in 1979 c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. bring youcontinue to unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy that is in washington dc and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> north dakota senator heidi heitkamp lost her reelection bid to kevin cramer. as part of our series of interviews with outgoing members of congress, we talk about her six years in the senate. this is 30 minutes. >> senator heitkamp, one of the speeches in the video library, your farewell speech, it got rather emotional. what were you thinking? sen. heitkamp: i thought i hope i can get through this.

i was grateful so many of my colleagues came. it was an opportunity to talk about the experience of being a senator and putting it in a perspective that reflects how i approached it. talk about the need for the kind of change that is going to move the senate forward. that was the easy part of the speech. the toughest was recognizing staff and people. >> on election night, what were you thinking? sen. heitkamp: i didn't expect the margin. i will admit that. i knew that this was a tough race. i knew if all the stars aligned, i could pull it out. it was not a shock to me when i lost. >> what does this tell you about the demographics of north dakota? sen. heitkamp: it tells me it has gotten more conservative. if you look at polling data from

the time i ran in 2012 until the 2018 campaign, an additional 12% of people identified as republican. what used to happen in north dakota, you could count on 20% of people identified republican or democrat who would be willing to vote for someone who was not in their political party. i think that has changed. it has hardened and it is tougher to get people to cross the aisle and vote for someone else. the irony is, if you listen to what people say, we want people to be more bipartisan. we want people to be more collaborative and less linked to an ideology. when they vote, that is not how they vote. >> how did it go in terms of bipartisanship?

where did it work and where does it fall apart? >> for me, it always worked. i said, i am here to build relationships that benefit nor th dakota. you saw in the speech, people talking about bipartisanship. opportunity for dodd frank reform which would not have been possible without senator crapo who i leave with nothing but fond feelings. i think he was a great leader on the banking committee. as a result got great things done. a lot of the result of that has been in achieving the commission on the status of native american kids. we were able to forge an interesting political alliance

on a carbon capture bill. if we had talked about it as a climate bill it would not have happened. we talked about it as technology. had two chief cosponsors. instanceoint to every but you have to do it. you have to approach people respectfully. i think one of the reasons why i was successful was i just checked ideology at the door and that was about getting something done and not about winning. winning in this town is about politics. governing should be about setting goals and getting things done. we do too much winning, too much politics. we don't do enough governing. perception is nothing is getting done, washington is broken, the parties are not working together.

>> on big things like, obviously, supreme court nominees, they don't realize behind that our everyday things that happen. my perspective is we need to have more successes at that level to build enough confidence and trust to have success at a higher level. i think we could have gotten a bipartisan tax bill passed. i think there was no interest in doing a bipartisan tax bill. i think we could have done reforms of the health care bill. there was no interest in reforms because it was about winning politically and not about governing in a sustainable way. those are regrets i have. in both of those cases i was heavily engaged in presenting other ideas and factors, it just did not work out.

>> is there a vote you ever regretted? sen. heitkamp: i don't think so. i thought about this. you are not the first person to ask me. at the time, i would say we never voted on the syrian request because the president eventually pulled the request, that the review of what was happening in syria at the time, and my -- i think engagement at that time could have been more supportive of taking more direct action in syria. if i have a regret, it is what happened in syria. >> if you were to write a story about what happened in your six years in the senate, what would you include? sen. heitkamp: i would include the bank reform bill.

the first major reform on dodd frank. opening up oil exports. it has been hugely significant growing north dakota's domestic production industry. i would talk about the work for native american kids. which is the stuff that motivated me many days to stay in the fight. commission on the status of children's amber alert's. the missing and murdered indigenous women. we think we are going to get across the finish line. i can go through all the things i think i have contributed to advancing hopefully a better life for indian people, indigenous people in this country. i would definitely include the work i did on 45 q, the very significant work on carbon capture sequestration. trying to build those technologies to tackle climate challenges. i would talk about human trafficking.

one of the prime sponsor of the bill that shutdowns backpage.com. the farm bill. i brag a little bit yesterday about the cuba -- a lot of people didn't realize there is a provision that may be the first time in a long time we have legislated on cuba. it opens up our marketing programs within the usda for promoting products in cuba. i could go through every day stuff i think it will matter to people in north dakota and already does matter to people in north dakota. it is a record of solid accomplishments. none of which would be possible if we were not working in a bipartisan way. >> when you first came to the senate did anybody take you under their wing? sen. heitkamp: i would say no. everybody is so busy.

you learn by trial and error. i stepped on his toes, i will not do that again. if i can use colorful language, during the debate on immigration reform which we passed. i tried to get some northern border stuff. there is another accomplishment. trying to make sure we don't just focus on the southwest border. we don't ignore the northern border, which is critical. it is huge. i couldn't understand why during the immigration debate, i could not get this northern border attention. we drafted a bill and got it signed into law. we now have a northern border strategy which we do not have to the southern border. you look at all these things, they matter in a continuum.

at the end of the day, i would say i came here to get a job done. i worked very hard. in many cases was successful. >> what surprised you the most about how this town works? sen. heitkamp: one of the things i have said is how much power staff has. i lead a team and i give a lot of autonomy to staff, but i do not give them decision-making authority. many members take a shortcut and it empowers staff in ways i think is not necessarily healthy for the institution. when members do not become personally engaged, you do not build those relationships. i think i talked about this culture of failure.

we have accepted, we cannot do big things like solve deficits, infrastructure. coming from north dakota, where if you had a good idea you assumed this is a good idea, we can get this done, the attitude here is, it will never happen. that is what we got a lot on the oil export. they said, this is a new issue. no one has talked about this? this isn't something we have been working on for five years. this is an interest group not particularly attractive to your side of the aisle and you are not going to get this done. i said, there is no good reason not to get it done. the one thing i hope we proved i getting that across the finish line, when you have a good idea and a compelling argument and make that argument, you work your tail off, working all angles to get people engaged,

you can in fact get things done. >> what did you enjoy about this job the most? sen. heitkamp: not a lot of people talk about enjoyment of this job. it is an honor to be here. it is a grueling schedule. i had a colleague of mine when she was trying to convince me to run, she said, the senate, they are kind of a retirement community. you will not have to work very hard. i thought, why would you fight for a job that was so unimportant you didn't have to work hard? when i got here, that was completely opposite my experience. i think i worked harder and had to work harder because of the political makeup of my state.

i did not come here and leave my family back in north dakota and upend my life not to get things done. for me, at one point i said there is no enjoy here. enjoyment is part of joy. there is not a lot of joy in the senate. we slogged through. for me, it is the relationships with other people. i walk out with friendships that are so deep and so significant to me and enrich me. that is where the joy comes from. >> why did you first get involved in politics? sen. heitkamp: it is interesting. i went to law school in oregon. had basically a specialty degree in environmental law. this was in the late 1970's.

we literally were on the cusp of landfills blowing up and exploding. love canal cases were starting to reach the american consciousness. we knew there was a degradation if it was continuing, rivers were on fire. everybody forgets how bad it used to be. i wanted desperately to be involved in environmental policy. i went to law school. i came here to work for epa. and then an amazing thing happened, it was an election. all of the momentum seemed to stall out. james watt, a lot of the early push back came in the reagan administration. i realize the significance of political engagement. it is not enough to be involved in policymaking.

you have to be politically engaged. that sets the policy agenda for the country. i said, i am going to help candidates i like. i met ken conrad who convince me to be a tax lawyer. i have a substantial background in tax and he convinced me to run for office. if there is a mentor in my life, it has been him. he said, be honest. >> relationship with the leadership, chuck schumer, mitch mcconnell, what has it been like? sen. heitkamp: i don't have much of a relationship with mitch. i scheduled a meeting with him. i don't know what he thought. mike johanns, one of the finest people i served with, had left

the senate. there was an opening in the millennial corporation which i thought he would be great for. a republican nominee. i called mike and said, i think you would be great for this. you bring great perspective. you understand the senate, the political challenges. he said i am not going to ask for it. i said, is it ok if i ask for it? i asked if he could put mike johanns in. he and mike were old friends. mitch was kind of confused why was there fighting for mike johanns for this appointment. mitch does what he says he's going to do. the bit of hypocrisy i will say that is there is when we came, there was a lot of discussion about filibuster reform.

his whole first speech was about the cooling off, the teacup and the saucer. the first thing he does is not only doesn't reverse what harry did, he exacerbates it. there is a lot of hypocrisy in that move. the one thing i will tell you is, if someone is going to be a leader, i like them to do what they say they are going to do. no one should be surprised by what he says. he usually does what he says he will do. you want -- >> you want narrowly six years ago. did you feel you had a target on your back? sen. heitkamp: oh, yeah. ironically and foolishly, i thought if i had a list of accomplishments, if i did all these things i said i was going

to do, that would in fact matter, it did not matter. >> let's talk about the campaign. could you have done anything differently? >> we always make mistakes in campaigns. there are things i wish had not happened. at the end of the day, after the kavanaugh vote, it got to be too big of a lift. >> what led to that decision? sen. heitkamp: i had to make a determination on whether this person was qualified for the supreme court. i watched and it has been well documented why i did what i did. there is not a moment i regret that vote. >> could the democrats have done anything differently in terms of the process?

sen. heitkamp: absolutely and so should have the republicans. it was two sides of the same coin. every time anyone wants to examine every piece of archived record, are we going to do that ? if the democrats are in charge they will say we don't have to give you those records. you didn't do it for kavanaugh. even from the beginning, there were mistakes made in terms of the process. probably the thing that was most disturbing, everybody had to make an announcement with out having gone through the process. people who even before the nominee was announced said they would support the nominee. i don't know what that constitutional requirement is, it does not seem to me that handing over a blank check to

the president it is that you make an independent judgment. the reason the supreme court is important, and i said no decision other than declaring war is more significant. you are not making it just for today. you know they are going to be on the court for 30 years. you have to think, is that someone who can mature over 30 years and be impartial for 30 years? my judgment was that was not somebody who deserves a lifetime appointment to the most important court in the world. >> let's go back to merrick garland. what were the mistakes by the republicans? sen. heitkamp: they should have given him a hearing and voted yes or no. gone through the process. out of respect for mitch, he

said i'm not going to do it. he meant it. the point i have made is for how many years, the courts have always been political. let's not be pollyanna-ish about this, but we have taken it to a whole other level. this is a huge voting issue for the right. they will plug their nose on all kinds of behavior as long as they get a judicial nomination. what they have ignited with all of this, it will be a big floating issue on the left, more so than it has ever been. this is a bad trend for the supreme court. >> at some point, the democrats will regain control of the senate. what about the issue of payback? where does that put each party

moving ahead? sen. heitkamp: you know, when people said, why would you even consider gorsuch after what happened to garland, i said, two wrongs do not make a right. at some point, some of the has to be the adult in the room. say let's cut out the nonsense and let's go back to being civil and doing this the right way. you can take your vote one way or another, but let's go back to a process we can be proud of. i don't think the public saw it in the kavanaugh hearings, up process anyone should be a process anyone should be proud of. when you first -- >> when you first came to the senate day one, what were you thinking? sen. heitkamp: i am thinking, why am in this little room with all these people? why do all these people want to talk to me? it was kind of overwhelming.

everybody wants to find out who you are. if you come from the house, which a lot of my colleagues in my class did. or you had been a governor, they kind of have a sense of who you are. if you come as the used to be attorney general, a lot of people want to know who you are. i am somebody who really likes people. i like listening to people. i like hearing ideas. it was a fast-paced but interesting experience. and then you are trying to figure out with the committee assignments mean. people don't realize how significant that will be. what the expectations are. the other thing that is different between the house and the senate is when you are senator, you are expected to know, it doesn't matter, you are expected to work on health care.

i knew early on what the top issues were that i wanted to deal with. including the farm bill, we had not passed of the farm bill. engaging and working on those issues. getting ready to go. as i told the story yesterday, i did not come to this. >> six years later, what has it been like? sen. heitkamp: it is like coming to a funeral every day. it is empty and tough. >> what we you be thinking when you leave on your final day? sen. heitkamp: what is next? >> what is next? sen. heitkamp: i have no idea. is the beauty of life. >> what would you like to do? sen. heitkamp: stay engaged in the things i care about. i did a lot of work on childhood trauma.

we have about a third of our work in childhood trauma embedded in the opioid bill. this was an interesting exercise. what we did was say, this is new to people. they have never been exposed to this concept of childhood trauma unless they are trained or have served in a capacity where they have worked with. how do we get the senate to engage? what we did is we started holding seminars. to educate staff. from that work, we were able to get enough momentum to get a piece of childhood trauma policy embedded in the opioid bill. i will continue my work on childhood trauma.

i will continue my work on the half of native american people. i will continue to preach economic strategies that can work for the people. i will continue to encourage policymakers to look up. don't just deal with facts you have in front of you. start understanding the decisions you make today affect seven generations. they will have consequences well into the future. you have to understand what the consequences and challenges are of the future. always looking up. never looking backwards. that is who i am. >> what advice would you give your successor? sen. heitkamp: someone asked me that yesterday. i thought, after i gave my farewell speech, write your farewell speech on your first day and live by it. be aspirational every day about what you can do.

think big thoughts. don't be satisfied with small things. you are here to do good things and great things. write your farewell speech because it is usually full of goals and aspirations and what you did. >> senator, thank you for your time. >> now, our interview with two who congressman dave brat lost his reelection bid in november. >> you came on to the national stage by defeating eric cantor. let's go back to the spring and summer of how do you do that? 2014. >> it is not all clear. i was an economic professor for 20 years, i knew everyone. i knew a lot of people and i worked for them.