>> coming up next, a discussion about the recent budget deal in congress and what it might mean for other bipartisan efforts. after that, q&a with margaret mcmillan talking about her latest book on the first world war. then, british prime minister david cameron taking questions from the house of commons. >> next, the university of minnesota hosting an event with two former u.s. representatives talking about the budget plan in congress and what it could mean for future deals. this event occurred one day before the house voted in favor of the budget deal. the senate will be voting on the legislation this coming week. >> good afternoon. i would like to welcome you to the university of minnesota. we have a terrific program here

today talking about the significance of the budget deal reached in washington in terms of the political implications for both the democratic and republican parties as well as the origins of some of what we have been seeing in washington. we have a terrific panel. i would like to introduce the panel. we have gil gutknecht, he served for 12 years in the minnesota house and 12 years in the united states house of representatives. we have martin sabo, who served for a long time in the minnesota house of representatives, including a speaker from 1973- 1978. he went on to washington, where

he served for 13 terms, i believe, in very important positions. congress passed a budget act that played a major role in the reduction of the deficits during the 1990s. we have a colleague of mine and teaches courses as well as working with us in some of our other programming. he was a representative in the minnesota house from 1979-2000 seven. he was also speaker of the house from 1999-2007. i want to begin by recognizing my colleague, who would like to ask a few questions. then we will broaden the

discussion how to include steve in the conversation with our panelists. >> thank you, larry. around the country, the conversation has changed a little bit since yesterday afternoon. congress has had some action on a bipartisan budget agreement, which i think is very good for the country. i would like to look at my two friends. gil gutknecht was my right arm on the house floor. speaker sabo, as of yesterday, being the chair of the budget

committee in washington, we have had to bring people together. the agreement yesterday, rather than talking about the specifics, let's talk about the tone of it and what it means for the future. does it signal an end to this hypersensitive partisanship? to the discourse that has happened in washington? should we see it as a sign of some cooperation in the future? >> i think it is a plus. it sets the framework for discretionary spending for this fiscal year and the next fiscal year.

there are major problems that remain unresolved. those will remain difficult. we will find a little bit more will we get to the question of extending the debt ceiling next spring. clearly, that is something that has to happen. >> congressman, being in the republican side, now in control of the house, you read some accounts where it is not harmony. maybe because of what is not in the bill. this is your caucus. i did not want to turn this into winners and losers.

hopefully, everybody can win. how can republican be against this deal? it is going to reduce the deficit. it does not raise taxes. it is $200 billion less than what president obama recommended. >> it is not good enough. in the end, it will pass. the more conservative members of the caucus will do some public harping about the deal. both of you were in leadership in the legislature. certain elements of the caucus, they are always unhappy with whatever deal is worked out. i suspect that will be the case this time. it does appear the republicans have given up quite a bit.

others may disagree with me. in the end, it is an agreement that we will get the 218 votes in the house and it will pass. there will still be some posturing and there will be some angry people. >> i understand you are focused on the immediate, but i am curious about what you think about the longer-term implications. we have now gone through a government shutdown. we had almost default on the government's debt limit. does this deal signal a larger change in the nature of governance? are we getting back to regular order in congress where you will

get give and take? >> the short answer, i think it is progress. the longer answer, and i hate to be cynical, there is more about politics relative to policy. the politics have changed dramatically since october when obamacare started trying to enroll people on the website. if you look at the polling numbers, in some respects, the republicans will be driven to compromise, not only on the budget, but on the debt ceiling. the old adage in politics is when your adversary is committing suicide, do not get in their way. as the numbers for the president and the democrats look so bad, i do not think the republicans want to pick fights that they

may not be able to win anyway. i would say that this is a good budget agreement and it will pass and you will see some arguments on both sides. i think the deal will be struck on the debt ceiling. it has more to do with the politics than the policy. >> when you look at this deal and the dynamics within each party and the divisions within the democratic party between the mainstream and the more progressive elizabeth warren side of the party as well as within the republican party and what is the death grip by the tea party and the liberty movement led by rand paul, does this strike you as a return to the power of the leadership?

>> i do not know how to read the republicans at this point. my hunch is that the leadership is going to win on this one. in the time of the continuing resolution, the leadership lost control. politically, they paid a price for that. i do not know how to predict the future. in the long term, we still have to deal with some very tough revenue and expenditure issues. i do not see that -- those are off the agenda for the next two years. i do not see anything happening on those issues. at some point, we need to get to them.

>> congressman, you mentioned how this was a pragmatic political move by the republicans. it is interesting the reaction from the right wing of the party. red state refer to this deal as capitulation and they were upset that the budget deal for two years removed important leverage over obamacare. is this the sign the mainstream of the party is not ready to get tough with that 25 hard-core right-wingers in the house? is this just a temporary tactical disagreement? >> i think it is somewhat demeaning to refer to people as right-wingers? we do not have left wingers on the side and you call them progressives.

i went to washington in 1994 and we were looking at deficits of more than $200 billion for as far as the eye could see and we were very serious about controlling spending. and allowing americans to keep more of what they earn so they could reinvested in the economy. you are going to hear some real gnashing of teeth from red state, tea party types. the more conservative wing of the party will not be happy with this deal. in the end, i believe they won't capitulate, but they will not try to block the deal. if that means that cooler heads

are prevailing and leadership is prevailing, so be it. they all understand that if the objective focuses on what will happen next november, he could not be preoccupied with what is going on here in december. this is december and i thought it was january. >> i think the republicans won the issue on discretionary spending. the cuts are unreal. even the republicans who worked on the appropriations committee say, i could not understand the decision on the continuing resolution. instead of declaring deadlock, they declared victory. in terms of dealing with budget deals, i was involved in 1993,

going back to where we had no republican votes, even going back to 1990 when bush was president, divided control of congress, and we passed important budget bills, and overwhelming number of democrats were for it. if they were there in 1990, they were part of the no vote. in terms of dealing with the budget issues in a bipartisan realistic fashion, the history in the 1990s was most democrats supported it, some republicans.

i would be very surprised if that pattern changes in the future. i expect there has to be a major deal and it will have to be significant. hopefully enough republican voters to make it passable. >> it sounds like you to agree. the republicans have a big victory. they have been able to shift the goalposts. the spending in the ryan-murray deal on the discretionary side is less by some amount than what president obama proposed. it is even less than what paul ryan proposed. would you agree with the congressman that republicans -- >> i agree with marty that on

the discretionary side that significant progress has been made through the sequester and this budget deal. the issues that remain that are the big issues that we continue to kick down the road are on the mandatory spending. they are the ones that we just cannot get our arms around. unless you deal with the entitlements, you can slash discretionary spending another 50%, but you can never really get to what i think we all want and that is a fiscally responsible government today that does not mortgage the future of our kids. >> you have to deal with long- term retirement costs. any real solution will be a combination of the two. >> that has been the real holdup.

president obama got hammered. the head of the house republican campaign committee came out instantaneously and slammed him. he was quickly followed by progressives who saw this as another betrayal by the president. on the issue of long-term deficit challenges, medicare, social security, do you see trends in health care spending or with reform that might provide some reason for caution in going too far in medicare? >> i think social security is the least complicated of the

two. health care is much more difficult. the trends have been down lately. whether that continues, i hope that is the case. i am optimistic about that, but not certain. if that is the case, it would help immensely. what you need is to figure out how we deliver our health care in this country without that rapid escalation of costs. >> if you are in congress today and involved in budget discussions, would you be rushing into the debate? would your attitude be, let's give it a little bit more time and see how severe this is? >> i would be trying to deal with them. if i could write my ideal, i would have one bill with more

spending for stimulus that is needed in the short term. some long-term modifications to the tax system and the entitlement system. >> i would go further. i will credit president obama for really making health care a focal point of the national debate. i disagree with the plan he came up with. the truth of the matter is, if you do not get your arms around health care spending in the united states of america where we are spending 16% of the gdp, most of our competitors are spending less than 10%. it is eating us. it is not just medicare or medicaid.

when you think about the federal employees, the federal government, you the taxpayers are the largest buyers of health care. i think we have to be objective and honest with ourselves and say, despite the fact that we spend twice as much as any other society in the world, you cannot argue that we have longer life expectancies, that people in the united states are healthier than the people in switzerland. i believe -- and i started this debate while i was in congress to talk about what americans pay for prescription drugs. those kinds of studies, that kind of analysis has to be done. it should be done on a bipartisan basis. it cost so much more to have a hip replaced in the united states than it does in germany or anywhere else. we need to get to the bottom of

some of these costs and figure out ways. i am not sure what the answer is. you could never really get control of the federal budget until you get your arms around health care. >> there is a lot of agreement on that. that is the area of nonpartisan agreement. the issue the congressman is raising is when you look at the last four or five years, the rate of increase has fallen dramatically and there is a debate as to why that is happening. is it the economy slowing down? is it effects from obamacare? the change in expectations among some of the stakeholders? i do not think anyone has a firm handle on it. the rate of increase has come down and has helped to contribute. >> i want to ask both of you and get my colleague into the conversation. is there something about the agreement today on the budget that gives us any hints as to

how other pieces of legislation by be handled by this congress? a lot of concern about the defense budget. enormous concern about the farm bill and getting that passed. speaker, you are a farmer. a lot of our farmers in minnesota are very concerned about the farm bill. when you look to washington and the agreement that was reached to have a two-year budget on discretionary spending, does it

give you hope or realistic sense that congress is going to be able to move on the farm bill? >> it gives me hope that we will be able to move on to the farm bill. it is a path of success that can be built upon. meeting people's expectations is a very difficult thing. it is especially tough to meet expectations of members in a caucus. it is even more difficult to meet expectations of special interest groups outside the caucus. the farm bill has only a few days left of decision-making. everybody has to tone down their expectations. this empowerment of murray and ryan, this empowerment of a bipartisan working group, i think it does create a path for us to the defense budget.

there are 12 different budget bills that have to be addressed. i think this is an historical agreement, modest as it is. it does not include the big- ticket items, medicare, social security. >> once the appropriators have the top number, i think they will work out those appropriation bills in a bipartisan fashion. i think the farm bill will pass. >> it comes into some of the things that we have been talking about.

you have conservative republicans who are worried about spending and looking to the farm bill to bring some of the spending down. you have democrats that are offended by the magnitude of the cuts in the food stamps. if this scenario where this kind of murray-ryan compromise can work out the differences? or will they return to some of the deadlock? >> i want to strongly agree with marty on this point. something that is not understood in washington. once you have a number, a budget