they are doing more domestic news, but the public bear some responsibility here, too. the public bears responsibility of keeping themselves informed. >> tonight, martha raddatz looks at the wars in iraq and afghanistan on a political, strategic, and personal >> this week on "newsmakers >> was there a moment when it sunk in that democrats were now in the minority? >> it has been sinking in pretty quickly since the election, but

this week brought it home. republicans, on the very first day, had their speaker say they want openness, transparency, accountability and things should be done in a way where members can participate and offer amendments. then, the first bill they are bringing up will not have a day of hearings or no chance to offer amendments for change. and it will repeal the health care system. not take what is good and make changes they don't agree with, but repeal the whole thing. this is not serious. it is theater. the health care bill is a serious matter and to repeal it could be disrupted and tragic for a lot of people. >> what were you thinking during the symbolic moment of the big gavel being passed. >> i first thought is i was pleased by it. we do have a peaceful transition in this country and the american people make a decision in the elections and we don't go to the streets and fight it out.

we recognize there is a transition and new people come in. but we have to see if we can find ways to work together. this first week was not an encouraging one as far as working together, as far as i can tell. >> what did you make of the vote for speaker and for the former speaker -- 19 democrats did not vote for her to be the party leader. what does that say to you about the route forward and her ability to lead the caucus? >> i think the members that did not vote for her realize it did not make a difference. a few of them said in their campaign that they would not support her because she was used to beat -- used in a demonizing way by republicans to attack democratic candidates. they didn't feel it may difference of there is a free vote. i wish they had not voted that

way. if they voted against her or for someone else, that's a way of expressing your point of view. on the floor, it is the democratic nominee verses the republican nominee. one thing about being in the minority is the majority brings you together very quickly, especially when they overstepped their power. the minority, whatever differences there might be, understands there is more that unites us. >> do you think that nancy pelosi is still the right leader for your caucus? after the demonizing that is done to her on the campaign trail, why does she emerged as the right leader? >> she has been a terrific speaker. i have been in the house since carl album was speaker. she's done an outstanding job and was the democratic leader when we were in the minority and help us get the majority. in the majority, she helped pass

landmark legislation, pulled democrats together, and had to be very active. in the past, the committees used to do whatever they wanted to do and sometimes that was nothing. we tried health-care reform and failed when clinton was president. she is a very strong, powerful, outstanding speaker of the house. could you imagine what the reaction would be if she cried? i think a lot of the opposition to her is that she is a powerful women and people will feel comfortable with that. >> speaking of the landmark legislation, i'm sure at this signing ceremony for the health care law, you thought we won and as democrats, the fight was one. now the battle was roaring again on capitol hill. what are your thoughts to be really getting so much of this bill you work so hard plotted? many people may not know the

energy and commerce committee was a major writer of the health care law. >> what sort of strategy do you have up your sleeve to fight the repeal efforts on the part of the republicans? >> there are a couple of things combined in a question. i felt that john boehner's statement, this fragility of power can come and go, that was very meaningful. things we take for granted can be lost. the social security system, medicare, the legislation passed in the new deal and during the johnson administration, things people take for granted could be gone. we always have to realize that matters might be litigated and there are a lot of special interests that do not like laws, like regulatory interests that protect the public safety. the health care bill has been under attack by republicans with

a lot of misinformation. the strategy has to be to explain to the american people what this law does and what it doesn't do. there are people around who still think it is filled with the death penalty and will tell elderly people that we will save money by no longer providing them care. that is absolutely not true. we need to shine a light on what is true and what is not and in the next couple of years, as we fight the republican efforts to eliminate the law, we have to explain to people why it is important to have it. >> that sells like public relations, but legislatively, what do you have to fight them on this? >> we're not in such bad shape. they are in control of the house and we will lose the vote. all lot of the american people will say i did not like parts of the health care bill, but to repeal protections for people who will be discriminated against because they get sick and insurance companies can throw overboard or not give them

coverage because of -- because they had a pre-existing medical condition, that makes people who are ill vulnerable to the whims of the people who run insurance companies. there are a lot of important things in there and republicans are throwing it out. we are in good shape because the of the votes to do it in the house, but they don't have the votes in the senate. they don't even have a majority in the senate. if a bill that to the president repealing the health care bill, he would veto it. we could have a stalemate for two years on this and a lot of other issues or we can start saying let's work together and let's and the gridlock and figure out what's in the best interest of the american people. >> does that mean you are open to compromise on changing health-care law? >> always open to suggestions for changing and making improvements and doing things better. i think it is incumbent upon the republicans to say what they

want. all they have said is they don't want this law. but recognize what health care was like before this was passed. for decades, people say we have to reform the health-care system, the costs were going up and up, employers were dropping coverage for employees, individuals that did not have employer-provided coverage had to go into the individual market and could not get a policy if they had a pre-existing condition. they could not buy a policy of the couldn't afford it. they were left in the lurch. this legislation took parts of ideas, a lot of which were republican ideas, of what to do with health care system to create a market and prevent discrimination, to protect the rights of individuals, to be able to shop around and make a decision for what is in the best interest of them and their family. >> do you envision the law will be opened up through the committee process or action in the senate that were there will

be reforms made to health care law? if so, what do you want to see done to make it different? >> i think we passed a very good law and we need to implement it and get it into effect. a lot of people are relying on a lot right now. small businesses are getting tax breaks to pay for employees and what they have tax credits, that means they have more money they can use to hire new employees. same with early retirees. they were rewarded with help if they wanted to award early retirees and not quite on medicare. a lot of young people rely on getting their health insurance through their parents policies always up to age 26. but the most important things already in effect that they would take away by repeal are the fact that you cannot rescind the policy.

if you pay for health insurance, they cannot take away when you show up at the hospital. if they arbitrarily do things at the insurance companies, you can repeal those decisions. there is a patient's bill of rights and health-care providers are relying on law. while republicans would want to repeal it and not even hold a hearing to hear from small businesses, state and local governments, seniors, families is clearly not a responsible lives. >> let's talk about cost. the congressional budget office says it would cost $230 billion over 10 years to repeal it. new revenues from new taxes and the cost savings by reductions in medicare would outweigh the cost of extending to health insurance to millions of americans. but what gives you the confidence that the new speaker

dismissed that report? he just doesn't believe it and says the bill will be far more costly than anyone has suggested and the congressional budget office has warned that medicare cuts are hard to stand behind it is difficult for congress to stand behind. everyone knows there is a lot of waste and room to make cuts, but at the same time, congress approves a doctor fixed to avoid cuts that have previously been approved. what gives you the confidence that the cuts will not be far greater? >> the president said let's get ideas on the table for how to hold down health-care costs. some of them are to eliminate the inefficiencies and excessiveness, to get doctors to work together in a collegial way so we can get better patient care and not go with new and more services, but better quality care. the competition between

insurance companies, that always drive down cost when there is competition. people can choose a lower price policy. all lot of the medicare cuts will be picked up by the rest of the market. some of those cuts go right to the inefficient and wasteful expenditures. it will save money, but it will save money for the whole system and that means we can get lower- cost for healthcare. this country spends more money for health care than any other country in the world. we're the only country in the world that spends so much money and says -- and allows 35 million people to not even have coverage. there is a lot of waste in the system. what we did out. we have taken every idea to lower costs and lower expenditures so we could put everyone in the system. if we get everyone covered, which is the objective, it

means hospitals and others who provide care to people on an emergency basis, we spend an extra $1,000 a year, each one of us to pay for extra insurance coverage to pay for uncompensated care. this bill is a moderate and reasonable one. it took a lot of ideas from a lot of people who said here are a number of ways we can hold down costs. we're going to put these ideas into place. >> what you think is the legislative endgame? is that the end for serious movement on changing the health care law this year? we keep hearing the republicans will come at piecemeal. how are you going to hold back? >> will hold back piecemeal, but they will also try to hold money

back from the government to enforce the law. that doesn't make any sense. either repeal or change it, but not in force the law that will leave it so much to some many people -- they believe the american people are against this law, and i don't believe it. we have an educational job to do. i don't think a lot of members understand the number of people who will be adversely affected in my district alone. i come from a pretty affluent district and there are 55,000 individuals with pre-existing conditions. if they have to buy their insurance on the market, they will not be able to buy it now matter how wealthy they are. there are tax credits for 15,000 small businesses and i think tax credits to help businesses to help individuals buy insurance is worth while and it will help people who otherwise could not

afford it. for seniors, a lot of seniors don't like it but they don't know what's in it. seniors will get help for prescription drug costs and get a 50% discount on drugs and will not have to have cost they have to pay for preventive services because we want to prevent medical costs and prevent illness. the medicare trust fund is extended for 12 years. if we repeal this law, in six years, in a relatively short time, we will bankrupt medicare. medicare beneficiaries, republicans have repeated the propaganda line. they say are going to take away your medicare. i've had people come to me and say we don't want government run health care, we want our medicare. medicare is a government run program and it will be better

and more efficient under this law. >> can you think of an area that can be improved as the senate looks at? is there an area where the two sides come together? >> we ask the republicans to work with us when we're trying to pass this law for two years. we said give us your ideas and they didn't have any ideas to make sure all americans are covered. we cover 32 million uninsured people. they had no idea how to do it. if they come up with the ideas, i want to look at them, but they didn't come up with ideas except to let insurance companies make decisions of whether people will be able to get coverage or not. >> certainly there must be one area in this hyper partisan era in washington. >> there may be something we can look at >> if there were

problems, i would have changed in wrote them. this is a bill that was worked on for decades. we took the approach from senator dole and all lot of what the republicans were dancing were way back in the nixon times and things they put forward against the clinton proposal. they do not want this lot and they want to be able to let insurance companies make these decisions and i think people do not want insurance companies making decisions. they want to make the decisions for themselves without insurance companies discriminating. >> moving past health care and talking about other potential areas of compromise and cooperation, are there any proposals you heard the republicans talking about where there is a chance, a return to divided government which has been more the norm than the exception, where we see a

situation like ronald reagan and tip o'neill working on social security. >> it is an issue that is a big issue for us, and that is energy reform. we are so dependent on foreign oil that our national security is at risk. we keep increasing our dependence on foreign oil, so we get bp in the gulf doing such environmental damage. we need to figure out how to produce more oil but get away from relying on oil coal and what causes environmental degradation and damage and a client -- and climate change. we ought to emphasize ways to get the private sector to develop alternatives, renewable fuels, greater efficiency. this is something we can work together on. we were not able to do it in the last congress, but we should

look at places where we can work together. >> i presume you don't expect them to support a cap and trade program. >> we have to make sure there is a renewable fuels demand and the stimulus bill put a lot of money into developing grenoble's. if we could put a price on carbon, and gives the market signals. all these decisions can be made, command and control from the regulators or you give incentives for the private sector. if we can give the right incentives, we will have to look to china to develop new technology. if we need coal, let's develop clean burning coal. we will have to figure out ways to do that again is the right incentives. >> have you had any discussions about the way forward for this committee on any of these issues? >> we have not.

we have talked about which rooms the minorities will have for our staff and when we're going to organize subcommittees. he is a decent person and a professional legislator and i will work with him to try to do things in a collegial way. we have not gotten to policy. i have offered a long list of bills that are now law. almost all of them have had republican support. i believe in bipartisanship and compromise. we will see if these republicans have come in with the idea that compromise is a bad word can be brought to the point where they understand that unless we work together, nothing will happen. >> one issue he wants to work on is the new epa rules on controlling carbon emissions. he has asked for a delay for a couple of years until the courts decide whether the epa has the

authority to do this. would you agree to some sort of delay in stopping the epa until that happens or a job analysis is done on the ruling because they haven't even done that yet. >> they are following the supreme court decision that says they have to regulate carbon emissions the way they do other pollutants. but the epa has been very modest. they have talked about not going against small sources but big ones. i want a legislative solution and that's why we put for the bill last year. i don't want us to do nothing and the epa is giving us a way to move forward at the same time the work on legislation. >> do you think he would be able to get democrats from energy- intensive states to agree with him? >> i don't think he's going to get that. the epa has to enforce the law.

you do not delay enforcement of the law because you have a bunch of polluters and industries and calling you asking you to delay it. on every delay means more harm to the environment. we have to figure out how to get the regulations to be as meaningful as possible. at the same time, we need to adopt additional legislation. if we did not act legislatively, we're doing nothing but polluting the planet and causing more environmental problems. >> as someone who has conducted oversight of past administrations, what advice do you have for the white house as they begin a new era of divided government and they're facing a new round of oversight? >> i strongly believe in oversight. it is as important as legislation and maybe even more so. legitimate oversight is warranted and needed. i told people in the

administration that they ought to make sure they cross their t's and dot their eyes and do everything properly. that's what we expect from them. the real question is whether the republicans will miss use this power. they did it once before when they went after president clinton. they spent an enormous amount of time trying to find out if clinton misused his christmas card list for political purposes. there were over a thousand speed is unilaterally. when bush became president, they did not want to ask any questions. we need legitimate bipartisan oversight and i hope republicans don't fall into the trap of trying to use it to their own purposes. >> was there anything on his list that put up a red flag as something you think is inappropriate? >> i thought he listed a lot of appropriate investigations and i think democrats should work with

him on that. but he also went on television and said before we start any investigation, president obama is the most corrupt president in history -- what a statement to make. sentence first and find out the fax later. he later backed away he said i did not mean corrupt in the sense they had done anything wrong. do your investigation and find out the facts and work together after you find the facts to correct the problems. >> you have been in congress since watergate and came in with watergate reformers. people often talk about this earlier era of congress were the members got together and that helped breed a more bipartisan atmosphere. is that true? can you give us examples of how you have seen relations in washington? >> relationships are more

poisons now. it was a lot different when i came to congress. people developed expertise, you look the problem and you may have had different philosophical approaches to how government should respond, but after a while, you have to be practical and take everyone's views into consideration. we don't need this business of we are in power and we're going to repeal. tell us what you want to change, not irresolution saying we ought to make sure people are not discriminating against for pre- existing conditions. why repeal the law? we want to make sure people don't lose their insurance. it's already in the law, why put that as an objective. let's get the ideas on the table and have an honest discussion, not this partisan politics and rhetoric that the democrats are no good and the president as corrupt and we have to throw the ball out.

the election is over. let's figure out how we can do what's best for the american people, especially at such a difficult economic time, difficult economic circumstances for americans. >> would you describe yourself as more energized or have you given second thoughts to be in -- to being in the minority. >> i would rather not be in the minority, but i've been in the minority before and i know what we have to do. in some ways, it's more liberating. for the last two years, the republicans did not have to come up with any solutions. they were just against everything -- against simulating economy, against wall street reform, they were against everything. now they have to be responsible. i can be critical, but i don't want to just be critical, want to work together to get something done. >> thank you for being with us. >> thank you for having me.

>> we are back with our reporters. but me begin with the health care vote. the repeal vote is this one state. what did you hear from henry waxman? >> he was one of the cheese off -- one of the chief authors of this law and there is no room in his mind for this to be repealed. for anyone who followed the year-long health care debate, house democrats were extremely frustrated that the senate was not getting on board fast enough. now, he is counting on harry reid and senate democrats to stop republican appeal efforts. he knows they will lose the vote in the house and harry reid has said it's not going any further. >> in the senate, are you hearing there might be said democrats that could compromise on tweaks to the health care law

if they go about it piece by piece? >> i think there is a possibility. there are a number of senators who will be up for reelection that will be mindful of what happened in this last election with the concern that was raised on the campaign trail by tea party activists over the health care law. there could be a spirit of bipartisanship in a way that improves it, but that said, trying to look at what specifically with this changes would be, we are not seeing what that would be from the chairman right now. he stood by the bill has as is, with only a small window open so i think the devil is in the details of what kind of changes we are talking about. >> it will be an excellent test

of divided government and whether there is any interest on either side to take the opportunity to have serious conversations about policy making. republicans were very clear they wanted to do more on medical their malpractice. the question for democrats is do they just say no and toss the bill onto the pile or do they say we're going to work with the senator from oklahoma who knows a lot about these issues and figure out ways to improve the bill even if it is just a gesture to say we're not in a stalemate, there is an effort here to keep legislating, even with divided government. >> this present situation in congress where neither side is willing to give, at each side is steeped in their position at this point because it has become such a hyper partisan era, giving on something you wa