[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the midterm elections are still under way. even those who won are in washington d.c.. among the races still outstanding, two house districts from california and a house race in texas. in alaska, ballot hand accounting is still underway -- hand counting. lisa murkowski is ahead of joe miller.

in delaware, john carney was the lieutenant governor. in florida, steve settle in -- steve sutherland defeated alan boyd. he is one of the 84 new republicans in the house. democrats have nine new members. >> see what people are watching at the c-span video library. it is right on our homepage. you can click our special election analysis tab. watch what you want, when you want. >> the u.s. house meets today for general speeches at 12:30. members will return at 2:00 p.m.

eastern. the senate is not in session today because the party meetings throughout the day. senators are meeting this morning to elect leadership for the next two years. members are expected to speak with reporters after those elections. the house will hold a leadership elections tomorrow. democrats maintained control of the senate. the new speaker will be if republican. "washington journal" this morning looked into the changeover. " continues. host: representative chaka fattah is joining us to talk about whais next for congressional democrats. i want to begin with the leadership vote that will be happening on wednesday for house democrats. representative mickey shuler decided he willdo you support nr

minority leader? why'd you disagree? guest: for those waking up in washington, i know they are a little shocked about the eagle'' victory over the redskins but the last time they play the redskins beat the eagles. the fact of the matter is nancy pelosi have led us from the minority into the majority. we did suffer an election loss on the first tuesday of november. but i am convinced, and i think the overwhelming majority, not withstanding the press fascination with the leadership fight, nancy pelosi will win 90-plus% of the votes in our caucus because she is a very capable leader who led our caucus. yes, we suffered an election

laws but that was after a tremendous accomplishment in the last session. when social security was passed, there were losses, when medicare, there were losses, when social security was passed by president johnson. he said he was consigning his party to losing the south for more than a generation. sometimes to move the country forward it always creates unease and there could be electorial losses. but that doesn't mean we shouldn't goes forward. host: but the cnn opinion research poll taken right before the election, when survey those likely to vote, 70% said this election was about a rejection of democratic policies. so, given that, 70 -- 70%, and only 17% said it was a mandate for republicans. but still, but when forward with the same leadership, you are not concerned?

guest: when the republicans lost their majorities, you did not see them shake up their ranks. they got behind boehner and cantpr and the and now in the majority. i think organizations and teams have to be careful as you are moving forward. if leaders are moving in the right direction, there are going to be setbacks. to can't have major efforts deal with social injustice in the country like 30 million people without health insurance and not create some unease. there are health insurance companies that are upset, major wall street firms. they spent tens of millions of dollars, a lot of it secretly on ads. they ran 161,000 ads targeting nancy pelosi nationwide. that does not mean we did not do the right thing. sometimes you have to be prepared to take election losses. there were democrats who voted for the assault weapons ban

under the clinton administration who walked on the floor and said we know we are going to lose our seats, we know there are going to be people in the district who are going to think that this is somehow the slippery slope to people taking all of their guns from them, and they are going to vote us out. but we will save thousands of lives in the process. the person is served in the district next to mine voted for the clinton economic plan. she knew she was going to lose a seat, but we have millions of new jobs and balanced the budget. sometimes you have to be prepared to take a step back in order to move the country forward. i am convinced we did the right thing. and i think that over time history will judge the decisions we made in the 111th about saving the economy, and vesting and american oil and manufacturing, about to stabilizing regulations on wall street so we would have a financial crisis again, that those were the correct

decisions, even if we suffer in the electoral losses at the polls. host: what do you want the democratic leaders to do as far as pushing the agenda? do you want them to push an agenda that is more to the left or a little bit more to the center? guest: what they care about is an agenda that put people back to work. they care about an agenda that will balance the budget. the question of tax cuts and a few weeks here, and, in a, i am joining today with senator warner saying rather than tax cuts for the wealthy, let's make them available to small businesses who are going to create jobs, so over the long term we need to be investing -- democrats need to be part focused on growth, smart growth, development of our economy, putting people to work. this discussion about left-white is washington -- left-right is

washington. i travelled round country. people are not focused on that. they are focused on jobs, how to secure their homes, the future of their children, how to educate their children. host: on the tax-cut issue, you see that as a compromise, what senator mark warner put out. what are you hearing about republican support for that idea? guest: what the republicans said is let's keep the tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires because they will potentially invested in business creation and therefore spur economic development. what senator warner has said, which is why i joined with him this morning on it, is let's cut out the middleman. let's make those tax breaks, let's take 65 billion or $75 billion over the next two years and make a long-term reduction over a decade in small business taxes so that they can develop their companies and put americans back to work.

host: if that proposal does not go anywhere and the only compromise on the table is extending the tax cuts for everybody for two years, would you vote for that? guest: i don't know -- i know you had discussions about earmarks. earmarks the $16 billion and the tax cuts in total are $4 trillion. added to our national debt. which we will then borrow from countries around the world and some other investors. that debt will be paid for by our children and grandchildren. i am not sure we should just be willy-nilly about this. i think we do need to continue to spur economic activity. the recovery is not as full blown as we would want. so, i am not opposed to a temporary extension of tax cuts for people at $250,000 and under. but i am not sure i of for a

permanent extension of tax cuts for anyone. i think we need to think long and hard about how to get the country out of debt. we have a debt commission that laid out $4 trillion in cuts. you have a tax cut proposal that would be $4 trillion in lost expenditures. it would take us right back to where we are now. if you implement the both of those we would be still about $12 trillion in debt as a country with $1 trillion-plus and deficit each year. you have to think it through. then we still have to do the appropriations bill for this year. you really would not be at 0 but you would add another trillion on the spending side. we have a tendency, kind of like the red meat we are offering is earmark reform. it is so minor in the scheme of things. but it is a great distraction from the real problem. the real problem is we are running a government in which we

want the best military in the world but we don't want to pay for it. the costs of about $1 million poorer -- per soldier on the ground and afghanistan a year, right, so we are spending billions a week in afghanistan but we don't want to pay for it. the first time in history, war bonds, were taxes -- so, we can have the best education, best health care, best military and not pay for it. republicans keep saying it is a spending part boom. i think it is in part a revenue problem. we want more government that we are willing to pay for so we are willing to borrow from the chinese and others. i think it has got to stop at some point. host: your colleague, democratic senator charles schumer from new york has a proposal as well to extend the tax cuts for those making $1 million and less. what do you think about that idea? guest: i think it says that is a

very good compromise that has been offered. i like senator warner and little bit more, because it deals with the question of the recovery. the only way we are really going to get out of debt as a nation is we have to -- you know, we have millions of americans on the sideline who would rather be contributing, not only paying their own bills, but helping to they need jobs. i like the warner proposal because i see it as a growth model. i have a friend back home who is a big democratic supporter but he says we have to push more on development. even though the president has done all along on smart reinvestment, electric battery investment, we need to see an economy for the future of the nation. we need to invest in it now. small businesses where the jobs are.

host: carla in virginia beach, virginia. go ahead. caller: i first want to say thank-you to the representative for his service. second, we have stopped to -- got to stop looking to these rich folk for taxes. we have a lot of people who are out of work, hurting, they do not have health care. these folks do not know how much money they have. we have to pay attention to the people in the country who are hurting. we have people who cannot eat, who cannot get medication. we need to do the right thing in this country. guest: i appreciate the call. people need to get more accurate information.

a lot of people here my republican colleagues talk about the tax rate, and that it is high compared to other countries. the truth is, many other countries have no tax exemption. more than two-thirds of companies pay noaxes at all. so when we hear politicians sobbing about the corporate tax rate, how it deters economic activity, it is not true. when we talk about people who are wealthy, $500,000 and above , jerry johnson -- he used to write for "the new york times." he showed that billionaires' paid little or nothing in actual

tax rates. when warren buffett can say why is my secretary paying have -- higher taxes than me? people need to listen up. you need to ask the real question. what is the effective rate? what are people actually paying? there are tons of loopholes in the tax code for no other reason than for people to avoid tax liability. we have a responsibility to the country not just to rile people up at rallies, we need to tell people the truth. that will give them a better idea of what we need to do. host: brenda in berlin, texas. good morning. caller: good morning. in regards to you communicating to the public, you could do

more, you could be more effective, but there are democrats in texas. those who do not hear you are listening to that other channel. also, i want to talk about the tax deal. please do not renig on that. third, you do not need to keep on justifying nancy pelosi. we love her. i can say this without a shadow of a doubt. republicans hate her, she must be good for our party. have a fantastic day. guest: i love texas and i am pleased to hear she loves our speaker. i think she had done an extraordinary job. she is the highest ranking woman to rise in our government.

this is the only countries where the number of women will not increase. it will decrease. we do not have the kind of representation that we should. the speaker is a great example of someone who is in politics, has made a tremendous contribution. i offered a bill on taxes that would reform our tax code, that would get rid of the income tax and create a fairer tax system, and also get us out of debt. i hope there will be all the proposals and that we can have a real debate in our country about how we pay our bills, how we deal with it fairly. i hope the majority -- morthan republicans came in with this contract of america and they said they would do away with the

income tax. they never brought up a bill for a vote in the house. and they controlled the house for 12 years. this is what i'm talking about in terms of being straight with people. it is one thing on the campaign trail, but when it comes to doing work, we do not see it. president obama has moved nuclear power plants forward for the first time in 30 years in our country. so again, i think people are getting a lot of bad information. host: a "all street journal" editorial calling it a victory for republicans.

are you concerned about this? guest: i am not concerned about it in the sense that the wall street journal and others who comment on it are in a raw state about earmarks. we need to focus on what we are going to do on the $4 trillion in cuts proposed by the debt commission. i think they should be applauded for putting together a vigorous plan. i do not agree with the notion of freezing combat pay, pay for our military for three years. the details you can pick apart. the fact that they have said to the country we are in a deep hole and we need to figure out how to get out of it, has forced others to come up with a plan. their plan does not even get the country out of debt. this is $4 trillion in cuts that does not even get to balancing

our budget. i think this is what we ought to be debating, what we are going to do about earmarks. there is no legislative body in the country where members will not be able to influence what happens in certain projects. whether they influence it in a bill, in communication with the executive branch -- but the notion that you will have a congress that will be impotent in its ability to affect what is going on, that is not true. we will be here 10 years from now and "the wall street journal" will be writing an

editorial that the congress is somehow influencing how projects are done in the country. host: so this is just a game? guest: it is a distraction, a purposeful destruction led by the new incoming republican majority. they want people to focus on earmarks. the truth is, it would not matter one way or the other in terms of the country's financial circumstances. it does not cut spending. those of us in congress will still find ways. they would call the secretary of education up and say we have a project we would like you to consider. host: clare mechanical of missouri disagrees with you, saying it would -- clare the castle of missouri disagrees with you, -- macaskill of

missouri disagrees with you, saying it would -- guest: whether they do or do not end it, it is not a big deal, in my opinion. let's look at the real numbers. $4 trillion this year. we have another one $0.20 trillion next year. in the scheme of federal funding, it is not much. host: marietta, california. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? you are spinning them pretty good this morning. the last one he talked about, earmarks.

of course, republicans. i am one of them. it is not this one% you just keep talking about, sir. by the way, this continuing resolution is going to be coming down the pipe from your famous, fabulous leader who is from california. i would love to have this lady from texas adopt it. that would be fine with me. we passed our budget, $19 billion. we just came out with $26 billion more in debt, but that is not the point. the bottom line with earmarks is, it is the grease that pushes the sled along. guest: i am not going to react

to that. it is a distraction. the republicans had a majority and they slowly increased earmarks. i do not remember the exact number, but it was a big increase. we will see what happens. if they are going to end earmarks -- we will see. host: next phone call. glen. caller: you are talking now to one of the most important investors, an american. i would like to know how someone can get away with putting our country in so much debt and walking around with a smile on his face, as he looks under the table while still in office and says, there are no weapons of

mass destruction and laugh? how can someone like that walk around after putting our country in a hole like this. he is a criminal. we are the investors in this country. no one else should be investing in this country. host: you are referring to former president bush? caller: that man is a crook. guest: i would not accuse the president of being a criminal. i will say this. there was a hearing that i was in. the new bush and administration was about to take office. they had a plan to get the country out of debt. we were talking about paying off the entire debt of the country and what that would do for our economy. greenspan was talking about how

central banks around the world would react to that. eight years later what we have is not trillions in surpluses, but he doubled the national debt, in rough numbers. when president obama was sworn in, we had close to $11 trillion in the actual debt, that is debt, plus the deficit at the moment he was sworn into office. a lot of people want to blame him for that, but this is what he inherited. bush continued tax cuts, he declared two wars, and the combination of giving away revenue, spending more, including the cost of the wars, he doubled our debt. we understand he is a republican

hero, but at some point in time, the math needs to add up. republicans want $4 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years. what they offer in their pledge is $16 billion in cuts. the math does not add up. host: chaka fattah talrepresents the second district in pennsylvania. next phone call. caller: when president obama was running for election, one of the problems he made was appealing the bush tax cuts. the top 1% of the people in the country own 26% of all the private assets in the country. i think letting the tax rates go back to where they were when president clinton was in office

would not be a real hardship on them. even warren buffett said he pays less taxes than the secretary in his office, proportionally. if he thinks it would be all right for him to pay a bit more in tax, obviously, he sees the discrimination in his country. that is my only comment. thank you. guest: i agree that we should let the tax cuts on the wealthiest 2% expired. i would like to see us take those revenues and use it for job creation, like senator warner of virginia has suggested. the other thing i would say about taxes is, you hear republicans say that some percentage of americans do not even pay income taxes.

but when you challenge them, they say it is just income taxes, not general taxes. this is just how they continually misrepresents the facts. the truth is, most people have their payroll tax. most people pay a higher percentage in the payroll tax that these upper income people pay at $250,000 and above. nobody in the country is getting away scot-free. if someone is not carrying their weight right now, in terms of the challenges the country faces, it is at this upper income level where people have used these exec -- exemptions to avoid taxation. on your commentsweet

earlier about democratic spending. guest: he is referring to the last few years of the bush administration. the congress spent lessees of those years than president bush requested in the budget. that is because democrats were determined to hold him to a better fiscal standard than his republican colleagues in years prior. there is a difference in the sense that the bush should ministration also, through their tax policies, brought the country to the brink of financial disaster and bush had to ask for a bailout which we called t.a.r.p. what this caller wants to suggest is somehow the bailout the democrat'son democrats bac

back, and it was done to keep us out of depression, but i think the need to be fair with each other. we need to talk about not who is to blame. even though i am perfectly prepared to show, republicans did what they did and all the angels are not on their side on this issue. more importantly, how are we going to get our country out of debt? i have a proposal that would get us out of debt in 20 years. i want to generate the notion that we should have a debate about that and how we should make our country. why should we be the largest

creditor nation in the world to being the largest debtor nation in the world? host: you serve on the appropriations committee. have you had earmarks in the past, will you continue to try to get them for your district? guest: i will always represent the interests of my district rather than seeking to find appropriated funds for the district, programs. in the house, they say they are going to ban all earmarks, so there will be no possibility for individuals to seek earmarks under the constraints for which they seem to be putting in. i will be working my friends in the senate to make sure the things i am interested in are considered in the process. if they ban them in the senate, i will call its administration to push for those things. there is no legislative body in

the country where members are not going to push things they are interested in. if people believe that is going to happen today, i have a bridge to know where they could be interested in buying. host: stand in south carolina. good morning. -- stan in south carolina. caller: i have been listening and i think there is a lot of misinformation coming from this man. everything is about tax cuts. everyone is at a certain tax level. if this is extended, they will be at the same level. there will be no cutting. you all want to say cutting. that has the connotation of reducing the tax. there is no tax cutting.

secondly, congress has the last word in the money being spent. do not mislead the folks. congress has the last word in signing off on any spending bill. thirdly, here we are with no budget for 2011. guest: first of all, you are absolutely correct. what president bush and the republican congress did is they put this forward as a tax cut. cbo scored them. in order to avoid a real cost to the budget, they put an expiration date on it. it expires at the end of this year. now the question before the congress is whether to continue those or not. he wants to have a semantic argument. i agree.

it is a question of whether these rates will stay in place or not. whether they will expire as president bush designed to them to. they say we need these in order to have job growth. just look at the 10 years they have been in place and see if we have had job growth. and look at the years prior to that to see if we had job growth. you will see 23 million or so more jobs in the clinton years. but their argument is the need to have these tax rates go forward in order to have economic growth. these tax rates have gotten us to where we are now, an anemic job creation, on the brink of financial collapse, but this gentleman says the wisest thing we could do is not only going forward to do the same thing, but use words to make it sound more pleasant.

host: ginger in the augusta, georgia. independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. in reference to tax cuts, i do not think it has been brought up that the upper income people already get a 7.5% tax cut because they do not pay social security on the income above $106,000. that is never mentioned. guest: i think the debt commission missed the opportunity when talking about social security to suggest that we should have income above the cut off now calculated in social security. you are right. for people who earn above a certain amount, they do not have to pay the social security tax on net earnings. this is part of a more candid dialogue.

maybe c-span can have a whole day where they can talk about how taxes actually affect americans. i think it could be informative. host: the presumptive next speaker of the committee, if he gets a waiver from his caucus, jerry lewis, writes in "the washington times" key steps to balance the budget. just a couple of things he mentions -- would you agree to those? guest: first of all, emergency spending is a challenging situation. you have a hurricane, a real emergency, you have to deal with it. he is saying we should not use those items we know we have to budget for and call it an emergency. democrats complained about that when republicans put the cost

of the census -- which is in the constitution that we have to do every 10 years -- whether we should have budgeted for that in emergency spending. we need to be mindful of using this emergency gimmick. once it is an emergency, it does not count for the budget cap. so i agree with jerry lewis on that. the president said that he wanted a freeze on non-defense discretionary. republicans have called for a rollback. it seems it would have cut 25% or so from the fbi, education programs, the whole list of programs that could be problematic. at some point, we need a more

honest discussion about what cuts can be made fairly, and where we might need additional revenue. that is another point where the debt commission fell down on. this notion that we have two thirds cups, one third revenue, it should be half revenue, half cupsts. the truth is, i am not sure if there are cuts that can be made which could be required. host: next phone call. caller: i am a republican but i am not locked into the idea. i want to put an idea for about job creation and the economy. what does it sound like to build 20 hospitals in each state run by the government's and then

somebody like me can pay $200 a month for their services? i would be glad to do that. it would also take care of education if you had doctors work in the hospital who had their education paid for. what do you think guest: about that? -- but do you think about that? what do you think about that? guest: the president said that we want to do as much as we can to allow people to keep their current coverage. most people get their coverage through their job right now. we want to provide tax incentives for businesses so they can afford these benefits. the system that was designed in

the affordable care act is really a building block of the current system. having public hospitals would not fit into the context that our country works and, a system of capitalistic free enterprise. we have great hospitals that are run as nonprofits, organizations like sisters of mercy, for- profit hospitals, medical schools connected to universities who trained doctors. i think we have the best health care in the world. the biggest problem in the world is access to it by million two did not have access. -- who do not have access. we need to focus on cost containment and make sure it is affordable and make sure we control the cost better.

host: florida. bob. thank you for waiting. caller: i want to know how much it costs the american taxpayer to keep a congressman in office. this includes housing, staff costs, travel, supplies, committee compensations, your salary, everything that is included to keep you in office for one year. guest: there is no housing provided to members of congress. there is a cost for staff, salary, all of this is public intermission. if you want to call my office, we would be happy to point you to the data that would show you the numbers for any member of

congress, including mine. the cost of our form of government is high, but it is the best form of government known in the world. that is why, as americans, we have been willing to pay the price for a democratic process in which people >> house leadership elections are tomorrow for the one of the 12th congress which starts in january. senate elections are underway now. this is a live picture where they are meeting in the capitol. mitch mcconnell is expected to hold a news conference this morning. democrats are also meeting. we are likely to hear from harry reid. we expect live remarks from both

of those leaders later this morning. live coverage here run c-span. a house ethics panel has agr resumed. charles rangel is accused of 13 -- misconduct. a jury of his peers are meeting behind closed doors to determine if he has violated house rules. if they determine even one count has been proved come the fall ethics committee would consider full punishment. this is a live picture. the house gavels in at 12:30 eastern for a general speeches. there are a couple dealing with special elections and land uses. the senate is not in session today because the party meetings throughout the day. 93 new house members are in

washington this week to learn how washington works and to elect leaders. among them, paul gosar of arizona. he is a dentist. he will be representing eastern and northeastern arizona. representing phoenix will be dan quayle -- ben quayle. he is an attorney and the loans and investment business. democrats are getting nine new members. for more about what is happening in congress, we go back to "washington journal." host: jeff flake is here to talk about congressional earmarks. we g a number of people calling in who said it has been a good experience for them, getting money that they would otherwise not get.

they are hesitant about this idea that republicans in the house and now maybe senate could go forward with this band. -- this ban. guest: oftentimes, we will create an account and authorize money for a certain program and then tell the agencies to have competition, award the grants based on merit. instead, congress would simply earmark that money. the chances are, these groups receiving money could still get them, th would just have to compete wit them. host: james inhofe went to the floor yesterday, defender of earmarks. we want to play his comments. >> president obama estimates a budget to congress which they either accept all or part of, or rejects all part of.

if we reject it, we substitute the obama requests with what we think is better for america. the cost is the same. stopping earmarks does not save much money. people do not much understand this. we're simply taking what the president would have spent and chging the expenditure. host: congressman? guest: that is not exactly how it works. unless congress earmarks it, it cannot be spent, or unless the president expresses, it cannot be spent, that is the common thinking. the truth is, congress conducts oversight. earmarks circumvents that hallmark of congress. we do little authorizing when we eaark. we do not have to take what the presidensays. he marking is not the only

option. we could authorize programs, we can make sure the agency spends money on those programs, and then conduct oversight to make sure they are doing as we authorized. this notion that earmarking is an expression of congress's power of the purse is wrong. i do not think you can say every member of congress prior to 1990, before the 1980's, was not doing their job because they did not have earmarks. they just did their job differently. host: earmarks take federal money and tailored it to fit their regional need. pure research shows -- pew research shows that, before and the election, if a candidate has a record of briing government

money to your state, are you more likely to vote for them? 53% said they were more likely. guest: the best test is the market test. look how many people in this last cycle brag about bringing home the bacon. very few. look at the number of appropriators who have lost their seats, those who traditionally get more than others. they lost their seats, often from scandal, may be because people did not like what they did. host: you are seeking a seat on the appropriations committee. the you know where the votes stand, where -- do you know where the votes stand, where leaders will stand? guest: we have a committee that will make the decision. itooks good health now.

there are few people seeking a spot on the appropriations committee, far fewer, at least, because it will no longer be the favor factory it was in the past. there will be some tough decisions that will have to be made in terms of cutting spending. lot of members, i do not think, have the stomach for that. host: are you opposed to the likes of representative jerry lewis who is seeking a waiver to continue to serve as the chairman of the appropriations committee? he says he willo with the moratorium, but in the past has not lik them. second in line is congressman rogers. he also opposes earmarks. q you -- do you oppose someone like that meeting the committee? guest: if they are going to become chairman, which obviously that will happen, it will be

someone who has done earmarking in the past. i thing we can work with anybody. congressman lewis and rogers have said that they favor the he moratorium. both believe i should have a spot on the committee. we can work with everybody. we have been given a charge to make some serious cuts and we are prepared to do that. host: in "the washington post" -- are you pushing for that as well? guest: i want as many fiscal

conservatives as we can have on the commite. this isust a tip of the spear when it comes to cuts. jack kingston would be a great chairman. i woulrather not get into the leadership race. i would rather insure that we have a good number of individuals who will make those cuts. host: you said it is looking good for you. any idea of how it will work? guest: we know some of the steering members already. we will choose the rest next week. after thanksgiving, then we will make decisions on individuals for committees. but there could be decisions. they could announce certain individuals who could have been appointed as well. host: waiting for phone calls to come in for jeff flake. republicans, 202-737-0001. democrats, 202-737-0002. independents, 202-628-0205.

we are continuing our conversation about congressional earmarks. jerry lewis, who want to be the appropriators chairman, rights today in "the washington times" -- how would this wk, does it go far enough? gut: i think all those steps are necessary. on themergencypending, we will designate when there is an emgency. we know full well money will be spent, that includes for the war, senses, many other items. that needs to bdone. -- census, many other items.

we talked -- the speaker elect has talked about splitting these bills down, parse them out to make sure we can have up or down votes on spending. multi-year budgeting would help us as well. however, we can budget and spend more time doing oversight and authorizing for the spending. that is all the better. host: a tweet from maa viewer -- if it is such a small percentage, what should republicans be cutting? guest: they are a small percentage. those who defend the contemporary practice of earmarks will often make that point. well, if earmarks are a constitutional expression of our power, why would we only stop at

1%? they are a big distraction when we spend all of our time and resources earmarking 1% of the budget, we leave 99% to the administration, when we should be conducting oversight. the real oversight is not the waste of mey, which it big, but the real problem is we neglect the oversight of the money. the tweeter is making the point that we need to cut other areas, including defense, and i agree. there is no way we can be taken seriously if all we say is we are going to cut non-defense discretionary. that is such a small slice of the pie. you will not make a dent in the deficit or debt with that. it all needs to be on the table. entitlements in particular. host: are you concerned about

adding to the deficit by letting the bush tax cuts be permit for everyone, including the wealt? guest: if we want to grow ourselves out of this deficit, we need an economy that is growing. the last thing you do for a struggling economy is raise taxes. host: even if it adds to the deficit? guest: that is assuming that taxes are static. we know that they are not. particular when you have marginal rates, capital gains, sometimes you end up with more than you had in the beginning. we have to be careful of treating tax cuts the same as government spending. tax cuts simply allows people to keep more of their money. host: dave on the republican line. fresno, california. caller: i agree with you on earmarks.

they are just a distraction. trust is the main issue. they say that jobs is the problem. the charlie rangel hearing, it is all closed doors, and they are going to sanction him. he should be kicked out. trust is the issue. we have to do something about these pensions. $14 trillion will be our debt. that is not counting our pension obligations for public employees, social security. we are looking at over $100 trillion in debt. guest: you make a good pnt, the debt mentioned, $13

trillion, is only a fraction of the obligations we have. we have a lot more to answer for. trust is important as well. we republicans are on probation here. we did a prescription drug benefit that added $10 trilli in unfunded liabilities or the next 75 years. it is tough to say that democrats are all to blame. i think it willake awhile for voters and taxpayers to trust us again. that is probably a good thing. host: tom, washington. caller: i am cautiously optimistic hearing these two guests. i am looking forward to seeing the specifics of the republican

proposal. it is all nice to say that we are going to leave mo money in your pocketbook, but you look at a city like colorado springs, where they have cut taxes, and they cannot even keep their street lights going. let's be clear. if you talk about letting the tax cut to expire, we are talking about another 3% on the very highest level of income in this country. that is not a lot to ask for to get us out of a crisis. host: let me show everyone this chart put out by the joint committee for taxation. in blue are taxes that democrats are fighting for, in red, taxes that republi that make $1 millid hire would get an average tax cut of $97,000. what is your reaction? guest: when you look at those

paying the highest rate, often it is not just individuals. there are some businesses that incorporate. the notion that we are simply asking millionaires to pay more in taxes is not always the case. it is often small businesses w would otherwise invest that money to take a further cut. it is a bit of a simplistic view. we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. when you look at what we need to do, -- i never thought i would be saying this -- but we need to look to the french, british, germans, in terms of courage and spending cuts. they have cut deeply and substantially. host: what are some specifics? thcaller asked for some specifics. guest: 15 other republicans and i have signed ontoaul ryan's

road map for the future. there are specific items there, for example, with entitlements. we have to change the way that we calculate the entitlements for social security. we have to tag it to inflation rather than wage rates. also, the retirement age has to be raised over time. social security, we have to do more to let the free market discipline the cost there. that has to involve some form of allowing us to not cut anybody in the program now, but in the future, make sure that we allow >> we will leave this segment to go live to the capital for results of senate leadership votes in the 112th congress. speaking now is senate majority leader harry reid. >> ok, everyone.

it has been my honor to serve as the democratic leader for the last six years, and my team was just reelected. i am really grateful for the caucus supporting us. just to remind everyone, senator dick durbin is the whip. enter schumer is the vice chair of the caucus. patty murray is the secretary. those are the elected positions. i appointed senator schumer as head of the dpc. the vice chair and the head of the steering and policy committee. we feel very sound in our approach to this lame-duck and of course next year and the year after that. our focus is on the the middle class. it is on creating jobs. and it is working in a bipartisan basis in any way that we can. we reach our hands out to

republicans. we want them to work with us as they did not do the last two years. we feel it is very important that we work together. we're going to go more than the extra mile to work with them to accomplish things for our country. the american people elected us to get along. the american people elected us to do something about this economy. we were not reelected as democrats or republicans. we were elected to do things for our country. it is not the democratic way or the highway. it is not the republican way or the highway. with the american people want is for us to do something about the staggering economy that is improving but not rapidly enough for the american people. the american people want us to work together. that is our goal. we're going to have a caucus this afternoon. it will last for several hours. we will have another one tomorrow to go over the many issues facing us as the country.

we had a wonderful organizational meeting, recognizing we have things to do. we have some procedural things, but most things we're going to deal with are substantive in nature. we will do some questions after the caucus, but that is enough for now. thank you.

>> we just heard senate minority leader harry reid announcing results of leadership elections for the 112th congress. he is continuing in the senate as democrats continue in the majority in the senate. senator reid also saying that his leadership team will remain

in place. we're standing by to hear from senate minority leader, mitch mcconnell. will get results for the senate leadership votes for the republicans. that should be any moment now. we expect to hear from mitch mcconnell, senate minority leader. >> welcome again afternoon, everyone. the senators you see before you have just been reelected by our conference, to lead the team for another year. let me just say that i think we have a great opportunity here to demonstrate that we are responding to what the american people clearly would like for us to do. cut the spending, cut the debt, and get private sector job creation going again. it is our hope that we will be able to work with the administration on all of those

issues. i and others have had numerous conversations with the president over the last week or so, and we look forward to exploring the ways in which we can go forward together for the american people. with that, let me turn to the newly elected whip. >> thank you, leader. in the last several months, we tried as best we could as leadership of the republican conference to reflect the will of the american people. i think our colleagues have expressed confidence in the leadership team by returning as to the positions in which we previously served. i appreciate the fact that my colleagues were cooperative in my responsibilities as whip. i think the tone of the meeting that we just had was one of 18 that together has heard what the american people have to say -- was one of the team that has heard what the american people have to say, and we want to translate that in the united

states senate. >> our goal as a country should be to make sure that the next generation is a period of american exceptional is some, or american greatness. to do that, we believe we know exactly what to do because we have heard it from the american people. number one, to make it easier and cheaper to create new private-sector jobs. number two, to control spending. number 3, to end washington takers. number four, to defend constitutional liberties. and to recognize that the congress has proved conclusively that we do not do comprehensive well, and we need to move step by step to reearn the rest of the american people. >> the thick with the american people are saying by giving us 60 senators in the big majority and the houses they want us to rein in out of control government. i think that was the primary message coming out of this election. the american people did not like

what they were seeing. it was an overreaching agenda in washington d.c. the dixit -- that had expanded government, higher taxes, more spending, and more debt. so we're in a better position now. hopefully the democrats will join us as we embark upon an agenda that tries to rein in out of control government, get spending and debt under control, and get the american people back to work by putting policies in place that will enable economic growth and job creation rather than killing jobs. >> we have clearly heard the american people say focus on jobs, the economy, the debt, and this spending, and they were screaming out loud to stop the spending. 13 newly elected republican senators. i will work with each of them to try to make them as effective and successful as possible. and certainly, the new health care law has been an important part of each of their campaigns, and we're going to work together to repeal and replace this

health care law. >> we will take a couple questions. >> [inaudible] >> i believe senator cockburn is indicating he is already going to do that, and it -- senator coburn is indicating he is going to do that, and i believe that is a good idea. >> [inaudible] >> i addressed that issue yesterday. >> [inaudible] >> we're going to discuss that ise this afternoon, and i address did yesterday. >> [inaudible] >> look, we will be addressing our views on how to go forward

on health care. senator burress so expressed their preference. we will see if we will get the votes to repeal and replace the health care bill. we have the first that. you'll hear from us on the subject early next year and probably quite often over the course of the next two years. i will take one more. >> do you think that -- [inaudible] mandate to maintain full employment? but the bond-buying going on? >> that is one of the issues we will be working with and thinking about in the coming weeks. thanks so much.

>> senate mind -- senate minority leader mitch mcconnell announcing results for the leadership elections for the 112th congress. it seems the current congress remains intact. before this, the current majority leader harry reid revealed his leadership team will be the same for the next congress. both parties offering remarks on their agendas and the way forward. house leadership elections are tomorrow for the 100th of congress, which begins in january. leaders from the next congress

plan to speak to reporters after that meeting. we will have live gregory -- live coverage on c-span. the house doubles in on 12:30 p.m. eastern for general speeches. members will return at 2:00 p.m. eastern to work and 20 bills and resolutions, including a double dealing with district of columbia special elections and land uses. the senate is not in session today. they're holding party meetings throughout the day. the house ethics panel has resumed closed-door deliberations in the ethics trial of new york democrat charles rangel. he is accused died 13 counts of engaging in financial and fund- raising misconduct. the jury of his congressional peers are meeting behind closed doors this hour, deciding whether the former ways and means committee chair violated any rules. of the panel determined 71 account is approved, they will consider the appropriate punishment. he walked out of the trial yesterday, pleading unsuccessfully for time to hire new lawyers. he said his former lawyers

abandoned him after he paid them some $2 million and that he could no longer afford an attorney. a look now at a couple of the more than 90 new members elected to congress for the new term the gets underway in january. republican tim huelskamp will be representing western and central parts of kansas. he was in the state senate. and republican kevin yoder will take over the eastern part of the state. he is an attorney the service in the kansas state house. the house has 84 new republicans and 9 at new democrats. former congressman lazio and another one said that there will be diminished of the two parties cannot work together. it was part of the discussion at

the woodrow wilson center on the role of the minority party in congress. two former house mirrors discussed options for the democrats to move their agenda forward after losing the house this last election. and tactics the minority party uses to stop legislation. >> money ms. donald wolfensberger, director of the -- my name is donald wolfensberger. those of you who are new, let me tell you about what we do. the wilson center was created by an act of congress. to this day, he remains the only president to hold a phd. he was a president of the american science association in 1909, 1910, while he was president of harvard and ran for governor of new jersey and president in 1912 and served two terms. wilson thought that scholar and

politician thought both would benefit from coming together and exchanging ideas on important issues of the day. it's in that spirit that congress created a living memorial, rather than another marble statue down in the mall. in that spirit, we have about 800 meetings a year in these walls. we are just one smart part of that as is the congress project, which i head up. we bring in a member of the congress, a scholar that writes about congress, and politics and the hill. we mix it up on the policy issue or subject matter and how that's working out behind the scenes. trying to enlighten the public on how the process works. that's what the congress project is about. we are indebted or grateful to chevron corporation for a grant that has helped with this series. we are now in the midst of a two-year series on the theme of public policy, the media, and public opinion. and so we are grateful to them

for that. before we proceed, let me ask that if you do have any electric devices can be please turn them off. we are broadcasts on c-span and web cast. they tend to interfere. we appreciate if you would turn those off. a couple of introductory notes from the audience. first of all, the head of the american political science foundation congressional program, jeff biggs. he's in the back there. he's brought with him about 39 or so fellows for this year. please raise your hands if you are part of that class. well, you are helping to fill the room. thank you. [laughter] >> it might point out these are not just political scientists that study congress. these are from all over the world, some are practitioners, some are teaching medicine, and

we have people from a variety of sector that is are part of that program, including a few people from the executive branch, as i understand it. all of them, after this orientation period, this is, i think, about the third week of their orientation. they started the day after midterms. they will then be placed this congressional offices and be working with members of congress. jeff, do you want to add anything on that? >> i want to say we are very much in your debt. it is always a pleasure coming here. and we always leave better informed than when we arrived. you have become a part of the orientation of the fellowship. >> thank you very much. we appreciate that. we are always glad to have you here. as you know, today's program is on the topic of the role of minority parties in congress. at the time that this was original planned several months ago, we didn't know what the outcome of the 2010 midterm elections.

we heard rumors one or both houses might flip. the house has just changed control after the democrats were back in control for four years. we have a new minority, which was an old minority. the democrats are back in the minority. the senate the republicans did pick up some seats. but they continue to be the minority in that body. so i think that we have a new dynamic, working with the democratic president. we'll see how that will unfold. but as you may recall doing the last half of the 20th century, the democrats controlled the house from 40 don don -- 40 consecutive years. they took control and returned for the next 12 years. the democrats returned to power with the 2006 election. political scientists and repun didn'ts and reporters tend to focus on the parties for the same reason that willie robbed the banks.

it's where the money was. i'm not saying congress is where the money is. although there's a lot of money they contribute. for students of congress, it's where the power is. the minority is where the power is. the minority is given short shrift in a lot of these studies. yet we over look minority parties for they are often weather vain for shifting opinion. sometimes they have a winner of new majority. plus importantly additional check that wasn't contemplated on the checks and balances. finally, they are an incubator on new ideas. the majorities that we are studying as well. my mentor at the university of iowa when i was in grad school over saw my thesis approached me after i'd been on the hill for ten years. don, i want to do some more -- some studying of the minority party. because we really have over

looked that. at the time, i worked for the republican chairman, john anderson. i think they were beginning to get the idea there's something there that was worth exploring. matthew green today is another example of that. we'll talk about that in a little bit. the legislative political parties really began to appear even before the constitution was ratified. if you thinking the federalist and anti-federalist, it was two parties in incubation. even though george washington ran for two terms without any opposition, the jeffersonian-republicans soon emerged. one the things i like to point out within jefferson was the vice president to john adams from 1797 to 1800. he realized there would be a lot of problems arising, and there hadn't been when adams of the vice president of the senate and not been sufficient keeping of precedents, any consistent rulings. what he did was to compile a

manual of legislative practice, or parliamentary practice for the use of the u.s. senate. he expressed the hope the house would use it too. it was later incorporated in the house rules and part of the senate rules and precedents. so he did have a lot of precedent on that. maybe if i'm urged to later on, i would recite a poem. i will spare you that for now. his introduction to the manual of the parliamentary practice. jefferson observed it's always within a power of the majority by their numbers to keep or stop any improper measures by the proponents. but the only weapons by which the majority can defend themselves are the forms and rules of proceeding which are adopted to become the law of the house. he continued only by adherence to the rules. can the weaker party be protected? which the one in power is too often to suggest to large and successful majorities.

so we begin to understand right from the beginning that the role of the rules is not only to allow the majorities to work their rule, but also to protect majorities and their right to participant in the process. and perhaps as i mentioned earlier, not coincidentally, jefferson found himself as a nominee in the minority party in 1800, which had asserted his rights in the congress leading up to that over such things as the neutrality proclamation, the jay treaty, and the alien acts. we already saw the parties at odds over issues early on. if you fast forward about a century from when the first congress met in 1789, you go to 1889, 1890, we saw a new type of party governance emerging. that was with the speakership of thomas bracket reed who began

with an election contest. he decided to use that as a way to set some new rules and precedent for the house. we began to over rule some the motions to obstruct the way things were being done. as chairman of the rules committee, reed went and asked his committee to put these in the standing rules and have the host adopt those. these rules allowed the house to come into the modern time as we know it, the modern speakership, the modern party system, as a way to expedite the majority's legislative agenda. but all through this, there remained in the rules, up until this day, very important safeguards for the minority. we're going to hear a little bit about that as we hear from our expert panelist as we proceed. i think that's been engrained from the beginning as party of the american way. yes, but with minority rights. we're going to hear, i think, a the bit more about the importance of minority rights, the roles of minorities, the

various roles of minorities, as they try to struggle for majority power. we also have with us today, i wanted to mention, because i was just going to quote robert mensies. we have a couple of senators from the australian parliament. raise your hands. okay. not here yet. i think robert was about 16 years in the minority in australia. he said being in the minority is not wondering in the wilderness, look at what you did wrong when you were in the majority and chart a way for the party as to serve as opposition to the governing party. he saw it as an opportunity, not just an impediment. we are very fortunate to have the two members who did distinguish themselves in the house of representatives and with their representative parties. both in the majority and the

minority. i think we are very fortunate to have that perspective. i'm sure they will agree with the off quoted phrase of anybody who's been in the majority and minority, being in the minority was okay. it's a lot more fun being in the majority. bob walker who is now the executive chairman of the wexter -walker, from 1977 to 1997 as the 16th congressional district of pennsylvania. 18 of those 20 years were in the minority. he is credited as forming the republican majority that emerged by the leadership of the conservative opportunities society. a group of back ventures who began to challenge the house majority in a variety of ways. c-span came along about the same time. that had a lot to do with their strategy. he'll probably talk a little bit about that. when he was -- in the he was in the minority. he was deputy whip, who was the

minority whip. then when the republicans game into the majority, he chaired the leadership committee under speaker gingrich. he also managed at the same time to chair the house science committee in all of his party activities. after congressman walker, we'll here from victor fazio, who's a senior advisor. he's likewise, a 20-year veteran of the house 1979 to 1999, as a democratic representative of the third congressional district of california. while in majority, he served on the campaign committee for two terms. he served in the minority a democratic caucus and on the legislative branch appropriations. third we're going to hear from the guest scholar, matthew green at the matthew university and an associate fellow of the institute of politics, is it political research and catholic studies. >> policy research.

okay. i have a typo. he's the author "the speaker of the house" published by the press this year, i believe. >> uh-huh. >> she's currently working on a massive project. -- he's currently working on a massive project, that's why i invited him here. he's well suited for today's topic. last week many of you recognize jaquline calmes. prior to that, worked 18 years with the wall street journal, covering the budget and tax, as well as conventional, she was able to swap here, we are grateful for doing that. she started out, i think her journalism in texas and worked her way up to austin. then she came to d.c. i believe her first job here was with "congressional quarterly."

we are pleased to that her here. we'll hear from them in this order. then we'll open the floor to questions from you. all are invited to a reception immediately following this program. congressman walker, speak from the podium. i think it would be easier for our web cast and c-span audience. >> very good. thank you, don, very much. good afternoon. when i was asked to speak on the role of minority parties, i came up with a title for that speech. that is more than potted plans -- more than potted planted, but not by much. [laughter] >> because, in all honesty, the chief job of the minority party in the congress is to become the majority. and if you are not working

towards that end, you are probably not doing that which is necessary to really fulfill your roll in the minority. now having said that, the main roll then, of the minority party in the whole business of governance is to critique the majority. and that involves a strategy both in committees and on the floor. and it often involves finding the weaknesses in the legislation or in the process that the majority is bringing forward and then using those weaknesses as a part of your way of differentiating yourself from what the majority is doing. as dawn mentioned a minute ago, some of us back in the mid '80s began the process of trying to move the republican party toward majority status after a long time in the minority. and one the places that we found some help was in the whole

c-span program. and that came about a little bit because i had spent some time on the house floor and in some of the early meetings of what we then called the conservative society which was a small group of back ventures. i made the point that every time i go on c-span, i'd hear from people and i'd get letters from folks. maybe there were people out there watching this stuff. we decided to use that as a way not only of defining an agenda that we thought was the right agenda for the future, but also to use it as a way of critiquing what the majority was doing at that point. now if you were a smart majority, you actually give ample opportunity to the minority to do exactly that. and that's sometimes the hard thing for majorities to do. because it usually involves things like a very transparent

committee process, and it involves the use of open rules on the floor. because if, in fact, you want to find out what's wrong with your bills? or what's wrong with your process? put it open to debate. allow the minority to come out and make their points. because they will define it in a much better way than nearly anybody else. the reason for that is because of what we tend to do when we were in the minority was we would start down through legislation. we weren't going to take on the whole bill. it was impossible. i mean it was put out there in glowing terms. if you could find one little flaw in the bill and press the point home and just hammer away, in particularly in committee, you could often bring the whole process to a halt just by taking on particular aspect of the bill that didn't appear at first to be a serious issue, but could

be made into one. and that, it seems to me, is one the things that the majorities in both the republican and democratic caucuses have found or have lost in the last few years. by shutting down the process, they have not allowed the congress to work it's will, and they have therefore ended up with situations where they did not know what was in bills and what could become bill political points until after the bill had actually cleared the congress. yes, there were points being made out in the public where it was being -- seems to me that open rules are really the necessary part of allowing the minority to actually help in the governance process. now i will tell you that being in the minority is actually kind

of exhilarating at times. first of all, it is a time when you get to think a little bit. you don't have the responsibility for day to day coming up with the agenda, doing the schedule and doing al of that. you actually get a time to think about policies. and as a process of doing your critiques, you actually try to come up with some alternatives along the way. but it's also kind of fun. because every day you can fight great ideological battles. you can charge up the hill with your flag flies and get all bloodied and so on. you come down off of the hill at the end of the day, you lose. but you feel really good about it. [laughter] >> in the majority, the problem is that you win every day. but often you don't feel particularly good about it. by the time you cut all of the compromises to be the majority, you just haven't really done what you'd like to do. and, you know, so as a resort, you get the aftermath of campaigns. now the democrats are saying if

we'd only stuck to our real gone -- guns and done this the right way. that's the job of governance where compromise becomes an end part of the result. it's also interesting to note there's a huge difference between the time when we were out of power when i was in the congress for 40 years and a four-year period out of power. because what we ran into -- after a time when we had been out of power for four years, was we had a lot of republicans. particularly in the leadership. :

in a lot of the younger members, only a month from, that we were losing the opportunity by having republicans come to the floor all the time on major bills, basically being in lockstep with the democrats, simply because they had pieces of the bill. so the problem developed and that we simply were not making our case well enough to the majority. and the majority became used to the fact that it was a formula for legislating. were legislating on the science and technology committee where i serve. we had one chairman who used to do the the chairman's mark a couple of nights before the bill would come to the floor and his idea of bipartisanship on that was to invite a couple of members of the minority staff. no minority members but the republican members were divided that the minority staff was invited into the room. and what he would say was now, you know, we are going to do the bill this way.

they weren't allowed to speak, so the minority staff simply sat in and listen to what the chairman planned to do and the next day or a couple of days later he would come to the committee and talk about his bipartisan bill. well, that didn'ttrike some of us as being the kind of bipartisanship that was going to get us very far. and what it meant was that then you lost the component of focused criticism because you didn't have the people in the room that ultimately were going to make the decisions about where the debate was going to go. so, the criticism piece is in my mind, fairly large and all of this, and it is a case where noe criticism is likely to at least take on the character of knowing what it is like to go. most of the people who are going to become committee chairman under the republicans in the house are going to be people who served on the part of the

majority and so it is likely to produce a people who yes are going to go along with the velocity they think been there but on the other hand are going to be a little bit subject to knowing that at the end of the day if you are going to get some of this then you have got to figure out a way to govern. the other point i would make is that bipartisanship does not have to block debate. this whole business of having people who find the flaws in pills actually contributes to the end product, and if congress is literally allowed to work its will, it has a number of really good aspects to it. among other things that force is committee chairman to come to the floor and defend their bills. one of the things i used to hear when i would criticize the republicans when they were in charge and i would tell them you don't have enough open rules

going on here guys coming need to have that. i was told while the committee chairman has gotten these kind of perfect bills out of their committee. you know, they are next to perfection and they don't want to have a chance of coming to the floor and having these perfect bills ripped apart. and so my response always was well with the bill is so perfect, why would it be ripped apart on the floor? but the other problem was that it also mentioned the chairman didn't have to spend time on the floor defending each aspect of their bill but that is a bad thing because they are ultimately the authors of many of these and it is a very good thing to have th come out and defend not only to their colleague but to the country at large what it is they have done. it seems to me that governing becomes harder if the minorities ruled in presenting the alternatives is degraded or diminished. began, i say, the main role of the minority is to become the

majority. its chief governance is to criticize. in many offices all over town here, you have potted plants that serve a function. soak in the minority party in congress if the majority respects its role. [applause] >> while he is approaching the podium i forgot to mention that i had the honor of serving with him on the bipartisan ethics task force. i was a staff member in my boss was the cochair and that was probably one of the best bipartisan experiences i had in my 28 years on the hill. >> i enjoy that as well, done. that was a very positive income -- outcome for the institution. it is really a pleasure to be here today with don and particularly with bob walker. bob really did the minority well.

he loved it. he was good at it. it was a joy to see him approaching the parliamentarian with a question which was going to determine how the day went on the florida house. bob was somebody who was really respecting on the majority side as he was innovative, and he was creative and he was the fact that, and he drove us nuts. and at some point you have to respect the people who can drive you nuts on a daily basis and bob certainly did that very well. you know the majority is another thing. it is always difficult when the minority has its wonderful cathartic victory as it did a couple of weeks ago. only to discover they have caught the bus. the difficulties begin immediately. that sense we are focusing on the minority right now, i have to relate to what is going on downstream in the democratic

offices in the capital. and that is something the trial lawyers referred to as pain and suffering. there is no question this is a very, very difficult time. we democrats are particularly good at these circular firing squads and we always do it after elections that don't go well. the left says we should have been more left. the right who is no longer members of the body, say no we should have been more moderate. we shouldn't have done that in maybe we should've done this. there is no real agreement ultimately accept that will we have to pick up and move on. and they are still going through that process right now. people in the blue dog category who remain frankly need to have a way to express their opposition to the former speaker. and apparently they will have someone, maybe the gentleman from north carolina, schuyler, be the sort of sacrificial lamb, knowing that there is no way he

is going to win but wanting to for his own purposes let alone his colleagues say that he was different and didn't want to just ratify his leadership. you will find others, who are simply of the school that, if you lose you know like george steinbrenner would have it if the yankees don't win the world series maybe we need to get a new manager. and there is no question there is always that, and yet, politically these days, democrats are well aware of the fact that nancy pelosi has brought something to the table for them, and that is the ability to raise money outside of washington, outside of special interest. and while it is great to talk about procedure and rattles on the floor and the use of c-span, practically, and i think nancy

cited this a good deal in her work, the campaign committees and the leadership that attends to them, which is made an incredible difference in the last i would say five to 10 years, i served as chairman from 90 to 94. by the time we entered into the more recent decade, which is just about to leave, the entities had sharpened themselves tremendously. better staff, better informed, more control in terms of having influence on who ran and how they ran and whether -- were funded. recruitment became incredibly powerful. i don't think anybody has done a better job than kevin mccarthy who was just a think about to be made with a membership on the ways and means committee that he may take a leave of absence from. a reward for doing an incredible job upper creating candidates who ran as republicans and in

many cases one this term. many of them actually were defeated in primaries and whoever beat them, there were still a real effort to get serious people with public service backgrounds and experience in the public sector generally to be candidates. that makes a big difference particularly when you are running against incumbents. it is great to have the wind at your back. recruiting goes really well plan the mood of your party is in the ascendancy. it can be very tough when you are losing support in the general public can people see their opportunity perhaps five years down the road, not immediately and they don't want to run loose. recruiting has been incredibly important. they have raised more money than a valuable opposition research. democrats did a wonderful job, hoping to stem the tide this year i going into the weeds and finding out a lot about the tax liens and divorce agreements

etc., of the republican candidates. frankly it didn't do any good in general. it did kind of cause some of the republican campaigns to sort of hit some bumpy spots, but the wind is at your back, you can overcome just about anything and you can elect a governor of florida, the state with the largest senior citizen population, who has been a perpetrator of medicare fraud to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. you can tell, didn't really matter what was wrong with your candidacy. you were going to win, and i think it was pretty impressive in many states that they did that. now you have to look at reapportionment at this point. republican victories were not only large, they were extremely timely and they are doing i think as we speak. a lot of homework as to how they can cement another 10 seats perhaps without even going to the election by simply taking the redistricting and the reapportionment that leads to

that and locking in both syntaxes for example where they will pick up three or four seats, and perhaps protecting republicans in states like pennsylvania, new york, if they have the state senate. in ohio where they are losing seats to the south and the west. so that was a very important part of this transition and it is very important as the democrats go forward to strengthening their political arm as they move into the next political environment and none of us know exactly what that will be. all we know is in the sort of economic environment it will probably be just as volatile. the question really becomes for me, what should the legislative role of the minority be? republicans have been educating the democrats now for about 20 years. the gingrich/walker -- of the '90s effectuated by the

renewed emphasis on retaining power that you saw with the delay and hastert finally came across to the democrats. they have always been somewhat divided in to legislating governing and not particularly good at the politics. they got better at it or good nancy pelosi organize the democratic caucus in a way very similar to the way republicans had organized it. and i have to say in relatively short order, republicans have a fair game, and they did it i party unity. they did by just saying no to everything, and i think regrettably they did it without really offering a lot of alternatives. they simply don't get into the debate about issues. they simply stand there and resist whatever the obama administration or the policy congress wants to task.

and they do it in a way that makes clear to your base into an increasingly conservative independent voter that this was the way the republicans would govern, differently than the democrats. and it turned out to be a great success, but we have a problem in this country. unlike the menzies churchill debate, we are a divided government. almost all the time. even those 40 years where democratic majority in the the house, i think would tell you we had about 20 years for the republicans ran the senate and a lot of illegal republican coalitions that really controlled the floor of the house. we have divided government now and probably will continue to. and as a result of that we have to govern somehow, and so at some point just saying no doesn't get it done. having constructive alternatives are required. sorting out those issues where

we can reach agreement, where we must for the good of the economy and the country, finding common ground. it is always difficult with the minority. they always want to vote no. bob and i were talking earlier about the difficulty of passing the debt limit extension, the fact that so many of these young republicans coming to town have no government experience, have taken positions in the election against any debt limit extension which we all know the country has to do in order to pay the bills that the party been incurred. would democrats continue some votes to make you that happen or will john boehner have the most difficult crisis on this very issue? it is really one example of where we must find at least in some areas an alternative to just trying to defeat barck obama. there has to be some areas that can be discussed, worked through

perhaps, to a conclusion that is a compromise. it used to be in a path that the ways and means committee or the appropriations committee with sort of sort out these bitter partisan issues and bring them out to the floor. that is no longer the case. the leadership has sort of taken over through term limits and other ways of influencing who leads these committees through the steering committee. they have taken all that compromising ability out of the process, and now those committees are there to tow the line. people who hate the idea of line items being taken off the table, people who love having the ability to send something back to the districts are now swearing off. no way can they prevail as committee chair if they take that kind of position. so i look forward to some discussion about what is going to be going on in the next congress and how this minority particularly might work in a

terrible dilemma they have of having their president occasionally asking them for those that they think are not in their interest in terms of pump remising with the majority. i think we have begun to see some of that formulation with the simpson commission's recommendations. the left in the writer taking off for the hills. the question is, can there be a center, and that will be a very important issue for both wine already and the majority. [applause] >> there are plenty of seats if anybody still needs any along the wall here or up here at the table. matthew green. >> thank you very much. what i'm going to do today is talk about the minority party from a theoretical and empirical perspective and my purpose here is twofold.

first, to help us i guess propose a theoretical way of thinking of of the minority party, what they do and why they do what they do. and then second talked about briefly in the time i have certain categories of that to be that the minority party in the house of representatives undertakes to try to achieve basic goals. and to at least suggest the question, not just why they do it but whether it actually works. they make a difference and a political influence as it were. so, my focus -- here we go. first of all, one question is why am i looking at the house and not the senate? i'm looking at the house of representatives. with a look at the minority party at all which is done mention not many do they look at the senate and for some fairly straightforward reasons. has been of the senate minority

has a lot more power, both individual members and minority party members especially if the minority party work together. procedural tools such as the filibuster, loose lipped another procedural rules make it easy for the minority to slow things down. and this is why wb rolls among others has focused on this and called part of the minority party tool kit, this ability to filibuster legislation on the senate floor. .com if you watch c-span and see with the minority party is doing, they are not just sitting around doing nothing. they are acting. they are conducting activities both on the floor and of course off the floor in the question is why are they doing these things that they are so powerless? they don't act in a helpless fashion, and so one of the things that motivate them to do this research is to understand what the minority party is trying to achieve and whether they are able to do so with the things that they do. now my focus is going to be the house. many of the things i will talk about are applicable to the

senate minority but the examples i will get far from the house in particular. so there are three questions that i will propose and that motivate my interest in the subject. the first is, what does the minority party in the house actually do? the second is why did they do it? in the third is whether it makes a difference to the political outcome. i'm not going to answer all three questions thoroughly partly because it would take a lot longer than the time i'm allotted, partly because it is part of a larger research process as don mentioned that is still underway, so i don't have firm answers to all these questions but i will suggest answers to some of them in my talk. first i want to talk about the second question why does the minority party do what they do? and the way that i suggest conceiving of the minority party or thinking about it is in terms of collective goals. now i'm not the only person to suggest by the number of other scholars also talk about parties in terms of their collective goals. but if a party has a goal,

collective glow, then presumably the activity they will undertake are designed primarily to achieve that goal and that they have several goals, then they may undertake activities to achieve one or more of those goals. so what i have proposed is typology of goals in which the minority party can be thought of as having four major collective goals and i will talk about each of these very briefly. the first is as congressman walker mentioned and perhaps the most important to not be a minority anymore, to be in the majority are winning elections. and this is to be sure a very important goal of the minority party. some might say the most and some might say or have the only but it is certainly important in the house of representatives. the second goal is to influence policy and the idea here is that even if you are in the minority party to me you are a member of congress, you care about policy. you got elected to congress presumably to influence national policy so you are going to want to try to exercise influence on

policy. to be sure they can betray us between the first and second goal in the can talk about that later. the third goal, these two goals have been proposed by other scholars such as stephen smith and charles jones. this is not a new idea but i suggest to additional goals that also can maier motivate the minority party in congress and especially the house. the third is the protection of procedural rights and powers. the idea here is that members of the minority care about their rights under the rules in their own right. to be sure the rules of the house can allow them if they are liberal enough, to influence policy or to try to win elections but they are also important in their own right. you get elected to congress, you are representing over 600,000 people, you care about your rights as a member of congress. the fourth coal that i suggest his internal party unity. this one is maybe a little less persuasive case because one could argue really get a tea is the means to achieve in and such

as winning on the floor are winning elections, but i would argue that in many cases the minority party seeks to unify either in ways they can't quite say exactly, they are not sure how it is going to achieve future goals but it is something that is important. or it achieves other things that matter to minority party levers. for them since they don't have to worry about dealing with open defections on the floor price coverage of the divided minority. if the their parties and by they can focus less on building discipline or discipline to build its unity and focus on other things as well. and as a show here in the chart, there are four different basic strategies that a minority party can undertake to achieve one or more of these goals. campaign related activity, position taking some activity in the public sphere, legislating and obstruction so i thought i would do is briefly talk about some examples of each of these four categories and then some up. the first activity of campaign

related and of course a lot of things members of congress do can be focused on campaigns or elections, so what i mean here is activity that is primarily or principally focused on election activity and winning elections. two examples i will mention briefly. the first is candidate recruitment which is very important for the minority party, for either party frankly, to get people to run for office, challenged members of their their party or to run for open seats. now in the paper that i wrote for this talk for this panel, you talk about one way of measuring the success of recruitment which is the quality of candidates. another way which is not in the paper is just looking at how many people you get to run on their party against the majority party and this is data compiled i nate silver, the blogger who is currently affiliated with "the new york times." chose number of house seats held by each party that were uncontested. notice if you will the top bar which is the number of democrats who did not face a challenger.

the difference between 2008 in 2010, republicans successfully got almost every house incumbent this year to face a challenger, and that means to be sure not all of these challengers may be of high-quality but that put pressure on the majority party to fund those candidates, to put up some degree of defense against those incumbents and so forth and in contrast the bottom of the chart with a number of republicans who did not face challenges and the democrats did worse compared to 2008 in finding people to run against incumbent republicans. so candidate recruitment is very important. of course it is difficult to know for sure the relative role of party leaders and campaign, folks doing campaigns for the minority versus other factors. as congressman fazio mention when the wind is at your back recruitment as a whole lot easier and there have been stories and reports for example congressman mccarthy telling the press that there was an difficulty recruiting members

until a republican to run for congress, tell two things happen. one ran winning the special election in massachusetts and number two was the enactment of of the health care bill. all of these republicans came out of the woodwork saying i want to run for congress either because i think i can win and/or i am really unhappy with obama and i don't want to see the demo cracks in charge in congress anymore. separating these two is difficult but to be sure it is important a minimum for the minority party to be putting in effort into candidate recruitment. second briefly i will mention fundraising and in the papers talk about overall fund-raising by the dccc as well as republicans ani also look at how well the democrats raise money for special candidates they targeted in 2006 when they were in the minority in the so-called red to blue program. this chart shows how well red to blue members raise money. this is the green bar. in the quarter before they were put on the list and a quarter after they were put on the list.

compared within the red, members from roughly similar districts who are running, democrats and the blue and a random assortment of members and democrats who are running. sure enough red to blue members, candidates were raising a lot of money but they continue to raise a lot of money after they were put on the red to blue list whereas other lawmakers may have also rised more but nowhere did the exact amounts are the same dollar amount as those who were on the blue list. same thing happened for the second round of those democratics added to the red to blue programs in july 2006. again the green bar showed they raised significantly more in the second quarter after they were put on the list as opposed to members from similar districts. dimock rats were also running. very quickly, the other three spheres i looked at, legislating. this is a large complicated sphere. a lot of ways the minority party can i look at amending on the floor and surprise, surprise, minority party members tend not to have

much success in influencing information on the floor. >> but the caveat here is that as i said there are a lot of other ways to influence legislation. a lot of legislation might reflect minority party interests before it's introduced or in committee. and of course if the minority party has -- their party controls the senate or -- and/or the white house, then they have more leverage. it is possible for the minority party to influence policies but a strict amending process it's difficult. -- the last two spheres of activity, public position taking in the example i will discuss here is election-year agendas come alternative agendas.

i think it is a little bit more removed from recruiting candidates so i look at things such as the contract of america, new direction for america, the pledge for america. the minority party suggesting what they would do if they took control of the house of representatives. two quick points i want to make about this. contract with america was very important and in many ways influence what minority parties would do after that but we shouldn't forget that this was not the first time a minority party tried to offer an alternative agenda. for instance congressman john gross who is the leader of the republican minority in the 1970s, after the devastating 1974 election when republicans lost a massive amount of ct got his college together and they drafted their own alternative agenda may publicize it in a book he wrote that was published in 1976 called a feudal system. this is not the first time we have seen minority parties try to do this. the second larger., there is not

a whole lot of evidence that these have at least help the minority of achieved their electoral goals for a number of reasons. polls have shown that is donald wolfensberger noted his book most americans don't know about these things. is not clear they vote based on these what these agendas say. voters tend to be retrospective so they just a party in power rather than prospective where they think the other party will do. so at least in terms of influencing elections, these don't seem to have a whole lot of influence but i think they can play an important role in other ways which i can talk about. the fourth and final category is dilatation of tactics. this is where the senate gets all the attention, filibuster and all this. the rules allow the minority to at least pester the majority, slowing things down here and there and example that i gave here are motions to rise and/or a journey which is a path to intrepid legislative process.

in if they don't they require a recorded vote, usually divided by a recorded vote which is another 15 or 20 minutes. to basically stop what we are doing right now. the most famous example of this in recent years was probably in 2008 when congressman tom lantos passed away. it was a memorial service for him. the house went into session for some unclear reason and they were considering some resolutions. the congressman diaz-balart offered a motion to adjourn and said all this hullabaloo how dare you do this while we are having a memorial service and back and forth and back and forth. that is not the only time the minority parties done this. very quickly this graph shows the percentage of recorded votes cast on motions to rise and/or adjourn. you can see that as a total, sort of a percentage of all roll call votes, less than 6% and oftentimes much less. and there's a lot of fluctuation but i think was most interesting

about this chart is how it is very rare until the 1990s. now it is seen as a potential for minority parties, potential to to offer a lot of oceans to go -- rice and adjourn. of course these are both effective when they are used more than once. this is the percentage of motions to ricer adjourn offered by the minority party that occur within one day of each other and you can see now we see these routinely, that 80% of motions apprised to adjourn are done at least two times over the course of today's. caveat here, sometimes this is just one member of congress with some personal grudge who offers them five, six, eight, 10, 12, times. so it is not necessarily a good sign of the minority parties concerned or their objections. so they shows the percentage, the average percentage of the minority party that votes for these motions to rise or adjourn and you can see again a great deal of fluctuation. i think most interesting here is

the difference between the last congress, the 110th in this congress. so in 2007/2000 republcans were offering a lot of motions to rise and adjourn and most of the party was for them. this congress not only were there fewer but hardly anybody was supporting them. we can talk about some recent -- but one reason is the case for my discussion with folks who work in the minority leadership is that there was a decision after 2008 that these things didn't work. they weren't helping the minority achieve their goals, and so they were abandoned both the number and in the frequency with which members would support them. the last chart on this and then i will quickly wrap up, the other way to think about these are understand why they are done is to look at why the people who offer them what their justification is. why are you offering a motion to ricer adjourn? most of the reasons are not too surprising and most of them can be connected to these four goals. what was most interesting to me is the percentage offered by members who were upset at the agenda because they wanted some

other bills to be considered on the floor. this is not a power the minority party has to change the agenda so it is interesting they would be doing this out of protest. you do they really thought they could change the agenda and wanted to or it was a way of highlighting their agenda to the broader public. so to conclude, the minority party is not irrational, the things they do have a purpose. it is often to get the majority but not always and i would say that some of these tactics can work to some extent in helping the party achieve some of their goals. to general things that i think matter for the minority party, resources, minority party if they have money, they have talent, they have individuals who are entrepreneurial. that can help them achieve at least -- strategies well. for a pivotal status they can win over majority parties on the floor. can they attend attention? and finally the goodwill of the majority which congressman walker mentioned, smart

majorities, give the minority opportunity. and so one could argue. >> please turn off your electronic devices if you have a cell phone. >> that might be also a cue for me to stop. very quickly, sometimes the majority minority has influence because the minority gets in that. we don't see it so often in aggregate sometimes and individual pockets of politics in the house we too and that in my talk. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. >> one thing that i notice, and probably one of the few walking people outside of the hill that looks a special rules but the majority began writing into the special rules for bills and lay down the procedures. prohibition, anybody offering a motion to ricer not only the chairman of the commission can do that so that is why do you were saying a lot fewer those motions. at that i'm going to turn it over to jackie calmes. jackie has had the benefit not only of covering congress for

"congressional quarterly" when she first came at covering budgetary and appropriations matters but also covering a number of campaigns both congressional and presidential so i think she can give us some perspective to mackinac some of the stuff is perceived outside the beltway and on the campaign trail. >> i am here at the time of another turnover because when i first started covering congress, 1984, and i actually thought year after year went on, that i would never cover a congress that had a republican house majority. seriously, never thought in my career i would see that. and a 92, there was a group around the late '80s, early '90s called the 92 group of house republicans, and their names suggested their goal. they were going to win a majority and we are all going

yeah, right. and of course they didn't but they were actually, the seeds were planted that year for the midterm election just like we have got now, where the party in power, the party that held the white house when typically but not always, lucy to the midterm and newt gingrich and i'm sure u2 bob were, new you would gain seats in 94. in fact, the statute of limitations is passed on this. i can say that, in 88, i am going so far back now i have to think, that newt gingrich did not want george h. w. bush to get the presidency. no, this was a 91. he didn't want him to win it again in 92 because he saw that in 94 they could be these big gains in the midterm. so, but i actually think, i was glad all party considerations

aside, i thought it was bad for anyone party to hold control of the house for four decades with an unbroke ends brach, and that you saw the results and what was happening within the house democratic caucus. there was, you know, there were some practices taking hold a sense of entitlement that was corrupting. so, then you know, when the democrats, right before this by the way, but wasn't just a 92 group that we thought was delusional. there was a couple of moderate republican political scientist who wrote it look and i think it was 91 called the permanent minority. do you remember that? >> it came out 94 but it had a question mark in a timely way. it was a permanent republican voter. >> along the same lines, two friends of mine actually wrote a book in the mid-decade that we

just finished that was about the permanent domination of republicans for years to come, and than that was right before 2006, which make me glad i never get the urge to write it look like that, or at least not one that can be proven false in the next election. so, that the minorities -- so it has been a great experience to see this swing back and forth. in 95 arguably the republicans over reached just as democrats are having been accused at doing now. i think there was an even bigger argument for the house republicans overreaching in 95, and partly it goes to what bob said about the difference then versus now, which is that there there -- what i saw happen in 95 is that you had house republicans, including the

chairman, who had no idea really it seemed how to govern, how to be a majority and a lot of them, or at least some of them, had just about become, they were potted plants in the committee. will give you one example where a committee i watch closely with with the house ways and means and the larger. he had just spent both by the democrats domination and his own inclination just took himself out of any role whatsoever in that committee, so in january of 1995, i remember chasing after him after he had just made an annocement right after they took power that the ways and means committee was going to cut something on the scale of 245 billion out of medicare in five years. and something i just thought was not possible. and, so it quickly became obvious in the thing with newt gingrich couldn't check them either because newt gingrich had never been much involved in policy. so i think the budget breakdown

later that year proved that they were wrong. i remember my colleague, when i was covering congress than for "the wall street journal" and my colleague day in and day out on the hill with david rogers who was arguably the best-known longest-serving congressional reporter ever. he is now at politico. and he and i were always like getting angry because we were getting these divides and directly hearing from the mothership in new york. we just didn't get it, that there was a revolution going on and our stories worth reflecting what was happening. david and i have, just because we have been around in the nitty-gritty of politics, me since 90 -- 1984 and date since 1989, and we just knew that they couldn't -- you can never be sure but we sure couldn't say how they were going to be able to do what they had promised they could do. so i think it is a good thing now that they are taking over at a time when their memories are so recent as to how to be a

majority, but i think in a lot of ways they seem to be taking the message that they have a mandate that i don't see, and my duty on election night was to write the exit polls story. those exit polls more than most were just full of mixed messages, you know and there was, you know, a big four out of 10 voters said they wanted more spending, not deficit reduction or tax cuts. there was a big, about the same percentage. i should have reviewed the numbers before i came in here. it was a majority, about 52% when you combine the number who said they didn't want any of the bush tax cuts to be extended and those who wanted just a middle-class extended, which leaves the minority to do with the republican majority now wants to do. so i think the other thing is

i'm really interested in watching every time is different. what i'm really interested now in watching is how these republicans deal with something -- you know i'm used to watching congress as an institution. is very and were driven. the numbers themselves have external pressures but it is a very -- there are a lot of internalized and institutional factors that come into play, in part because the public isn't playing that close attention. but, i have never seen a situation or an environment where the majority of party in congress is going to be so watched over by a group and that of course is the tea party and people who are sympathetic to what they stand for. and they have been very blunt in saying you no we are not republicans. we happen to share a lot in common with republicans and if they don't you know, if they don't do what they promised us they will do then there will be

trouble. one thing as a reporter i think is another healthy thing, and again it is all policy and partnership aside, is the extent to which when you are in the minority and in particular especially in the house and i think we are just talking about the house here, we in the press don't pay any attention to them, next to none and especially when you have an agenda as an activist as the democrats have had both by necessity and inclination for the past two years. and i will give you just one example that shows what is really sort of a benefit of having divided government from a journalist standpoint. there has been a lot of things said by republicans over the last two years, that if we have the time and if our editors have the interest we could write and say it is not quite right. you know, this is rhetoric.

this is not really fact-based. but like i say, there are just no appetite in no time for it but recently i was going over the list of the proposed cuts to see where republicans, to try to figure out where this promised $100 billion in domestic discretionary cuts would come from. one of the largest cuts on their list is $25 billion by repealing, the 25 billion in savings i repealing a particular welfare program. so i looked at it, and it turns out this welfare program, $2.5 billion a year, was actually part of the stimulus program, a two-year program, $2.5 billion divided over two years. now, to be fair, the republicans, i mean democrats in the house did try to extended for a year or two because unemployment remains at 10% in this particular welfare program was aimed at long-term jobless

families. but they failed. republicans lost it and in any case the program died on september 30. you cannot balance the budget by getting rid of programs that don't exist. now normally i would just laugh and say, oh my god and roll my eyes but now that they are majority and i'm trying to figure out where they are going to cut, i mean that would have would have been one for the -- 100 billion is the amount they are talking for when you are so this is 25 billion. what they did is take 2.5 billion multiply by 10 and that is 25 billion in tenure savings. so i wrote about it. i would have never written about that for the past two years even though things like that have been out there and i think that is good. i called the republican leadership staffer and asked, can you justify this? why did you propose this as saving that much money? he said just like he said, the democrats did try to extended. and i said, yeah, and they

failed so when you are the majority just try getting cbo to score that for you. [laughter] one of the questions don asked us to look at was whether reapportionment, and i thought i would address it since it is coming up, the first time i covered pre-apportionment was 1981 in the texas legislature when it was still a one-party democratic state and the republicans were just starting to make and roads but then in 1982 they would lose every statewide seat. but that was the last time, that was the last straw for democrats in texas. but, the question is whether it will, whether the talk of the importance of computer manipulated district lines to advantage of one party over the other is overblown and i would say absolutely not with the caveat that a wave election can undo the best, most precise computer redistricting and gerrymandering as we saw in 1994

and 2006 and now in 2010. but the fact is, the combination of redistricting, which has segregated the wings of both party and to so many districts except your apps for you know two or three dozen, together with the realignment, political realignment in our country since the civil rights era, has made i think the prospect of more of these turnover elections for the house more common, for better and worse. you have you know, the house republicans are the most conservative of conservatives. just as the democrats, except when they have it take influx of moderates on the wave election, the combination of 2006 in 2008. a lot of members said even they were saying didn't really deserve -- wouldn't have a long hold in the seat, that they were just two republican leaning. so you get the situation where

you have you have the wings of each party in these districts. they are virtually one-party district and then the activists are looking closely at what they do and they have high expectations. and when the party that is the majority doesn't meet those expectations, isn't liberal enough for us and conservative enough they get depressed. midterm election comes along with no presidential candidates at the top to bring voters out and the activists, who are for the majority, who have disappointed them, they stay home, and lot of them. and conversely that minority voters get energized and they come out. we saw that happen in 94. it disadvantaged the democrats and now in 2010 once again to the disadvantage of democrats. so i think we are in you know very much the opposite of what i first expected when i started my career where i would never see a republican majority.

i think i'm seeing a republican majority now for the second time and i think i will see them in the minority again before my career is over, specially since i'm going to be working long past 65 since i won't be able to afford -- [laughter] i would just close with one thing. and i have to say when i first got to know bob walker, when he was in the house and e. newt gingrich were in the conservative opportunity society, i really didn't like what i thought they represented because i thought there should be some more accommodation. but, i have, if little bit closer to where he is just as a citizen, because another thing th is very much changed and i'm sort of ripping here so i apologize and then i will sit down so you can answer questions. but when i first started my career, a truism was there is not a dimes worth of difference. there is no daylight between the

two parties. think about that. nobody would say that now. there is the front page of "the washington there is the front page of "the washington post" on this story. that is "thwashington post." we want to show you what mitch mcconnell had to say in his own words. >> i know theood that has come from the projects i help support

throughout my stay. i don't apologize for them, but there is simply no doubt that the abuse of this practice has caused americans to view it as a symbol of the waste a out of control spending that every republican in washington is deteined to fight. and unless people like me show the american people that are willing to follow through on their smaller and even symbolic things, we miss losing -- risk losing them on the other efforts. i am announcing i will join the republican leadership in the house and support of a moratorium on earmarks and the 112 congress. host: senator mitch mcconnell on the floor after previously saying the earmarked ban would not save any money and it was the constitutional right for senate and house members to be able to earmark money for their district, for their states. we want to hear from those who have been impacted by earmarks only this morning.

remember, you could also send us a sweet -- tweet, c-spanwj or e- mail us -- the addresses are on the screen. we want to show you what senator inhofe had to say, republican of oklahoma. he came to the floor to defend their marks yesterday. listen up. >> president obama submits a budget to congress, which congress either accept all or part of or rejects all or part of. if we reject it we substitute what the obama requests are, what we ink is better for america. of the cost is the same. i often have said, stopping and earmark does not save money because all we are doing is

taking what the president would ve spent on an item and changing that expenditure, canceling that and putting the same money somewhere else. host: "the financial times" has this sto on earmarks. it shows where the money goes. the top 10 recipients that lobby in 2010 and the money they got. university of alabama, bae systems, nor for grumman, boeing, mississippi state, university misses become a raytheon, iowa state university. a top 10 recipients in the 2010. it says about the idea of banning the year marks -- . rmakrrks

california than on the independent line from winston- salem, north carolina. how have [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. . the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., november 16, 2010. i hereby appoint the honorable loretta sanchez to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2009, the

chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to 30 minutes and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx. for five minutes. ms. foxx: thanyou, madam speaker. madam speaker, today i rise in solemn remembrance of the life of a fallen hero, staff sergeant adam l. dickmeier who grew up in winston-salem, north carolina. he was killed while serving his country in afghanistan on october 28 when insurgents

attacked his unit within an improvised explosive device near kandahar. he was assigned to the second battalion, 502nd infantry regiment, fort campbell, kentucky. from 2003 to 2009 he served at the tomb of the unknown in arlington national cemetery. only 15% of those who try out for the honored precision assignment are chosen. and some consider it the most prestigious duty of the military. . the soldiers carry out their duties 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year no matter the condition. he was deployed to afghanistan in june after volunteering to go.

staff sergeant dickmeier graduated from carver high school when he participated in the rotc drill team. this selfless american patriot who paid the heavyiest price for his country will be remembered forever as a young man who was the leader and loved by many. his tragic death in the line of duty is an irreplaceable loss for his family and friends, his community and his country. today we mourn with those who mourn, and we pay tribute to and honor this soldier and his inspiring life that was cut short while he was serving his country. his country owes him an immeasurable debt of gratitude for his service and his great sacrifice on the battlefield. may god's peace be with staff sergeant dickmeier's family, friends and all those who continue to mourn his death and remember his life. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, madam speaker. i think every member of congress and especially democrats should do at this point is welcome the recommendations of the two co-chairs of the national commission on fiscal responsibility reform. this is one of the rare tangible and comprehensive approaches that's come through the political process to deal with an issue that everyone should be concerned about. how we pay for what america needs amidst growing budget deficits and strains on our entitlement programs. we must not understatement

those with an assignment from the president to have recommended the combination of ways to increase revenue and deal with entitlement spending. every independent observer feels that a balance is a critical part of the solution. the question is what the balance should be between revenue increases, budget and benefit cuts and most critical of all how we change doing business. the reform and evolution of our government's role is central unless we change the way we do business. medicare, defense, agriculture, no amount of tax increase or program cut will get america to where we need to be with our economy and government services. this is the debate that we democrats, especially those who are in the center or left of center should welcome. this is what the majority of the american public and independent observers without an ax to grind believe to be the real issues. this is a debate that certainly

has not occurred on the national level, especially during the election, but it should have. i for one will resist the efforts to reject out of hand the co-chair's proposals before they even worked their way through the commission. instead, i will focus on areas where i think agreement can be built across the political spectrum and most important with the american public. in spiraling deficits and a reduction in government services, how high a priority is a mortgage interest deduction on expensive third homes? do we need to spend billions of dollars protecting west germany from the soviet union when both countries ceas cease to exist more than two decades ago and more than half a century since the end of world war ii? many candidates who ran under the tea party banner ran

against agriculture subsidies that are bad for the taxpayers, bad for the environment and shortchanged most of americans' small farmers and ranchers. . this is an area where we have labored for reform and this this area we have been joined by president obama. in the next 20 years. the question is will americans invest and build them or will they be built, financed, and operated by the chinese? what is the price of our high-speed rail connection managed by foreigners and we pay them for the privilege? this is why i hope that people across the country, especially

democrats, and in particular our leaders, move to embrace areas of agreement. to be sure, there are areas that i find problematic. there are some with which i strongly disagree. but they shouldn't merit rejection of the whole package before we even have to debate. instead, i welcome the opportunity to discuss, debate, and analyze elements on which we don't see eye to eye. how about some good, old-fashioned, if somewhat boring civic education and discourse? it is, after all, only the future of our nation that is at stake. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, for five minutes. mr. stearns: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. mr. stearns: mr. speaker, we are eight months into the passage of a more than 2,000-page health care bill and already we are

beginning to see some of the problems that the new health care law brings with it. when congress passed the massive health care bill, i said it would lead to millions of americans losing their current health care plan. i was so concerned about this happening that i offered an amendment to the bill in the energy and commerce committee markup and at the rules committee to protect people's health care plan. it was a very simple amendment. it stated, quote, nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent or limit individuals from keeping their current health coverage, end quote. this amendment was voted down in the committee. in the rules committee prevented it from being offered on the house floor during debate on the health care bill. fast forward now six months and the department of health and human services has just issued the rules that govern grandfathered health care plans. these are health plans that existed before the passage of

the obamacare and could continue to operate as they have without all the new mandates and regulations that the health czar will impose. unfortunately, the rule governing grandfathered health plans is so restrictive that most of the current health plans will not qualify. businesses will be forced to buy new health plans under the control of the federal health czar. how many will lose their current health plan? up to 80% of small businesses will be forced to buy new obamacare-approved health care plans. up to 64% of large businesses health plans will be forced to buy the new obamacare approved health plan. now, you may wonder, where do i get these numbers? it's in the regulation. h.h.s. regulation on grandfathered health plans clearly states up to 80% of small businesses and up to 64% of large businesses will simply lose their current plan.

they admit it will force people out of their current health care plan. health care reform should be about giving consumers more options, more choices, not forcing them out of the plan they currently enjoy. yet despite hurting small businesses for health -- for having health plans that do meet the high standards set by h.h.s., just this month the obama administration recently gave waivers to organizations' health plans that do not meet the requirements of the health care pn law. these plans fail to meet the law's definition of minimal coverage. however thebama administration provided waivers for up to 100 organizations, many of them unions, who offered limited benefits health care plans that do not comply with the law. if the law is good, why do you need to provide exemptions from it? another problem with obamacare is it will require all business to business transactions over

$600 annually to file a 1099 i.r.s. forum. this is a massive burden on small businesses. they will be forced, force millions of small businesses to track all their expenditures by vendors and require small businesses to obtain taxpayers' information numbers from everyone they do business with. has congress tried to fix this problem? no. in fact, democrats have taken a step further. the recently passed small business act included a provision that would expand the 1099 reporting requirement even further to include expenditures on your rental property. this means if you spend more than $600 over the course of a year with a handy man for repairs and improvements, you'll need to file a 109 form. imagine, if you work as a general contractor and regularly buy building materials from a hardware store, you'll need to issue the store a 1099 form. if you are a trucker and regularly buy gasoline from the same gas station, you'll need to

issue that gas station a 109 form. it is simply wrong to require additional burdens on small businesses. small businesses represent 99 of all employment foms. small business employs just over half of all private sector employees, and 44% of total u.s. private sector payroll. small businesses have generated 64% of the new net jobs over the past 15 years. yet despite a macive recession and double-digit unemployment, the administration is finding new ways to hurt small businesses and prevent job growth. mr. speaker, the new republican majority will work to create jobs and not add more regulations and burdensome paperwork, and in fact rescind these mandates. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 2:00 p.m. today.

>> u.s. house hawes just wrapped up morning hour. a time set aside on short speeches on any topic. they'll be returning at 2:00 eastern for legislative work. 20 bills and resolutions are scheduled, including legislation to let the district of columbia change the special elections and setting how the district uses an item given to it by the federal government. tomorrow the house will deal with a presidential veto of the bill dealing with one state recognizing documents notarized in another state. see live coverage of the u.s. house here on c-span. on the floor, new members of the 112th congress which starts in january are selecting offices today, learning how congress

works. tomorrow democrats and republicans will meet separately to elect leadership for the next two years. republicans will be choosing the next house speaker since they won the majority in the midterm election. republicans gained 84 new members. among them james lankford of oklahoma. he's taking the seat of mary falin who ran for governor. he's a first time office holder. he's a religious youth camp director and will represent central oklahoma including oklahoma city. and a pennsylvania republican mike kelly takes the seat of first term incumbent kathy dahlkemper, a democrat. he's a car dealership owner. previous elected office was the butler city city council. he'll represent northwestern pennsylvania. several newly elected house members attend add rally yesterday near the u.s. capitol. they urged current members to support a moratorium on legislation and stop the passage of other legislation. attending republican congresswoman michelle bachman

and g.o.p. conference chair mike pence. the group americans for prosperity. >> the nation's capitol. it's a new day in america. the people of america spoke on november 2, right? >> yes. >> unfortunately and i know you're stunned to hear this, some in washington, d.c., have not yet listened to the new reality. are you shocked by that? but there's good news. nancy pelosi is apparently going to be the minority leader of the house come next year. does that sound good? so we welcome her back and her agenda back because we know that the american people have utterly rejected that big government, big spending, washington knows best approach. is that right? i thought so. one of the questions -- by the way thanks all of you for coming up. i know many of you drove long

distances. i know there's a group from florida. where are they? right over here. where's georgia? wher is georgia? >> pennsylvania. >> pennsylvania is right here. and the north carolinian is are here. i know that the commonwealth of virginia is represented. we even had people from up in new hampshire and new jersey, across this great country. thank you all for coming. marilyn, i am sorry. i'm in big trouble, new york this year as well. thank you for coming because we set for the last year -- arizona, excuse me. i'm sorry. i know americans for prosperity, we set for the last year this is not about one election, right? >> right. >> it is not about our short- term goal but genuinely taking our nation in a new direction

toward freedom and prosperity. we know that is what this is about. and one of the questions that i heard most often on the road, whether in dover, ohio, or pittsburgh, pa. -- it did not matter where -- people woke up and say, tim, do you think the republicans have learned their lesson from nearly 2000's? >> know! >> and my answer would be, whether they have not, we're going to hold them accountable every single day. [applause] in that spirit, our first guest is here today. tomorrow is a crucial vote. these pork barrel earmarks of the very symbol of arrogance and corruption in washington, they really are. we have seen the people, the spending in the waste in the abuse of our tax dollars. i think tomorrow that the senate

republican caucus is going to vote on motion by senator jim demint, our champion in the senate. [applause] i'll tell you something, tomorrow, the republicans in the senate are going to start answering that question, have we learned our lesson? are we going to go a different way? please welcome our free market champion jim demint! >> thank you. wow. thank you, thank you. as long as you are here, the people in these buildings, the buildings behind me, all over capitol hill, know that this is a government of the people and for the people and by the people. that is something that had been forgotten here for years. last year we saw the power

wrestled out of the hands of politicians and back into the hands of the american people, and it is because of you and what you have done, all over the country, if people have stood up, they have taken to the streets, they have spoken out, they have said enough is enough. we have politicians quaking in their bids going into the last election. [applause] and there was a reason for them to be afraid. everything has changed here in washington. i think people are listening. people like mike pence in the house. and michele bachmann, who i think will be here. the house is going to lead the way and pass good legislation, bold legislation, the bold colors that reagan talked about that would inspire a letter -- if americans, that would demonstrate that we have gotten the message in that we believe in freedom in this country. if that was in that legislation to the senate. this time and set of saying no,

we can say yes. we can challenge the democrats and the president to do what is right. as tim said, if this is just the beginning. 2012 is going to make what happens look small if we continue what we started here today. [applause] opt-in is right. if we cannot decide as a federal government that it is not our job to pay local -- paid local mall parking lots and build local museums, then we do not understand what constitutional limited government is. if the senate republicans failed to pass the ban on earmarks tomorrow, obviously they have not gotten the message. i am optimistic that they have. there is a lot of pressure on some of them to cave in. but i think that you're going to see a bold new group of republicans. i was with a lot of them last night, and you helped send them. if people like pat toomey, marco rubio, touchdown ,

and ron johnson, we have go vain them 39 years old lowering e age in the senate by 10 y rs. [laughter] this is because of you, not of party organization. it is because one american at a time as realize that our future, our very freedom, everything we hope for is in the hands of individual americans, if not the people who vote in this day. if we remember that, if we expand what you started, if every day over the next few years, getting an average people engaged in what is going on here, it will keep these people accountable. they will keep listening. we will have more voices speaking for you, and we will bring this country away from the edge of the financial klatt it is on, and restore a lot of the freedoms that we all believe in. the only reason i'm here today, and a lot of you thanked me on

the way in, i'm here to thank you because what you have done has given us, my pants, michelle, others the power to change things. the only power we hit here in washington is the power of ideas and the millions of people standing behind them. thank you today. thank you for all you ever done. i'm here for you. >> are you guys with jim demint on earmarks bill? by the way, i knew jim demint had a direct line, but did you notice that the sun came out? that is pretty impressive. i do not normally think of the term, congress and lehmann. i do, but i was a novice line. but starting today, nancy pelosi

and harry reid are bringing back in the old, failed congress. they're going to try one last time, one last gasp to cram their agenda that has been repudiated by the american people. we're going to say no, aren't we? we're delighted to have wi us one of the longtime leaders -- and i say long time in the sense of the last four for six years -- who has time and again cast the right road, whether it was his own party or the democrat party, he did so with the confidence in our free market principles and in our nations, our founding fathers. and he is someone that we can -- that we can count on now. that is my pants. -- mike pence. >> i am from indiana.

it is my high honor to welcome you back to your nation's capital. americans for prosperity, americans who attended tea parties and town halls prove that once again on november the second. this is still today the advent of the 21st century, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. [applause] we are gathered today to do two things. let me echo the eloquence of jim demint and rise to pay a debt of gratitude to you. and the tens of millions of americans that each one of you represent. they said that we could have a government as good as our people again, and you rose up and you demanded change.

and it happened and we are grateful. [applause] but i also rise today to tell you that at this very moment, our liberties themselves are once again at risk. this lame duck congress is limping back into washington, d.c. hungry for more spending, more taxes, more deficits, and more debt, and we are here to say no more lame duck. it is not duck hunting session in indiana for couple of weeks. but the battle starts today. let me say to each of you gathered here today -- it is absolutely imperative that we role our sleeves up and focus

on insisting that the change that america embraced on november 2 began today. and began in this congress. [applause] now the president and nancy pelosi argued that-- that noveml about a bad economy, and about as failure to communicate. [laughter] let me be clear on this point. i believe with all my heart that this year's election was a historic rejection of american liberalism and the obama-policy agenda. -- obama-pelosi agenda. the american people voted to change direction.

and that new direction starts now. let us put our democratic colleagues on notice -- if you use this lame duck session to advance your big government agenda, you will be ignoring the will of the american people. >> that is right. >> if you use the lame duck agenda as a last ditch effort to promote your big government policies, deficits, debts, and liberal social agenda, and you'll be proving that you just do not get it and still are not listening to the american people. [applause] and for my fellow republicans, let me say as we gather in this lame duck session in the coming weeks, there must be no compromise on ending the era of runaway spending. [applause] there must be no compromise on preventing a tax increase on any

american. [applause] and there must be no compromise on our commitment to rooting it -- repeal obamacare lock, stock, and barrel. if we are gathered here today because the fight goes on. as the fight for freedom always does. we are gathered here today to demand that this congress in this hour practice the principles of democracy and hear the voice of the american people. we also say with one voice, to those returning democrats and some republicans who do not heed the voice of the american people in this november, but we will remember in the next november. [applause] thank you and god bless you. thank you and god bless you.