian barrett, six term representative if washington. he chairs science and technologies committee, energy and environment subcommittee. he spent the bert part of his career focusing on issues that are extremely technical especially the environment but also foreign policy and tacks. -- taxes. he's familiar with tough environments. he's also retiring voluntarily. he's a psychologist which must

have come in very handy for public service. representative gordon, health care, throughout the campaign we saw so much attention focused on health care. again you had a front row seat in the house, energy committee. you saw some of this unfold in 1994 the way health care can affect an election. john boehner the likely next majority leader kind of came right out of the gates and said, we are going to repeal the health care law, just signed into law in march. they're sort of saying, we're not going to let you down. with this sort of backdrop, what are we in line for next

year in the 112th congress? >> jay sornings i was a little drowsy, but then i looked at your sox and that helped me wake up to get forked up and ready to go. hale care, everybody's an expert because they look at their own view. early on there will be a vote to repeal to sort of carry out that promise. i would suspect that it will carry in the house. but then we won't get the -- get by the senate but if it did somehow by the filibuster, you would see the president veto it. you'll see them come at popular bits that would undermine it. things like doing away with mandatory requirement, the cadillac tax, those sort of things, which again you'll probably see that would pass. although they'll have a pay-go problem. but i suspect they got a pot of

money that they'll use over an over. you'll see that get stopped. where it gets dicey is in the corporations process when you'll probably see an effort to cut off funding. so i think it will give the republicans a good, you know, forum to do what they say in terms of votes but you really won't see action on the other end of it which to some extent could protect them also from having dire consequences as well. >> senator coleman you were the majority and the minority. you sort of tried to have a fairly moderate path as senator and were in the middle of some of those big filibuster fights. where do you see that playing out in the senate? >> first, i have to make an observation about the politics,

i can't beat you and just in a parochial sense and weigh of the enormity what happened last night. i don't think he had a debate in four years until this year. er never had -- he never had 60% of the vote. he never had to campaign. the minnesota house senate republicans -- iowa's in the same position. it's all red except iowa. i came there in 1976, minnesota's never controlled both houses. they do today. so to control both of the house, both of the senate, huge, huge victory. so that's last night, kind of setting the stage. just a general observation about health care. if you look at the polling

beforehand and obviously, you know, we have and those who are now elected have. health care was played a big part of 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 i. so among those who showed up last night who are angry in many cases. and you saw the huge stpwheep the house, health care because driving force. if you're speaker to be boehner he told folks, we heard, we listen. and we're going to repeal obama care. practically in the senate -- the senate is -- the shape of that is forming. i see mitch mcconnell kind of bent -- he's holding on to these horses, these chariots and he's got a guy next to him

trying to cut out his wheels. so i think they are symbolic statements that can take place in the house because the nature of that institution. i think the action in the senate is not going be as clear and not going to be as divisive because of the nature of the senate. but clearly if you look to the next cycle where you have 23 democrats up, they have to be looking at what happened last night, and i would think even though democrats still control the senate, there's going be -- there are going to be a number of folks, in montana, virginia and other places, they're going to have to have greater conversations, more conversations than they have before. but those conversations -- when i was there they wept on to a certain degree. i think itlessened in the last two years. getting health care through without any financial support. i think you're going see more conversations going on now because of the political reality of what happened last

night of folks looking to the future of 2012. >> congressman, we discussed a little bit, touched about the budget appropriations is one area that health care can be sort of attacked. as an expert in this realm, this things bog down in the senate on a repeal kind of ticket, is that a viable option for republicans and democrats who would support repeal and funding? >> i suppose that's one scenario. bart's right. i think, you know, if you grew up in schoolhouse rock and i'm just a bill, i'm only a bill. now a bill becomes a law. there's some facts about repeeling the health care that come into play if you're six years old or if you're in congress for fist time, number one. i see three seasons, and i see

three kind of overriding issues. first the three issues. fiscal, everything's going to be based on money. money, money, money. we don't have it in washington. we're running deficits, the debt, money is going be an undergurding, overriding backdrop to all of this. second, it's an anti-establishment, anti-washington politic that is bigger than, right now is bigger than republican and democrat because of what it did in driving independent voters. and the third overriding issue is going to be the start of the presidential race which will start earlier this year, trust me i'm from iowa, i can name you all 17 of them that will start earlier this cycle than ever before because if you remember the last opportunity here was in president clinton's situation, bob dole that point was the presum tiff -- not presumptive but he had a pretty good lead, there was a pretty

good presumption undergurding that right now. there's none out there right now. if you're thinking about running for president, you know, you have just put the after burners on. three seasons, one you've got a lame duck session where everything needs to still be established. there's no budget. there's no taxes from 2009 let alone the extenders from 10 or the expiring provisions from 2001 and 2003. and you've got 23 legislative days to figure this out. so that's number one. second season, is the first, i don't know, 100 and something days which is the budget cycle again where fiscal issues, the state of the union, how they're beginning to b work together is paramount. and then you the debt vote. and that debt vote going to lay the predicate for the rest of the session in the year. now when that debt vote comes up again if you listen to treasury, it's one thing if you

listen to o.m.b. or c.e.o. it's another thing. come about the spring you're going to have a debt vote where everything's going culminate and you have a situation where you have republicans who aren't going to want to vote for debt one of their first votes that actually gets to the president's debt. and you have democrats based on what they've seen aren't willing to help and appropriately so. so how you manage that is going to be very interesting. those are the three issues and everything is going to tie -- kind of bounce off of those three things in my judgment. >> i want to do a quick follow-up on that -- the debt limit vote is sort of looming out there, for as much attention as we pay attention to extension of the tax cuts, there is a little bit of a wiggle room although people don't want to hear that in terms of signing an extension before people have to file their tax returns for the 20 1

year. if debt limit, we start defaulting on treasury bonds potentially. the results could be catastrophic. is there the potential that this becomes a huge, like, soul-serging moment for a new and embolden republican party? >> i don't think there's any question. in 1995, the vote was the continuing resolution which shut down the government. that was in october. it was after lots of debate, discussion, negotiations match nations, all soferts things. this vote is going to be precipitated on the ceiling itself. we're out of money. we need to borrow it. and you have republicans not wanting their first vote to be extending the debt limit. and you have republicans who aren't necessarily going be throg help unless they get their seat at the table. so you a very difficult negotiation that is coming up that point in time and it very

well may well be one of the most important junctures of the next two years. i see it coming probably after the lame duck and after the first 100 days of lots of chest beating and -- and smoke and maybe a little bit of fire. and as result it's going to be a very difficult testing period for both parties and for washington. >> congressman, as i mentioned earlier, you won re-election in washington district for president bush twice. if you were returning to your district and health care was becoming up as an issue, how would you be explaining this? how would you be maneuvering as a member of the minority -- as member of a more liberal

minority? how would you sort of take that attack, have those conversations? >> well, i -- i think we made a lot of mistakes in the health care approach. i think our intentions were good. the intentions were to try to help people who have no insurance get insurance to stop pre-existing conditions, to try to lower the cost of health care. the thing that i -- we haven't mentioned is this -- entitlements. you hear all these people running for congress saying, oh, i'm going to cut, waste, fraud, and abuse, back loney, the deficit exceeds all discreation nair -- discretionary spending combined. it's going to be interesting for these folks dealing with medtary and medicaid when the

long-term deficit is $52 trillion which exceeds the net worth of the american people. it's not simple, but you've got grow the economy, cut spending, including entitlements an you're going to have increase them. i think they're going to be in a box and it's going be a tough box to deal with. >> that's a nice segway into some questions of the deficit. we have a presidential commission on addressing the deficit and the debt. those recommendations are due december 1st. democratic leaders pledged earlier in the year to take any recommendations that were forward. takes 14 of the 18 members to sign-off on what these recommendations are -- do you -- just on quick prediction, do you see those recommendations being forwarded? and do you see any type of action taking place? >> one of the most disturbing

things is that were pledging to block it. on the right people were saying, we're not going raise revenues. the whole point of the independent commission was to try to come up with new ideas. people on both sides when they're honest say we can't get there without doing both. and people have said we're going to block one or the other. if they do that, they're going to block a real opportunity. we might get this entitlement spending and the long-term debt under control. but if we don't, we're going to be passing more debt to our kids. >> i was hopeful if we would have this win deof sanity in the lame douk be able to do something like that. especially social security. it's a recipe. everybody know what is you have to do to put it together. but i'm afraid there was hard

talk during campaign. i was also hoping that as these tax -- the bush so-called tax cuts came about, there would be a compromise reach there had which then could flow over into social security and some other areas. but i think you're going to see, again, too many previous harsh statements made. i think that probably the republican leadership would like to see some of these things get done. but they're going to have some troops that won't. and i think some of the democrats in a not responsible way, you want it, it's yours. i'm not optimistic that we're going to be able to get anything done. >> the comment about the long-term issues, there niese dwhea that underlies the insenity. i would hate to get caught up in almost -- unsolveable perhaps right now but not

unsolveable if you start moving in the right direction. i think what last night was about is in within instance is stopping the bleeding as many saw it. they saw $168 million stimulus package that it promised it would do. so that's wasteful. there's going be less appetite for more stimulus to grow economies. if you lock at health care and there are pieces of it -- i'm hoping we could see some partisan action. the 1099 issue, small business is being hit with cost everybody knows that's absurd. and so i actually think that you can find some ways to get some partisan action that will move us in the direction of stopping the bleeding, slowing the spending. i mean if you're -- one of the frustrations from a republican perspective, you look at the

issue just really quickly. i have two kids in college. it's important to me. they print money something like 3%. i'm borrowing at 7:00%. there's a 4% spread there. that money is not going to deficit reduction. is it going to go to deficit reduction? it will go to new programs. so if we can do some things to actually cut spending, then i think we're moving in the right direction. there are clearly long-term problems out there. but for many of us, last night was stopping the movement to slide in the wrong direction with an opportunity to be moving in a more positive direction. but clearly we have a long way to go. >> i just -- i just -- just for the state of historical accuracy, the tarp happened under george bush's watch in response to crisis that

occurred in george bush's watch. had we not seen the tarp we would have seen global collapse. had it not been for tarp, people loss -- lost their seats for the tarp. i agree the stimulus wasn't crafted well, but this part that's because a vast pors went to tax cuts that did not generate jobs. i and many others voted for more infrastructure. so a lot of people got penalized for doing at least something, perhaps not perfect but to lay the deficit entirely on the stimulus and the other thing is it's still not going to solve the entitlement problem. it's entertaining and it played well politically, combrouff still got that entitlement problem. seniors demanding more and demanding -- everybody demanding less taxes. i don't think you get there. >> i think tarp and the

stimulus demonstrates that people don't appreciate what didn't -- you stopped them from not having to do. that was the problem there. so we could talk about -- >> if i could just say -- i voted for tarp. it was bipartisan. i have no doubt it was the right vote. >> it took dourge do that. >> i think the difference between tarp and stimulus -- by the way, no one's kind of laying the deficit and the stimulus. tarp was clearly bipartisan. we sat there both sides, both presidential candidates, mccain and obama said we have to do this. bernanke came in. we had to do this. stimulus was different. it was different. it was partisan from the very beginning we had some folks say, we don't think this is

going to work. the other side said it is. trust us. so you have to distinguish, i think between tarp and stimulus. and by the way, the vote is gone. >> i agree. >> and for us here, saying, hey, that's an example where we put a lot of government money. it didn't do what it promised. keeping the unemployment at 8%. it's not the cause of all the problems but clearly there's no doubt in any of our minds that you're not going to see big stimulus programs coming out of this congress. >> is there a lesson given that the stimulus had over $2 billion of tax cuts. if you're going to say it didn't work, yet it had $200 billion in tax cuts, is the solution further tax cuts? >> the stimulus did two things by the way. if you pour a lot of money into something, you're going to get something back. i'm not saying waste it.

but you poured a lot of money didn't have impact. the shovel ready jobs, all of a sudden they didn't ex-st exist. there's ben foit stimulus. >> aren't we supposed to talk about this year rather than last year? >> i agree with ryan quite a bit on this issue of entitlements and the long-term and i believe the window on the deficit commission will probably not even be open. usually in the past, and brian knows this -- i've tried to pass partisan refor, i've tried bipartisan refor, i've tried to pass pi own little budget -- it's not a very sexy, glamorous issue. everybody sees their committee jurisdiction involved in this. you know, it's ridiculous. usually when we reform the

budget process. it happened in 1998, it usually happens quietly. it usually happens after very complicated negotiation over 10,000 other things. they kind of say, well, let's take this advantage now and let's reform the budget process. i think that's when it could happen. it could come in the debt bill as about example. that could be one of the ways the parties come together. it could be part of bigger omni vouse appropriations bill. but the point i'm getting at is i don't think you're going to see budget reform come into the wide open because i don't see people getting into it. but if you listen to both the republicans and the democrats they're providing room to negotiate even though you don't hear it. brian just said it. he said it beautifully. "we have to raise revenue." that doesn't necessarily mean you have to raise taxes. tax reform, loophole closing, clothe in the economy, you grow

the -- glothe the economy, you grow the economy that's an amazing way to grow the economy. there's wiggle room -- it's difficult to change the entitlements for a democrat. except if you don't make it effective today if you say, you know what, we're going to make that change, i don't know maybe 10, 15 years from now, if we see progress on both the deficitish sure from a revenue-increasing standpoint and we see entitlement progress because you're phasing in a system that everybody doesn't understand and it doesn't seem to be unfair to the folks who depend on it, you may have some wiggle room for the parties to come together in a bipartisan way. i'm hopeful that this is still possible. but i don't think you're going to see it out in the bright lites of the floor of the house

and the senate because it typically doesn't happen. when it happens effectively at least if you look at it historically. >> i strongly favor entitlement reform. i have a new book out that calls for it. john boehner has some very interesting ideas about reforming the congress of how congress makes decisions. and you think politically and from a policy perspective, if speaker to be boehner moves forward with some of those reforms, he could create a condition that we could get control. >> this gets underliing tensions that john boehner might face is that he's an institutionalists. he was a committee chairman. he really knows thou work sort of in front the camera and behind the closed door. and he has a respect for process by which legislation becomes a law. however, one of the -- you know, primary factors, one of

the big enthusiasm gathers has been the tea party, a lot of tea party candidates are very enthuse yathic -- enthusiastic about having an open process. i mean, is there sort of a recipe for a little bit of stag flation if on one hand boehner needs to go behind closed door and get the unpalletable vote coupled with the debt ceiling with a fairly sizable chunk of a new muscular g.o.p. majority that says, we want everything on c-span. we want every negotiation taking place the open. how does he resolve those two differences? >> i would suggest that the story that wants to be written, i guess that's not going to be written later on is this

intermural fight within the republican party. i think a lot of tea party types will come here, they will be in awe of the institution. they will understand, you know, responsibility goes with it. i think you'll have others that will take the scenario that you just put forth. but john boehner is an adult. he saw the mistakes that the republicans made after 1994. he staw mistakes that democrats made after 2006. he as you pointed out been a committee chair which give use unique perspectives. he's already said he want to go to a more regular order which is i think is the right thing to do. what that will do is it will co two things. one it will allow do you vet your legislation better. but it gives people a chance to vent. that gives us an opportunity for -- you know the people that you mentioned to really get it off your chest and to have some votes. so i think you'll see john go into a regular order and he

will do it well and le be the secret twheap piece it together. and what you'll also find is that no matter what he puts out, you're going to have a varietyy of democrats that won by a very narrow margin who's pants are still wet that will vote for anything that colmes up. not say it's going bezz. but john will be able to put the pieces together. and i think from his standpoint will make it work. >> i agree. this is key. john, the difference between now and 1995 when we took demrol 1995 is a that in 1995 we ha the contract for america. all of those folks that came out who were let's stick it to the man. let's stick it to washington. let's come out and be anti-establishment. they had a list of 10 things to do. they took credit. they were able to beat their chest this time around they don't have that specific list and so he's got to figure out

how to let that steam out before they into the seriousness of the ceiling and the budget where they'll be able to go home and say, hey, i proved i was anti-establishment. >> repealing hale care, that's an easy one. they've said they're going to have a vote each week on doing away with -- unfortunately, o.t.a. was done away last time. >> we'll do it again. we'll just keep picking, right? >> but they'll be -- but there will be places that can do each week. response areas that you can make reductions. that will happen. but the tough issues will alu sop of steam to come off -- will allow some of the steam to come off. >> there are two big picture --

there are two big picture political dynamics that will impact the path that the leader has to follow. one independents, abandoned the democrat party, no question about that. that's the big difference will be. and in part, there was a sense that, obama came in and folks wanted to change washington but they didn't want to change america. you know, where's the transparency? it didn't happen. i think there's going to -- they're going to want to see transparency. i think they're going to want to see people put their differences aside. the republican coalition that was demonstrated last night was -- a new process, tea party folks, libertarians, economic conservative, social conserve tiffs, across the board there's been this grand coalition to

produce this. will wl they will stay together is unknown. boehner has the independents and they're going to want transparencies and some folks to work together to get this done. you a coalition of folks who don't want any compromise. i do think there is a challenge out there, those dynamics. he is an institutionized man. he's the right guy at the right time but with very significant challenges. >> i want to move to another topic that was a big issue in the 111th congress. that's energy and climate change. in the summer of 2009, the house took their -- voted and passed legislation -- addressed climate change through a program that would cap that and allow trading of it in the

markets. and then it just kind of stopped. and this -- and cap and trade became this euphemism for washington overreach. i remember i was in press ket valley near my hometown in arizona an event where patrick was speaking. people i had known for 30, 40 years who i didn't think would be in terms on cap and trade and so forth, were asking her about that. it was just the ball tross that was hung around particularly democrats' necks. it went nowhere in the senate. even to the point that there could not be done say an oil spill fund right after the largest oil spill in american history. that really died a great death in the 111th congress. there does seem to be certain areas of agreement in some -- some aspects of energy policy. this is a topic for which you

have a lot of interest. where do you think the next congress has opportunities in energy and environmental policy? >> well, i think we made number of mistakes on cap and trade. the focus should have been energy independence, economic growth and leading the tpwhorled new energy technology and frankly reducing co2. i believe the evident is absolutely compelling. i think the evidence and climate change and the physics are solid. we should have focused on those things and not passing cap and trade. we mixed up the objective with the goal. to put forward a very complex financial instrument at the time that the economy of the world has collapsed because of financial instrument was not the smartest thing in the world. test

. test

>> i really think this is part of a cultural shift, not just a political shift. what is happening is there is an electricor rate that is going through an incredible amount of change. we are going under changes with massive technology complicating our lives changing the way we connect with one another. those changes haven't happened in the last r or so years.

at that time when there was that kind of unease in society now people disconnected from their jobs, feeling disconnected from one another, being buffeted by new technology, politics was affected by the changes in people. you tend to forget people drive the politics, putting people first. what happened in this last year is we had enormous volatility in the political scene. the house and senate changing from one cycle to the next very abruptly at the latter part of the 19th century and a string of one-term presidents. so, i have a sense that what we saw last night was not an anomaly and the gap between turnover has narrowed in this last 10 or 20 years and i don't think it will be something that will go away right away.

>> thank you, ron. i agree completely about that, that we have had three wave elections in a row and i'm sure al gore is convinced it is related to climate change. but it is unusual because we only would get one of these waves every six, eight, 10, 12 years, and to have three in three consecutive elections is something. first i should say i guess we have done maybe a half dozen of these since i came on board at national journal in 1998. we have never had a crowd like this and it is a real tribute to the excitement and energy around what is going on at national journal. several years ago ron brownstein came on board and he is like one of the smartest journalists in washington. then when they brought ron fournier over to be our editor in chief, he is like a real

journalist. i just pretend to be one on tv. but ron has been covering politics forever and is an amazing, amazing, amazing journalist. >> thanks, but be clear he seems to be the smart one, i'm the fast one. >> you probably put in more road time. then just a lot of fascinating people have come on board and i have been gone since they got there pretty much. matt dowd is an old friend and some amazingly talented journalists and we are excited about all that is going on. and i should correct john sullivan he left out carrier air conditioning as one group as part of american technologies. you can't outdo me, john. and the credit union folks and everybody. thank you for sponsoring this.

i guess just a couple of things. we started seeing signs, as john said, last summer a year ago that something weird was going on. then increasingly -- but it didn't get noticed until the last few weeks there was almost this bifurcation or splitting and the house was becoming a nationalized and parliamentary election. i think it became reds versus blues and just to carry that tortured metaphor a step further, that the conservatives were seeing red and liberals were singing the blues and this thing just started splitting. but in the senate, the governors, this was a big election. in the starbucks vernacular the house was vente and the house

was grande. i'm not sure i understand the difference, maybe the identities of the candidates, the definition of the candidates on each side may have made more of a difference, while in the house people were just pulling the tkofr donkey's tail or elephant's tail with little regard to who the candidates were. you had some enormously influential people going down in analysis. you had some really flawed people winning. which was like when democrats would be in 2006 i usually use the term you had some exotic candidates winning. people that were -- let's say there was a lot of luck involved and in a normal election might not have won. but it was something that is a

very different set of dynamics in the house than in the statewide elections. just to kind of -- anything that is this huge, i think it involves multiple factors. there is never one explanation for something this huge. just to tick off some that i got, ron got no sleep, i got 3 1/2 hours, which is 3 1/2 more than i thought i was going to get. obviously everybody knows the exposure thing and because democrats have picked up, you know, so many seats i guess including specials 55 seats that were in republican hands four years ago and 49 seats that mccain won, democrats were at enormous exposure levels in the house so they had only one direction took and that was down. second, the economy. if a party had done nothing

wrong, when you have 9.6% unemployment you are going to be paying an ugly, ugly price. the statistic that i like to point to is they started keeping unemployment statistics back in january of 1948. since then we have had 741 months of unemployment statistics that have come out. only 29 months have we had an unemployment rate of 9.5% or higher, 29 out of 741. and 14 months were back in 1982-1983, and 15 of the last 16 months have been 9.5% or higher. that is extraordinary so that would happen under any circumstances. next is sort of priorities. i think in a better economy, if the economy were strong, if

unemployment were low, i think that the american people would have welcomed a dialogue about healthcare reform and welcomed the dialogue on climate change. that is not to say they would have gone along with just anything, but they would have welcomed that conversation. but i think last year, as the economy was spiraling downward and unemployment was shooting up, man, they wanted to use bill clinton's term a laser beam like focus on the economy and instead what they saw was an obsession with healthcare and i think that increased their frustration. then you get to the substantive policy things. and for senior citizens, they have medicare is fabulous for they will. they loved it and they felt really threatened at extending, you know, a national healthcare system effectively out to everyone. they strongly, strongly suspected that it was going to c cut, hurt them, result in

medicare cuts and i think they reacted very negatively. and i think that people's toward government has shifted some as ron suggested since the economic crisis of september of 2008. different issues pinched in different places. you would have a hard time convincing rick boucher today that cap and trade had nothing to do with his loss. and when i pinpoint when did we start seeing the canaries in the coal mine so to speak in terms of democratic problems? it was around the 4th of july of 2009, immediately after the house cap and trade vote. that is when i first started getting sort of vibrations from democrats i knew that were coming back from their districts, and they just had their heads handed to them in a way they had never seen before.

just a feeling, with people worried about jobs, the business community felt like they were under siege and i don't think the democratic congress necessarily intended to ail i don't know nate the business community but you would have a hard time convincing the business folks of that. it reminded me of a friend who was an economic advisor to president clinton said in a meeting or after a meeting he turned to somebody and said i don't understand people who love jobs and hate the people who create them. i don't think so the president or democratic congressional leadership or congress hate the people who create jobs, but those people who create the jobs sure feel hate d, whether they are -- hated. they were notle to hire. two last points because i know

we want to open it up. the democratic congressional leadership became the face of the democratic congress in a lot of these districts that that was not necessarily helpful. i think that sort of contributed to the nationalization of it. if you are gene taylor in south mississippi, you would rather be the face of the democratic party in that district and not speaker pelosi. and nobody -- there is not the a democrat in this country who could blame tom foley in 1994 to losing a seat and there is not a republican in 2006 to blame dennis hastert for having lost their seat. but there were a lot of ads out there that had the speaker's name and picture in them. and the thing is she is an enormously able inside player and she wouldn't have gotten

that job if she was not. but she took a much more public profile than was helpful. and finally, with the president, i think there is this aloofness or lack of personal connection since taking office that he just didn't seem to have, doesn't seem to have that empathy gene that bill clinton will that, i think, in tough times people want to think that you understand what they are going through. so, i just sort of look at all of that and say, wow, this is rural, small town, exurban, older, particularly worse among less than a college education, border, south, midwest, heartland. and my house colleague david wasserman pointed out that

something like 60% of the land area of the country went republican last night. and the thing is it was like a lot of places where democrats held seats. look at north dakota, south dakota, places like that that just sort of went over the side. almost didn't matter who the representative was. we will be sifting through this for weeks to come to kind of figure out all of the meanings and crevices and understanding it better. but i agree with ron entirely. this pattern, this surging and waves going back and forth are almost self-perpetuating. >> if the house in particular was the national election, did the people in the national election and largely mass was it

an anti-democratic message, anti-incumbent message or anti-washington mental? since there were only two republican incumbent, one in new orleans and one in hawaii, so, two in the country lost general elections to democrats i have a hard time saying it was anti-incumbent because you would have seen some republican incumbent -- the only republican incumbent that lost were so far in enemy territory in terms of the districts they represented. and to me the republicans incumbent that lost in primaries this year were ideological purges where everyone of them lost to somebody that was significantly more conservative than they are. so i don't think it was

anti-incumbent, although certainly people hate washington. it was pretty anti-democratic. >> shall we take some questions from the crowd? >> you are the boss. >> do you have any questions out there in >> i think they have some mikes roaming around. >> today will be interesting we you talk about the empathy issue with barack obama. it will be interesting to see what he says at 1:00. can he state what the message was from the public and can he articulate what he will do about it and can he do it in a way where people think he finally gets it. >> having interviewed the president in the last two weeks and here just in the privacy of this room and forgetting that c-span was here, what was it that you could share with us? >> it struck me the difference between him and clinton. i covered president clinton as a

governor in arkansas and then at the white house. in 1994 bill clinton was taking it personally. he was really internalizing it. this was about me and how i screwed up and my aides screwed you and i didn't see this coming and we should have seen it coming. you could see even before the election he was internalizing this. a lot of people call this aloof or out of touch, supporters will say it is something to admire. he seemed unflappable. he could see how it was coming. he was clearly thinking about how he was going to have to, as he said, govern with more humility, look for more consensus, which is what he promised two years ago and didn't or couldn't get it done. and it was clearly a shrunken agenda, talking about going after issues he thought he could get with the republicans, education, infrastructure, and a piece of energy. that is what popped out with me is like the polar opposite of

bill clinton at this time in 1994. it will be interesting to see how clinton came out of 1994 where he, if i recall, he had a news conference the day after the midterms, hoppeded on a plane went overseas but right away was showing contrition and in april of 1995 being asked are you relevant and argued that he was relevant. and then oklahoma city happened and he rallied the country behind that and began his march toward re-election. the republicans by the way really overreached after that cycle and one thinking that will be interesting is if republican overread this mandate as well. does that answer your question? >> yes, that touched on a column that you can read in national journal. >> nationaljournal.com. do we have a question here? >> yes.

charlie especially, the two r words, retirements and redistricting. what do you think yesterday's results mean in terms of potential congressional retirements especially on the democratic side in 2012, and also with the pickup of so many chambers by the g.o.p. what do you think the long-term outlook is for any democratic comeback in the house? >> i always say it is never good for a party to have a bad election. but if you are going to have a bad election you really don't want it to be in a year that ends in zero with redistricting coming right after. and with the number of chambers that have switched governors. this is horrific timing for democrats. and it will cost them. they will pay a price for this for a decade to come. i think that your point on retirements is very well taken althou although, given how many members

have served for long periods of time that were retired yesterday, you know, the ranks of potential retirements will be a lot less than it would have been. but for democrats, i think a lot of them kind of stuck it out maybe one more time a lot of pressure not to retire this time and some of them will go ahead and pull the plug. at the same time, there will be -- democrats will have a good year either two or four years from now. for the very same reason or some of the same reasons that republicans did now. you don't have a massive, massive wave like this without getting some pretty exotic equal and pretty strange places elected. you are like 2006 and 2008

together i would argue for democrats, or 2010 for republicans, you get some really smart, really talented, really deserving people who win. and then you get some people that just happen to have their names on the ballot on the right day, the right year and suddenly find themselves on a wednesday mornings members of congress. and i have had this conversation with some friend that are republican consultants who say, wow, this is going to be some interesting people to try to defend in 2012 and 2014. >> are you going to name some names? >> no. but it was interesting people. so, just as democrats, you know, anybody in this room -- this is a pretty wired in group. you could name some people that didn't necessarily intend to be elected to congress in 2006 and 20 2008. so, we have seen this rodeo

before. whether it happens in 2012 or 2014 deferred one, don't know. but this is -- it is self-perpetuating. you have waves in 2006 and 2008 and you will get a counterwave the other way and a bunch of exotic people elected this way and it will -- all i can say is my youngest is 17. i need to be doing this for a while longer and these waves back and forth the are really good for business. i'm not sure it is good for the country, but it good for business. >> there's been a lot of talk about the house with the republican taking control.

i wonder what advice you would give to both senator reid and senator mcconnell as to what they should be doing on the senate side. >> he is more of a legit journalist. first of all, the first thing i thought of a couple of weeks ago was that there is going to be a day where mitch mcconnell will say gosh, i miss jim bunning. [laughter] >> he had bad days from time to time but he really wasn't as bad a guy as we thought. no, i just -- the thing that i'm watching for is how many of the sort of non-tea party republicans -- and this is senate and house -- will feel the need to move that direction out of fear of having, you know,

what happened to senator robert bennett or lisa murkowski in the primary or mike hasselle, senator hatch. he has to decide am i going to retire or am i going to have to become jim demint agenci's new friend. that is an exaggeration but it is not entirely wrong. a lot of these folks, the republican primaries have gotten to be a pretty rarified place. in bennett's case, what was it? an 83% lifetime rating wasn't enough to get his name on the ballot. and people say, gosh, won't president obama be able to do what president clinton did in terms of of triangulate and take advantage, in clinton's case he

used newt gingrich as a foil and the house republicans to play off of. and there was that. but at the same time president obama is not president clinton. i don't think he has the idea hrlg dexter iity -- ideological dext dexterity that president clinton had. but president clinton had an unemployment at 5.6%, 5.8% when democrats lost the house in 1994. right now it is 9.6%. and he didn't have a war some place. so, i'm not sure, you know, to say other than that a horrible economy and a problemactic war, other than that president obama is in the same situation that president clinton was in.

other than that how was the play, mrs. lincoln? and newt gingrich has a million ideas and at least a third of them are good. and -- >> the others are exotic? >> exotic or thought provoking. how about that. and i like newt. but john boehner is not going to be newt. and john boehner is, i think, a very pragmatic guy and he is not -- i just don't think the same mistake. he may make new mistakes but i don't think he will make the same ones. >> is gridlock going to be a problem? >> assuming steny hoyer is the minority leader and john boehner is the speaker, could -- in theory, john boehner and steny

hoyer could go in a room and work out pragmatic deal to deal with lots of these problems facing the country. >> but their bases are on the opposite. >> yes, could either of them make the deal stick once they left the room and went back to their conference? >> hard to see. >> they are both going to have to do buy-ins. and once with those, that is hard to do. >> i have a question.

the states i'm most familiar are illinois and pennsylvania. the attacks on republicans were relentless on trade. on one hand it didn't work. but on the other hand the attacks had the blessing of the white house and powers that be in the democratic party. what is the photographs on trade given that dynamic and where aware today for the next two years? is this one area where you can work together? >> let me deal with that on two levels but i want to invite ron in because he is more of a substance guy than i am. i do think that unrelated to trade necessarily, illinois and pennsylvania were interesting because while both senate races ended up going republican, the democrats put up a hell of a lot tougher fight than i thought they were able to do and kept both of them really, really, really close we i thought they

would have pulled away earlier on. so, it probably says something about the intrinsic nature in terms of economic issues of those states that democrats were able to take it and go all the way to the wire even though they finally came up short. i think sort of the free trade wing of the democratic party probably got darn near wiped out yesterday. and so what you are going to see, i think, left over is a much, much, much more protectionist democratic conference and it will lack more like the -- look more like the pre bill clinton era democratic conference. at the same time, on the republican side, i don't think this is your grandfather's republicans who were just elected. i think that there are a bunch of -- i'm not saying this in a

derogatory way about any organization but we have gone from, i think, a fortune 500 republican party to an nfid republican party. and more small business and where internationalism and international commerce and free trade is less of a core value. i suspect that you are going to have the least free trade democratic conference we have seen in a good deal and absolutely the least free trade republican conference we have seen in a long, long time. >> i think those conferences are really close to the pulse of the public. people are scared. when people are scared they turn inward. i was raised in detroit around by a lot of noncollege educated union workers who were used to

making a lot of good money turning widgets in a fact ary. they rap away from the democratic party last night. and i just can't see there being much of a stomach for that kind of activity. i don't think the tea party has any desire for this. and any independence left in the democratic party have a hard time stomaching that. they just want their jobs back. 10% are unemployed, give me my job back before i worry about cutting deals. >> and something about the new jobs being created are different jobs largely going to different kinds of people. the people who have lost the high school jobs that ron is talking about. >> you have to put me in the new economy before i look at new

deals is what we heard yesterday. >> what is your initial assessment of how the election will affect the presidential nominating process in 2012 for both parties? >> the race starts today, charlie. >> i will start it but you have to finish it. i don't know what will be really different. i tend to think that -- this is not original with me. somebody else -- and i should figure out who came one this concept so i give them credit. but the nomination fights, particularly on the republican side is like ncaa basketball

brackets. clearly there will be a tea party bracket and that bracket will go all the way to certainly the final four, you know, if not the championship game. and there will be various -- there may be an efficient skwva bracket. there will be various sort of brackets of types of people that will be competing with each other for places in the field. i mean the only thing, my theories about republican side, i do not know who will be the republican nominee, but my hunch is two people that won't for very different reasons. one won't be -- it won't be sarah palin and i don't think it will be mitt romney. for sarah palin i don't think she is going to run. i think she has more money than

she ever dreamed of. she is a celebrity. as my kids would say, she's got a pretty sweet deal and why mess with that and just get back into this grinder. the other thing is if she runs i don't think she would win a nomination because i think that the one thread, common thread between conservatives and republicans in 2012 will be who can we nominate that has the best chance of beating president obama. and i don't think for conservatives that will be the driving thing and they may love what she has to say and they may think she is a hoot to listen to. but it is a hard case to make she would have the best shot and romney's opponents will do everything short of taking him to court and changing his name to mitt father of obama carom any. i don't know if his plan he

pushed through in massachusetts was a model or inspiration or even two ideas came out of it. i have no earthly idea. but i know that in politics if you are explaining, you are losing. and as desi would say, i think that he's got a lot of explaining to do. >> i will finish it up by bringing up one bracket that i will be watching and it doesn't have a d or r next to it. it is somebody who is not aligned to either party who has several million or maybe a billion dollars to spend who has a record of accomplishment who can do what ross perot did at a time not as tumultuous and ross perot had, how would you say exotic -- somebody like michael bloomberg who is a serious politician and serious man who has a record and ton of money and is very ambitious. i would not discount him. i had somebody earlier say how can a small jewish man from new

york, mayor, become president. i said two years ago who would have predicted a black man named barack would become president. these are times unlike any decades and all the old rules are thrown out the window. something really surprising will happen in the in connection presidential race and one could be bloomberg making a huge play and affecting the race. >> i don't know how many ever met him or had a chance to talk to him. i spent an hour with him one time over a cup of coffee and i came out of it thinking one this is one of the smartest people i ever met and somebody who just e exude exuded confidence. can he win? i don't know. but he is a very form mid believe person and if i were in the white house and looking at

-- i saw a report the other day from wells fargo that they are projecting for calendar year 2012 g.d.p. growth of only 3%, which is the point where you start creating net new jobs,% unemployment for calendar year 2012. if we are going -- if unemployment is anywhere near 9% in a presidential election year, good help you if you are an incumbent president running for re-election and you have a war as well. so, i tell you what, if i were in the white house i would be on my knees every night praying that sarah palin would be the republican nominee. >> my question builds off the last one. >> wave your arm so i can see you. >> over here. since the economy was the

central issue in the race and not likely to improve dramatically -- it could, the business cycle could snap back. if it doesn't, giving that you have split control now, who gets the credit if the economy is perceived to improve and who gets the blame if it doesn't? second question is about the outlook for the 2012 senate elections. could even a barack obama re-election landslides keep the republicans from taking the senate in 2012? >> i will take the first one. you can make up the second one. the president owns the economy. if it doesn't turn around and it very likely it doesn't, charlie is right. it would be hard winning re-election with 10% unemployment and 15% underemployment. people will be more angry and less patient and mo more fickle. if it turns around he will get credit whether he deserves it

because he is the one this gets to stand in front of the podium and take the credit or arrows. if you trace his approval numbers, any president's approval numbers with the unemployment rate and they dove tail and to a large extent barack obama's future is linked to the economy. >> jennifer duffy, our senate editor has put together some preliminary senate ratings for twelve and i'm not finding it this second. i guess it would be either nine or 10 republican seats up and i think it is 23 democratic seats up. that is a horrific level of exposure for one party.

when you are the beneficiary of a wave election they come back up in six years and some were fairly exotic people elected in nontraditional places for democrats. so, wow! but one thing to play off something ron said a few minutes ago, a very smart republican, very tight with the republican congressional leadership at the time who made the argument that back in 1995 and 1996 president clinton -- newt would come up to the white house and president clinton would sweet talk him into something, some deal. just with that charm, you know, that bill clinton had. and tphaourt would go back to the hill and he would-newt would

go back to the hill and tell colleagues that he cut with the president and they wanted to kill him and he would get them often to go along with it eventually even though they hated it. but the thing is what they found was once these things passed the president's numbers with go up and guess what, the republican congress's numbers went up. and so the republicans started realizing, you know, i hate doing a deal with this guy, but if our numbers are going up and if it is making us look competent like we could get stuff done -- and they had that 1994 wave -- they kept that congress in 1996 and -- it helped get them over the hump and increase their survivability and they kept it going until 2006. now, whether these new exotic members coming to town see

politics in the traditional way, that is a good question. don't know. >> we have time for one more question. >> there are people who switch back and forth. some of the better polling in my old company will track a big pal of voters and you can see them especially the independent voters who don't enjoy the whiplash but they get behind one man or woman and they let them down and get behind somebody else. it is part of the frustration

and lack of faith people are having with leaders a lot of people in the middle who think this might be the answer and they are let down again. >> angela, we saw those independents and that now what, i don't know what it was yesterday but in the gallop numbers of the third quarter 40% of adults call themselves independents and that went by an 18-point margin in favor of democrats in 2006 and eight for congress in 2008 and i don't know what they did yesterday. i know for the year they were arranging with gallup a 10-point spread and the cbs "new york times" last poll it was a 20-point spread. it was probably something in between. >> 55-39. and a lot of them the same people who are bending back and forth. >> but when they were voting for democrats in 2006 and 2008, i think that those people, they were expressing displeasure with

whatever was going on. i don't think it was an ideological vote. just as i think their votes this year are ideological votes, they want results. independent voters -- liberal relies have passion -- liberals have position and conservatives have passion. and we can guess what shows at night liberals watch and we can guess what shows conservatives watch. but the people in the pheumiddl they are not watching that stuff. they are like me, they are watching "law and order" or "dancing with the stars" or, you know. they are not watching the food fight shows. so, they are just not ideological beans or partisan beans by their very nature and they are very fickle. they are not sure what he thpt but they really are sure what they don't like. >> about two years ago about 80% of them thought the country was

on the right track and 70% think it is on the wrong track. they want something done. >> thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> president obama calls for compromise in addressing issues facing the nation including the issue of bush era tax cuts. then newly elected marco rubio of florida gives the republican weekly address and talks about his party's principles and legislative priorities for the new congress. >> this week americans across the country cast their votes and made their voices heard. the message was clear. you are frustrated with the pace of the economic recovery. so am i. you are fed up with partisan politics and you want results. i do, too. so, i congratulate all of this week's winners, republicans,

democrats, and independents. but now the campaign season is over. it is time to focus on our shared responsibilities to work together and to deliver those results. speeding up our economic recovery, creating jobs and strengthening the middle class so the american dream feels like it is back within reach that. i have asked to sit down soon with leaders of both parties to have an extended discussion about what we can do together to move the country forward. over the next few weeks we are going to have a chance to work together in the brief upcoming session of congress. here is why this lame duck session is so important. early in the last decade president bush and congress enacted a series of tax cuts that were designed to expire at the end of this year. that means if congress doesn't act by new year's eve middle class females will see their -- families will see their taxes go up starting new year's day.

the last thinking we should do is raise taxes on middle class families. they saw costs rise and incomes fall the last decade and too many jobs go overseas. they are bearing the bankrupt of the recession, having trouble making ends meet. they are the ones who need relief right now. so, something is going to have to be done. i think there is room to compromise and get it done together. let's start where we agree. all of us want certainty for middle class americans. none of us wants them to wake up january 1 with a higher tax bill. that is why i believe we should permanently extend the bush tax cuts for all families making less than $250,000 a year. that is 90% of the american people. we agree on the need to start cutting spending and bringing down the svetlana. that is -- bring down the deficit. that requires tough choices. if congress were to implement my proposal to freeze nonsecurity discretionary spending for three years it would bring the

spending down to the lowest level as a share of the economy in 50 years. in a time when we are going to ask folks to make such differ sacrifices -- difficult sacrifices i don't see how we can afford to borrow an additional $700 billion from other countries to make all the bush tax cuts permanent. we would be digging ourselves into an even deeper fiscal hole and passing the burden on to our children. i recognize that both parties are going to have to work together and compromise to get something done here. i want to make my priorities clear from the start. one, middle class females need permanent tax relief and i believe we can't afford to borrow and spend another $700 billion on permanent tax cuts for millionaires an billionai s billionaires. there are new public servants in washington but we face the same challenges. this is a great opportunity to show everyone that we got the message and we are willing in

this post-election season to come together and do what is best for the country we all love. thanks. >> i'm marco rubio. with the election day behind us it is an honor to talk to you about the opportunity before us. an opportunity to put america back on track. for too long washington has taken our country in the wrong direction. bigger government, reckless spending, runaway debt. here is the truth. both parties have been to blame. this election the american people said enough is enough. that message was loud and clear. we republicans would be mistaken if we misread the results as an embrace of the republican party. in is a second chance. a second chance of republicans to be what we said we were going to be. america is the is single greatest nation on earth a place without equal. a place built on free enterprise where the employee can be the

employer, small businesses are started every day in a spare bedroom and someone like me, the son of a bartender and maid can become a united states senator. i know about the unique exceptionalism of our country, not because i read about it in a book. i have seen it through my own eyes. i was raised in a community of exiles by people who lost their country, people who once had dreams like we do today but had to come to a foreign shore to find them. for some they were answered here but many others found a new dream, to leave their children with the opportunities they themselves never had. that is what we must do as a nation. to fulfill our sacred obligation to leave the next discrimination of americans a better america than the one we inherited. that is what this is about. the american people have said it is time for a course correction.

we saw a glimpse of what can become of our nation if we continue down the current path. was wasteful spending, growing debt and government reaching ever further into our lives even into our healthcare decisions. it is nothing short of a path to ruin, a path that threatens to diminish us as a nation and people. one that makes america not exceptional, not unique, but more like the rest of the world.

>> they were discussing various aspects of u.s. foreign policy. in this panel a look at challenges ahead in terms of global health. this is just over an hour. >> we are going to do some quick introductions. we want to max mice the -- maximize the time we have. i'm joyce davis the president of the world affairs council of harrisburg, one of your newest councils. we are delighted to be here with you and join in this important conference. the topic of this last section

is global health, the challenge ahead. i think that we have a distinguished panel that will tackle some very difficult issues. monday rating will be brenda wilson, my former colleague at n.c.r. she worked for more than a decade with npr's science desk. she has reported on the global h.i.v./aids epidemic, other infectious diseases. she's traveled throughout africa and india interviewing people from all walks of life including heads of state, international health experts, developmental specialists and others. brenda wilson was award and kaiser foundation immediate why fellowship in 1999 to study the impact of aids on migrant workers in south africa. she also shared a dupont columbia award for breaking the

silence, an npr series on aids in the black community and won an award from the national association of black journalists. on our panel we have dr. anthony fouchee appointed director of the national institution of allergy and infectious disease in 1984. he oversees a portfolio of basic and applied research to prevent, diagnose and treat infectious diseases such as hiv/aids and other sexually transmitted diseases, infections, influenza, tuberculosis and others. he serves as one of the key advisors to the white house and department of health and human services on global aids issues and on the initiatives that bolster medical and public health preparedness against emerging infectious disease. we have also laurie garrett, a

senior fellow at the council on foreign realizeless. she is a pulet certify prize winner and thaufert -- author on h. v. and national security. she is presently writing a book examining the global impact of infectious disease. finally, we have rear admiral r. timothy zeemer who was appointed to lead the malaria initiative that is an historic five-year initiate testify to control malaria in africa. in 2008 an act authorized an expansion of p.m.i. and in 2009 it was included as a key component of the u.s. government's global health initiative. this central is targeted to achieve africa-wide impact by having the burden of malaria in

70% of at risk populations in sub-saharan africa, which is approximately 450 million people. thereby removing malaria as a major public health problem. >> the big question, i suppose, will be on everyone's mind the ability of the american public to somehow think beyond their borders, to think of people who we don't see all the time but hear about. prior to this administration coming in we probably had one of the biggest and greatest, i suppose, steps taken toward addressing global health that

has happened in years and that is considered one of the main legacies of president george bush, which was his proposal and funding of treatment of people with h.i.v. we know that millions of people, 33 million people now are i object effected with h.i.v. and president bush, as a way of counterbalancing our policy in iraq, proposed that we find, provide up to $15 billion over the five years from 2003 on to the treatment of people with h.i.v. and in about 15 countries. some $25 billion later, you have to imagine that at the time this was proposed we were tacking about hundreds of millions of dollars going to h.i.v. and aids, not much more than that. now we are up to, you know, an

administration that is proposing $9.6 billion for a series of programs, the main one being h. v. and aids under the initiative started by president george bush which is the emergency plan for aids relief . it is now part of an umbrella called the global health initiative. president obama has said he's going to start changing the way we do business. it is clear we are coming up against some notion of the finite. the question is how we are going to -- the problems have grown even with the funding. so the question is going to be, how we are going to cool with, i suppose, problems that we had not begun to define as well when president bush proposed the president's emergency plan for aids relief.

so i will start with dr. anthony fouchee who was part of the group that met in the administration of president george bush to sort of create the president's plan for aids relief. what did we learn from that? we are now up to 33 million people affected with h. v. what are the lessons that came out of that? and can we continue, i suppose, treating people? we are now up to about four million performance in africa and around the world being treated even though it is understood that it may be three times that much. .