Transcripts For CSPAN Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20141113

It talked initially about two reactors, the possibility of moving up to eight. We know from our own experience here in the United States, we know from the japanese experience and the European Experience its a lot easier to announce reactors than to build reactors, although it would be interesting to see if a not in my Backyard Movement crops up in iran. That would be an interesting story. It creates a rational of sorts under which the iranians could justify going up to the supreme fugse as 0,000 sentry a rational for fueling these when they get built. It takes so long to build them, they would have plenty of time to do this. To that degree it helps. The other side is the iranians are inefficient producers of uranium. If they wanted to do this at a cheaper price they would buy the nuclear fuel on the open market. There is a glut oist, particularly after the japanese closed down so many of their reactors. But there was a glut before that time. And so it doesnt make a lot of sense for the iranians to be producing this inefficiently, shipping it to russia, having it fabricated into this specialty fuel to fuel these reactors. But if, in fact, it is a way of maintaining control and people can see what they are producing, if its regularly leaving the country, we have a high confidence level the russians are doing this correctly, then its a potential solution. And there is no reason that the iranians shouldnt be allowed to produce this assuming there is an understanding about what happens to the spent fuel so it doesnt turn into plutonium fuel. About i add my sympathies michael. He was a member of our Iran Task Force and very helpful in that regard. To david, how important is it hat this declarified are you surprised that obviously nothing would happen until november 24, is it necessary for the findings to be publicized at some point . Could they be kept quietly . Could this be a long process that does not lose face for the iranians who insist they never intended to build Nuclear Weapons . Very good question. This is i think in many ways the toughest issue for the iranians, because if you believe the intelligence, and there is a big if there, prior to 2004 there was something that resembled the manhattan project, if you believe the intelligence and we wont know that until you get that amount of data. There are three levels to answer your question. One is should they have to respond to this because its an i. A. E. A. Investigation and theyve said they would answer the questions. Secondly, and i think for my own personal view and as a reporter not that it makes a difference, if you are going to enforce those norms in the future against other states, i think giving somebody a pass is problematic because then you have to justify it the next time and the time after that. The second question is do you make it public . That adds to the embarrassment uestion. In a post wick ki leaks, post snowden world operating with an organization that has 180 some odd members whose own control over information has been bless them, a little bit he has than full. Its been the mark and david employment act over the years and you too when you were a full time reporter. It is a very important source of information whether they intend to be at times or not, i cant imagine that information would stay secret forever. It boggles the mind to imagine that. And the third question is even if you dont reveal the history, do you want to make sure that e iaea is constantly interviewing the scientists who worked on those programs to make sure they are gainfully employed on something other than a Nuclear Weapons pronlts. And so far they have not been able to interview any of them and the iranians have made the point when their Scientists Show up in public some place the sticky bomb ends up on the side of their car. They have some good reasons to not want to reveal who their scientists are. We have an overflow room. Let me take a question from there. We talked about the muddle through scenarios. Lets talk about the politics of that both here and in iran f. There is an interim deal that pockets whatever progress has been made and opens the door to future negotiations on outstanding issues, how will that play here and potentially there . It would be a delicate balancing act because on one hand youd want to maintain the sanction structure to maintain the pressure on iran but there would have to be something in it for iran to go along with it. And the politics here particularly with the changing congress are complicated on the iranian side. Its the politically loaded question weve discussed it to be. How do you see an interim option sort of playing out if thats the outcome on november 24 . I think this would be tough with congress because a partial deal by necessity will not have a lot of specificity about time lines and sharp measures so you are in the position of lifting some sanctions without complete clarity unless some complete clarity is announced about what the iranians do in return. For them it would be difficult as well because presumably the p 5 plus 1on and the position would be we cant discuss permanent lifting of sanctions until you have a permanent deal. Im not sure they want to live with a temporary lifting of sanctions that could be easily reversed. I dont know how the rest of the renalen would feel but i think they would be nervous. I think they would be very nervous. Any attempt by iran to read the u. S. Political situation would be quite difficult, like what it means for them, the republican takeover of the senate skwlust as it is for our own political analyst to read the political situation. I think whether iran sees benefit or risk of the new congress, i think that they i think once again it goes to robs point of its important for them to realize the opportunity when they have it. I think well close it there. Ill turn to my colleague, the director of the middle east program for closing remarks. And i should add it was the middle east program that sponsored todays event and we thank holly for that. Thank you. Thank you to our speakers. You couldnt have done a better job. I wish michael had been with us to have shared his views. Know he would have loved the discussions. In the last piece he authored for breaking defense on may 19 of this year, he thought the two sides faced intractable differences and had run into a brick wall. When i read this the next day, i started arguing with him and i told him i think its a mud wall and not a brick wall. And neither i was able to convince him nor he was able to convince me. He was not 100 pessimistic but he was not hopeful about the possibilities of a deal by november 24. He was still a skeptic when rob and i and our colleague saw him shortly before he passed away. He was not interested at all to talk about his health. He was interested in talking about the Nuclear Negotiations happening. Michael was intimately familiar with the details of the negotiations. He was present at almost all the meetings of the negotiators in europe. He knew and had talked to most. F the principles and i remember when he went there to talk to the foreign minister, i argued with him and i said you dont have to go just because he wants to talk to you. He said no, this is an opportunity i dont want to miss. Every time there was a negotiators meeting, he wanted to be there and was there and in the last six, seven months, i tried to talk him out of attending the meeting, pecially the one in geneva which i think was his last meeting in july of this year but he went. Im certain if he were still with us he would be finding stories over the weekend. Michael was working on a book on the history of the iran Nuclear Negotiations at the time of his death. He showed me the first 60 pages because icons standly nagged him and i said i want you to show me something. So one day he walked in and gave me 60 pages. And he opened the book with his one and only visit to iran charting the difficult road that lay ahead. And he was hoping to complete. E book by december we at the wilson center, his colleagues will get hold of the man knew script, we will make sure to finish it for him. But book or no book, we at the center, his colleagues, friends and editors will always remember michaels measured insightful observations as the negotiations with iran go forward. So we are very thankful that you are all here. We are very thankful to the family who joined us this afternoon and please join us for a reception which is in the dining room. Thank you. [applause] coming up on cspan a discussion about Campaign Finances laws. An interview with washington correspondent and the u. N. Ecurity council on the ukraine conflict. On the next washington journal congressman tim ryan on what House Democrats hope to accomplish in the next congress. Then the republicans congressional agenda and a look at the president s call for new Internet Provider regulations to preserve net newtty. Washington journal begins live t 7 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan. The cspan city store takes book tv and American History tv on the road traveling to u. S. Cities to learn about their history. This weekend we partnered with Charter Communications for a visit to madison, wisconsin. It is a glorious service, this service for the country. The call comes to every citizen. It is an unending strug toll make and keep government representative. Bob is probably the most important political figure in Wisconsin History and one of the most important in the history of the 20th century in the United States. He was a reforming governor. He defined what progressivism is. He was one of the first to use the term progress toif selfidentify. He was a United States senator who was recognized by his peers in the 1950s as one of the five greatest senators in American History. He was on opponent of world war i. Stood his ground advocating for free speech. Above all, he was about the people. After the civil war, america changed radically from a nation of Small Farmers and small producers and small manufacturers and by the 1870s, 1880s, 1890s, we had concentrations of wealth. We had growing inquality and we had concern about the influence of money in government. So he spent the later t part of the 1890s giving speeches all over wisconsin. If you wanted a speaker for your club or group, bob would give a speech. He went to county fairs. He went to every kind of event that you could imagine and built a reputation for himself. By 1900 he was ready to run for governor advocating on behalf of the people. And he had two issues. One, the direct primary. No more selecting candidates in convention. Two, stop the interests. Specifically the railroads. Watch owl of our events from madison saturday at noon eastern on book tv and sunday afternoon at 2 00 on American History tv on cspan 3. A forum on elections discussing the complexities of finances regulations. Since the Supreme Courts ruling in the Citizens United case. This is just under an hour. In case you need interpretation english is on channel 7. Spanish on channel 11. If you need head set and dont have one yet, please indtchate to our colleagues who are providing them. Time advisor. Next week i will celebrate having been here for 10 years working he pleasure of in many parts around the world. More importantly, we have two prominent speakers with us today. On my far left is Trevor Potter, former commissioner and chairman. Hes republican and he was council for john mccains president ial campaign in 2008. He is also member of the washington, d. C. Law firm and is president of the Campaign Legal enter specializing in issues regarding money and politics. On my direct left is ellen who was nominated through the federal Election Commission in 2002 and since served twice as chairman of that commission and in true interest of bipartisan she is democrat. She was previously counsel to coil l. P. And a member of its Political Law Group where she counseled on election laws, political ethics, nonprofit law, and lobbying regulations. Before that she was counsel to the Ethics Committee and served as editor in chief of the houseman youll and contributed to the state ethics Senate Ethics manual. Two documents im sure are needed. Often had lead responsibility for the Public Education and complains initiatives. Weve discussed this session in advance and Trevor Potter will start by giving an overview of the case law in this area and ellen will then trult resulting spending patterns and the disclosure consequences in this election cycle. Following these presentations we will open the floor for your questions and interventions. There are many factors that influence and many of these are covered in the various sessions of the u. S. Election program. But one factor that is always important is the role of money in the electoral process. I have yet to visit any country where people tell me that money isnt important in our elections. Whether it is huge spending on advertising or vote buying or buse of state resources or corruption in nondemocratic systems. The importance of this factor is recognized around the world. In a recent study of 180 countries, they couldnt find a single one that didnt have at least some legislation in this field. This includes some late comers including my own native sweden which passed its first law in this field in april of this year. However, there is also growing understanding that creating laws is only the first step. The vast majority of Political Party and Campaign Finances laws around the world are not implemented. Supporting legal reform is an important part of our work but it is only the first step. The vast majority of our work focuses on supporting the implementation of such regulations. As part of this, we cooperate with many Public Institutions such as election management bodies that have mandate to enforce legislative provisions. I want to mention the recent published hand book which is in your packets and there are many caller s available outside. This caller s available outside. This is part of our training in enforcement curriculum. One of the people who helped to us field test this it was commissioner. We spend a lot of time assisting Civil Society groups that monitor Campaign Finances including in the elections last week. In their report which would be out in a month or so should be the first monitoring report ever in north africa. During the last 15 years, we have supported political finances nishive in over 40 countries and there is no sign at the need for this work is declining. One excellent example political finances work can never end is the United States. Even though the first rules came in this country over a century ago and several decades have passed, there is a lot of work still to be done. Indeed, many are arguing that the transparency in oversight of the role of money in u. S. Politics has gotten worse in the last few years. We will hear more about this issue from our two speakers and i will hand over to Trevor Potter. Thank you. And its a great pleasure to be with you today. I admire the work and have had an opportunity over the years to spend time with groups such as yours who are coming to these elections. I enjoy it greatly because it gives me a chance to step back and think through what you are about to see. But i have to say that i think what you are about to see and hear explained by the commissioner and myself is probably more confusing today than at any time that i have known in my professional career. So i dont necessarily envy you trying to figure it all out. We are trying to figure it out ourselves. Im glad you are here and thank you for your opening remarks sort of setting things in context. Because i think americans tend to forget there are other democracies in the world struggling with the same issues we are. They are not unique. From your perspective you will have an opportunity to see how the issues raised of how money is spent, how it is disclosed are indeed ones faced by most countries, any country having an election. Is a tem has constitutional system. So we have a constitution that created two branches of congress and an independent and judicial branch. Congress passes laws which means they have to pass both chambers, the house and senate. Then they have to be signed by the president. They now are a law but they are interpreted by the Supreme Court under two circumstances. Either if a case arises where a party says we think the law says x and another party or the government says no the law says y and in those circumstances, the dispute goes to the court to resolve what congress meant. The other circumstance in which a dispute reaches the court is where someones whose activity governed by the law says that the law is contrary to the constitution. That congress and the president have created a regulatory system which is not permitted by our constitution. And that actually is something that the court has said frequently in recent years. For much of our history the court had nothing at all to say about congressional regulation of money in politics, of limits on who could spend, on disclosure. In the middle of the 20th century we had a scandal called the water gate scandal which involved a great deal of money being spent by the Reelection Campaign of president nixen, some of it contrary to the laws that existed, some of it not disclosed, some of ate peering oser to a bribe and congress enacted a new set of laws that limited money and disclosed money. There our Supreme Court stepped in when those laws were challenged in court. What they said is that our constitution, specifically the First Amendment of the constitution limited the power of government to regulate the raising and spending and disclosure of money in politics. Our First Amendment is in my experience reasonably unique amongst countries in it is an absolute prohibition on government doing certain things. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise there of or abridging the freedom of speech or the press or the right of people to assemble and petition the government for grievances. All of this went back to the period of the revolution in the late 1700s and was a reaction to things that the British Government had done in the american colonies. But if you listen carefully, you didnt hear anything about the government regulating or not regulating the spending of money in elections. What has happened over time is that the u. S. Supreme court has interpreted the piece of that that says Congress Shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech to encompass spending money in elections or giving money to candidates or parties as a version of speaking. The theory clearly speech is standing on a Street Corner and speaking or speaking with a microphone, although you would have to pay money for the microphone. Certainly if you are speaking by taking out Television Advertisements in a system where we do not have government television, it is all commercial , and you have to pay for advertising or mailings or phone calls or staff, all of that cost money. The Supreme Court has said there are circumstances in which government may regulate the spending of money. There are others in which it may not. Are going to we decide when those cases come to us. And makes figuring out what to do and what the government may do in this area very complicated, particularly because that members of the Supreme Court change over time. As an example, Congress Passed in 2002 the mccainfeingold campaign format. It was designed to deal with Problems Congress that had arisen since the watergate laws. Those laws were challenged in the court. It were almost entirely upheld by the Supreme Court. There was a change of one justice who retired current anything felt differently. The court since then has on back struck down an important reason of a lot of it just upheld. If you are congress writing iraq, you do your best, youre not sure what the court will do. The court itself may not be sure depending who was on it at that point. The final piece of this structure that complicates life administratives it in cities whose job is to administrative agencies whose job is to interpret the laws. Case, the Principal Agency is the federal Election Commission which i was a commissioner of some time ago. Agency is essentially evenly balance between the parties. Not more than 30 of any one party which in practice has meant three republicans, three democrats as our two major parties. That commission requires four take anythe six to action or to enforce the law. The good news is that means no one has control and can use it against the other party. That was the design. It requires no commissioners to be sincere about making the law work. You have to compromise and agree. What has happened with the federalottle Election Committee is that on moston has split 33 major votes to enforce the law. What this means is an important piece of our system that is the agency that is supposed to say you have to disclose your funding, you cannot do that, you violated the law, is unable to function. The result is no police man on the beat. The result is that things get wilder and wilder. No one is there to stop them. That is our structure in terms of how we get laws and who interprets them. Let me briefly summarize the system such as it is that we currently have as part of that structure. Congress has said that there is a limit to how much individuals may contribute to political candidates and political parties. Those limits have been upheld by the Supreme Court and are not particularly high. 2600 for an individual giving to a candidate. More if the individual wants to give to a party committee, but not a great deal more. The practical limit of what you can give to the Party Committees, the three Party Committees directly is about 100,000. A lot of money in any country, that not enormous given what is being spent in our elections. Congress said and the Supreme Court has agreed so far that operations and unions may not give directly to candidates or parties. Only individuals, only u. S. Citizens, and permanent residents. Foreignign governments, countries, foreign individuals. That money is required to be fully disclosed so every citizen will note who is giving to the parties over a very low threshold. Above that, their contributions are going to be disclosed. , the u. S. O that Supreme Court said it is permissible to limit how much individuals give directly to candidates and Party Committees, but is not permissible under our First Amendment right of free speech to limit how much spendduals can go out and theheir own to advocate defeat of a candidate. You have two different systems here. You have they give money to candidates and parties. That can be limited. Spend it on your own. So out and take your money, by tv advertisements and say, vote for obama, vote for romney, defeat so and so. Reelect soandso peered they have done a great job. Be limited in terms of what individuals spent and after a case called citizens be limited asot to what corporations and unions can spend. Congress had said about 100 years ago corporations and unions cannot spend money in elections. That had been the case in this inntry until Citizens United 2010. There has been a significant change. U. S. Corporations and unions have the same rights as u. S. Individuals to spend unlimited amounts of money. Ist the Supreme Court says part should be disclosed. It is required to be disclosed under the law. If i take out a at the says would be smith i required to file with the government something this is a took out this ad to reelect smith and it cost me 2 million. I would have to disclose it. A new development has occurred which i have sounds confusing, so bear with me, is that instead of my taking out an ad in my own unionor a corporation or which according to the spring court can do the same thing, committees have formed called meanspacs which simply political committees that are registered and reporting with the federal Election Commissions so they disclose their donors and they can take all of this corporate and individual money and run the ad in their names. Of the individuals and corporations have an unlimited right to speak and put their money together into a super pac. Lets call it americans for a better tomorrow. Whatever that is. It will run the ad and say paid five by americans for a better tomorrow. You may not know who they are. It is public information. The press can go and find out who the donors were. There is another Group Spending money. That is called dark money. It means money that is not disclosed as to its source. These are not super pacs. They are ngos. Nonprofit organizations that are created by individuals or corporations. The principal purpose is not supposed to be to engage in politics. Otherwise they would have to and report their donors. Nonetheless, they can spend and do spend a lot of money on politics. Their creation and their disclosure should be regulated by the different government agencies. For a variety of reasons, it is not doing anything about those groups. Situationded up in a where it was never envisioned by and confusingly was apparently never envisioned by our Supreme Court when it changed the loss. The Supreme Court change the laws. The Supreme Court says it will be disclosed. What has happened is that corporations unions and individuals who are willing to disclose who they are, give to a super pac that reports and spends an unlimited amount and you know who the donors are. If they want to hide who they are, they give to one of these and is referred to the designation under the tax code so youll hear 501 c 4 . Dont worry about it. It is an organization that spends money in politics and for variety of peculiar reasons that are peculiar to our system do not have do disclose their donors. My friend commissioners agency does not have four votes to enforce that law. That is one of the three votes that has been trying hard to enforce that law, but there isnt a majority. We have a peculiar administrative failure where an Administrative Agency is not doing its job. The only way in our system to get it to do its job is to sue it in court. A judge has agreed that they are violating the law. The case is still stuck in court. Thency is still result is we have a great deal of money being spent and a lot of it. Hundreds of millions of dollars is not disclosed as to the source of the funding. Unitedsult of citizens and union money, we have also a great deal of more money being spent in elections than we traditionally come historically have. Any system that doesnt have public funding for house and senate candidates. The election you are seeing this year is totally private funded. If it is by outside groups that are supposed to be independent of candidates and parties, it may or may not be disclosed depending on whether it is through a super pac or one of these ngos. Thank you. The commissioner will tell you how bad the system i described is in practice in terms of the amount being spent. Thanks for that leadin. He is a republican and i am a democrat pete we disagree on issues of campaignfinance i am a democrat. We disagree on issues of campaignfinance. For not getting a representative sample of a debate that usually takes place between democrats and republicans on these issues. I went to take a step back. I think there were important principles at play here. When issue that is important in the country is courts in particular have been extremely protective of the right of every citizen to criticize the government and to do so without fear of any kind of penalty or reprisal. Hat is a bedrock sensible it is an important principle. It is important to remember that. If you watch a that tv ads and they are often ugly and unpleasant to watch, i think one has to take a step back and remember why do we allow this . The court see this as a former protect the rights of citizens to criticize their own government. There are different ways that one might know about doing that. I think it is interesting in take ational group to look at some of the different ways that one could come to these issues. In this country, our courts have a very libertarian perspective. A believe strongly that the best way to encourage the most robust is by issues of concern having no limits on spending. Goes on behind that way this side could spend all they want and the other side could spend all they want and all the issues will be fleshed out and we will have a great, robust debate. That is not the only way one could look at this. One troubled to the north if one traveled to the north, they believe they are protecting the speech rights. They look at it in a different way. When you have no limits, that allows wealthy people to dominate the debate and drown out the voices of others. And the way to protect the most robust debate and make sure everyone has a chance to get their points across is in fact you have some kind of limit on spending. You have two countries sidebyside, some similar histories and legal backgrounds, and yet their sports and laws have evolved in very different ways and have come to different conclusions on this precise issue of regulating campaignfinance and money in politics. Saidee with what was earlier that enforcement is a key component of Campaign Finance regulation or any system of Civil Enforcement of laws. If your going to have laws and no one is enforcing them, you might as well not have them. System ofect a voluntary compliance. Some will, particularly candidates will be most motivated to voluntarily comply, because they have a reputation interest at stake. People other saying they are lawbreakers. Then people wont vote for them because they dont want to vote for lawbreakers. The created from candidates, the. Ast three comes to their we have is removed from the candidates and are running ads, it is not transparent who is behind them. No one is really countable for the message. Then you get into some political ugly and that is very very negative and not necessarily reliable. Known is being held accountable for that message. When we talk about money in politics, the question Everyone Wants to ask is how much money is being spent. Here is a lot this year we will probably end up spending close to 4 billion on this election. The president ial election two years ago was spent between 67,000,000,000 dollars. The 2016 president ial race will undoubtedly the more expensive. To that number and it makes headlines and they think wow, that sounds like a lot of money. In fact, we probably spent more money last week on halloween where children dressed up in costumes and we hand out candy and have parties than the 4 billion that we will spent on this election. A very large economy and a lot. F economic actors the key question is not how much money is raised, but how is it raised and spent . Is it done in a way that is transparent . Is it done in a way where someone is accountable for the money that is being spent and the messages put out there . When known is accountable, the message becomes a lot less reliable. Does it promote citizens participation . When of the problems with having isative ads out there which more likely a more prevalent we have more independent spenders when money gets further from that candidates is that the voters get turned off. As they say that they are not interested in participating. Small donors are less interested in dissipating. If they see the wealthy donors are giving so much. Why should i get 25 when i see there is a billionaire out there who is giving 25 million . What will my 25 do . Voters say they see negative ads. I do not want to vote for any of these people. Negativethat ramifications that could discourage participation. The bottom line concern is is this being on it being raised and spent in a way that is legal . That is not corrupting of the entire process . I think there are a lot of people in this country who have concerns about that. Splitsd say that the 33 that trevor alluded to on our commission are prevalent, but it doesnt work the way you think it might work. It is not a question of the three democrats protecting democrats from the three republicans protecting republicans in enforcement matters. There is an ideological divide that the republicans on the that then believe First Amendment protects all of this money that is being raised and spent and we shouldnt be regulating it. The democrats believe that there are laws on the books, laws about disclosures that has been upheld. They were upheld and they should shouldn we investigate groups that appeared to be engaged in political activity and arent registering as political committees. Like ah it sounds partisan dispute, it is more of an ideological dispute about how the laws should function in terms of regulating politics. Why does it matter who is behind these ads . Part of it goes to how credible they are and part of the rationale for disclosure goes to information the boaters, away with. I will tell you a story. In my home state of maryland, we had a question on our ballot of whether to allow casino gambling in our state. This is something that is decided by state law and a statebystate basis. Other ads that started to be run about this from various offices. Yes, this will bring money in. It will be good for economic development. Well have more money for education. We should vote yes. Then a group started advertising. I look to see who is behind the ad. Paid for by the Committee Supporting vote no on proposition 6 or 7. I forget which number it was. I got no information from that. These ads say there is no way of knowing these money this money will fund education. It is in the giveaway to casino interests. Dont support it because we have Disclosure Rules come it came out that the sole funder behind these ads saying vote no was a competing casino in the next state of west virginia. They didnt want the competition from maryland casinos. That affected how i view those ads and how i assessed what was going on in those ads. These were people who cared about the education of the children in maryland. They just wanted to protect their profits in west virginia. With the initiative passed, the yland and signed an application to open a casino in maryland. It is important that voters know who is behind the ads. We have a system where it changes from one election to the ,ext changes as we go along but increasingly since 2010, a system or more money is raised from fewer donors and with less disclosure. Top 10 senate races in , the senate is where a lot of the attention is being focused. The senate made changes from democrat to republican. In the top 10 races, most of them, there is more money i along shot being spent by outside spending groups than by the candidates themselves. In the most expensive race in north carolina, which is not a big state, not inexpensive media market, but the most expensive race so far. Over 12 million was spent in that one state of which over 80 million came from outside spending groups. Candidates are shaking taking on a smaller role in their own campaign. Some of the spending groups are run by friends and associates of the candidates and are funded by the same donors who support the campaigns. Sometimes they are supported by family members of the candidates. Yet these groups claim they are independent of the candidates. This issue of independence of Campaign Spending by outside groups has become one that is very contentious at the commission and in the legal community. That, we have the candidates and the Party Committees that are very transparent and file disclosure reports with us that tell everyone every donor of over 200 and every expenditure of over 200 very detailed reports. This another category of super pacs that trevor described. With us. Ile reports not as frequently as the candidates do. They held off their donors until after the last report was due before the election. As of october 15, that was the for theorting period super pacs. All of a sudden we are seeing a flood of ads by these groups. One wonders, how could they afford this . Report, they didnt seem to have a lot of money . There will be this flood of advertising and no one knows who is paying for it. In the last week, the ads have been coming in from outside groups on the order of 20 million a day. A lot of money being spent. Then there are those who do not disclose at all. We will eventually see the ads and will know from forms that are filed with the federal Communications Commission how much money was spent on ads. We wont necessarily see all of the money that is spent by these groups. The sum of its will go to reaching out to voters and trying to bring them to the polls. Theres a whole infrastructure that is developed by these groups that shadows the party organization. Billion nurse you are creating their own little Party Organizations that are mimicking what the parties do, but in a less transparent way. We may never know how much money is being spent on those endeavors and where that money came from. Problem in our democracy when we are moving away from disclosure. I think the voters have a right to know who is supporting the candidates. The candidates need to be accountable for their own supporters. We are moving towards a less transparent system and also a system that is empowering more wealthy people. We are seeing fewer donors. More money, but fewer donors. As i said, i think some of the smaller donors are feeling less encouraged to contribute when they see how much money is flowing. A lot of the big donors are giving a lot of money. Were talking that tens of millions of dollars from individuals. Going back to whether this is a , one has torocess ask what will those donors expect in return for those massive contributions . Where we areof today and went so of my concerns are as someone who tries to enforce the laws. Thank you very much im grateful to both presenters. We will open the floor to questions and comments. Raise your hand so we can give you a microphone. Andse introduce yourself any affiliation. Keep questions and comments brief. Yes, sir. Talkk in every big in arabic. Sorry. [speaking in arabic] why the members of this commission are not independent and dont along to either democrats or republicans . Is there penalty imposed on those who are using political money in the wrong manner and has the commission the right [indiscernible] political money. Thank you for listening. One more question before we turn it over. The Political Party, where do the get the money from . Campaigning cannot be separated from money. What kind of violation has been with campaign financing, how did you resolve that . Thank you. More before wene had over. Thank you. I am from haiti. And i would like very much to learn a little more about the financing of elections. I have heard it said that candidates do not have Public Financing available to them. You for members of the federal electoral commission, do you have funds that you channel into the election, are you a source of funding at all . Without public funding how does that happen, im wondering. Thank you. Thank you. We have questions about ointing commissions commissioners. Five questions about sanctions s. Violation let me start with your question about where the appointees to the federal Election Commission come from. Like anything else in our system, it is a result of inevitable compromise as laid out by our constitution. Officials of the government entities, Commission Like the federal Election Commission are called independent he are people who have to be nominated either president so selected by the president and then approved, confirmed by the senate. So you have a compromise between the president and the senate. In reality, what has happened for the entire existence of the commission is that the party that has presidency picks its people and the other party which is represented in congress by leaders of the party choose their people. Even though they are technically president ial nomination, if the president tries to nominate someone for one of the other theirseats without consent, the senate will not confirm them. So that you have a compromise as it has developed. You have the democrats being appointed by the president conferring with his party and the republicans being selected by the Republican Leaders in congress and then the president officially nominates them and both are confirmed together. I think i am right in saying the have only been to commissioners confirmed in the last six years. Were appointed before this presidency because there has been no agreement between the parties, another area were we have deadlocked. They have been no new commissioners. And the ones like commissioner weintraub who were there before remained there because nobody has been successfully appointed to replace them. It is the closest thing to perpetual life that we have in our government. If you had not left you probably could still be there. Trevor is right. I was appointed by president bush, republican even though i am a democrat. My name was recommended to the president by the Democratic Senate leaders at the time. That is typical. We should have some sort of an independent commission. That is clear. Other countries do. Our norms have not caught up with that. You have the question of who selects the independents, who make sure they are truly independent, and not a wolf in sheeps clothing. Those are issues but there are ones will have to address because our current tax system is creating a serious problem. To have one who is an independent. He is a person of no party. He is not a democrat or republican. He was selected to fill a democratic seat and he generally votes the same way as the democratic commissioners because that is what he believes is complicated, it was set up to be a Bipartisan Commission so that one party varioust control and at points in its history has worked at a and it today. As trevor pointed out at the beginning the last five or six years, it has not been working very well together. There has not been a lot of common ground. At the early part of my tenure we did a much better job of that. I hold out hope that could happen again. Largely private in this country. We have a system of Public Financing only for the president ial race, not for the house or the senate. Various states may have their own system of financing for their state level elections but at the federal level there is private financing except for the presidency. The way our Supreme Court interpreted that law that allowed Public Financing, they said it could not be required. It is a voluntary system. And the way the system is set up , if one accepts the outlook funds, one has to accept expenditure limits. What has happened over the last number of years since 2000 is it has become clear that candidates even under contribution limits have been able to raise a much than the expenditure limits would allow them to spend if they took the public money. That they do not participate. Needs to be amended. There are bills to fix it but theyre not going anywhere. There was a question about enforcement. The commission has the authority to impose penalties. Most of what we do is to enter into negotiations and try to come to a Settlement Agreement once we agree there is a violation, but the problem of late has been getting to that agreement that the violation is a law. We have several hands in the air. This is what happens when you talk about Campaign Finance. You simply run out of time. People are waiting at the back of the room. To respect the agenda, we will have to continue the discussion during the break. We will try to grab our two presenters before they leave the building. Trevor and ellen and i sat in this particular trevor and ellen and i sat in this particular situation. We will in the 2016 election as well, which is when we will be electing a new president. Two things that i heard things are getting wilder and while there and more money is being raised from fewer donors with less disclosure. There is a lot of work still to be done. On behalf of myself, i want to thank Trevor Potter and ellen weintraub. I want to thank all of you for your participation. If you are interested in Campaign Finance, please grab me at any point during this event. We will take a break and we will reconvene at 4 00 in this room for a session entitled, more power to more people, for the americans with disabilities act and expanding political rights. Thank you very much. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] tomorrow defense secretary will discuss combating isis. The 2015 cspan student cam video competition is underway. Open to all middle and High School Students to create a 72 three to seven minute documentary. The government has affected you or your community. There are 200 cash prices totaling 100,000 dollars. For a list of rules and how to get started go to student cam. Org. Journalist david tucker about the currently and that session of congress and leadership elections for the next session. This is 45 minutes. Candice miller, we appreciate your time this morning. Washington journal continues. Host we are back with David Drucker to talk about the lameduck congress. What is the biggest item on the agenda . It depends on what you talk to and what the election democratsan for the to ram through before the majority expires. They need to pass more spending because the continuing resolution, basically the bill that is funding the government, runs out december 11. Tight to that is the tied to that is the approval to arm and train the Syrian Rebels to fight the Islamic State of iraq and syria. I know members want to vote on a measure that would grant the president new authority to fight this war, which is essentially what it is, even though the Administration Says they have all the approval they need going back about 10 years. So, i think for republicans and for democrats, they will have to decide we need to fund the government, do we do something big, clear the decks, get a lot of things done, and let it run deep into next year through the end of the fiscal year, or do they do something short set the full Republican Congress that will convene in january with republicans controlling the senate and the house, and then vote on something more expansive and have the power to direct spending that way . Host go ahead. Guest i was going to say related to that is to deal with crisis. Isis. Is a feeling there is a feeling among republicans that it should be the newly elected congress that should deal with that longterm and not the outgoing congress. All of this is part of the calculation. Finally, i would throw you in on whether the president follows through with his promise to Illegal Immigrants some form of amnesty or the right to any in the country through executive action. That would depend on how republicans in the house in particular deal with the government funding bill in december, and that could really affect the politics of this, and it could affect how republicans look at things in december and affect whether they want to do something short term to get to january, or have the fight right then and there. Host both sides are waiting for an opening salvo. Has there been that yet . The president said he would act on immigration. Guest he has done that and both Mitch Mcconnell, the incoming majority leader, and Speaker John Boehner said do not do it, it will cause problems. Whether or not you think this is the right thing to do, whether or not you think republicans are correct in not wanting the president to do this, the truth is if you talk to not just very conservative republicans, people affiliate with the tea party, but the establishmentminded republicans, people that do not want to pick unnecessary fights, talk to them what a largescale legalization move, up to 5 million talk about what that would mean. That would mean to them the president was infringing upon their Constitutional Authority and place in our system of government and it would leave them no choice but to fight back, and to fight back aggressively, using really the only means that they have, which is the power of the purse. That is when the expiring resolution continuing resolution excuse me, becomes a very big deal. It also means, they could decide let not have the fight in january. So, everything gets caught up in this backandforth over immigration, isis, ebola funding, funding the federal government . Guest i think ebola funding can be done separately. Most want the government to effectively deal with a ebola so we can probably deal with that separately without getting it cut off. Also, fighting isis is something that could be dealt with separately. Again, there is wide, bipartisan agreement that has to be dealt with. There could be differences in terms of how it should be funded, how the war should be prosecuted. A lot of this will depend on for. The president asks because republicans control the house and will control the senate, they will not give the president a blank check , but they want the president to spell out the warfighting powers he wants approval for, and that is probably something the democrats will demand as well. The vote to grant the president Additional Authority for isis which Everyone Wants and necessary, ands the administration has said is good for the country, it depends on if the Administration Sends a resolution, and depending on what it says, congress would tweak it on the floor, so it is a long process. You could separate that out from other things along with ebola, but immigration could affect everything else. Out could use separated from the money needed to fight isis because the administration wants another 6 million for this. Guest there could be some quibbling on either side of the aisle about the money, but the big thing is what is the strategy. You will see hawkish republicans if you look at how the senate an taliban,you have anorak war veteran, putting that together with the dan iraqvan, and a rack an war veteran, putting that together, it becomes easier to spend money on the military and a war on terror type of action. I do not think that is as problematic as it would have orn, lets say a year ago, two years ago, when republicans were looking to cut everything including the military and the libertarian wing at an extended influence on foreign policy. Host the lameduck congress convenes today. David drucker taking your comments and questions about what this congress will do. The phone lines are open. Start dialing in now. Talk about the other factions of the party. You say the republicans would like to do certain things. When it comes to the continuing resolution, in passing some sort of funding bill, is the tea party of the Republican Party on board with the spending that they want to do . Guest well, we do not know until we know what the bill looks like. If we are talking about what is going to happen in december, the tea party and the budget option the republican side will still wield enormous influence in terms of getting 218 republican votes on the house side. You still have a Democratic Senate and a Republican House. The president , i am sure, just wants to make sure the government is funded. It could be easier to do something that is bipartisan, sort of, acrosstheboard. It is the same way we saw the last continuing resolution get a broad, bipartisan majority, because nobody wanted to shut of thee government ahead elections. A much of an internal fight the republicans have how much of an internal fight republicans have depend on what they do after the new congress convenes. Host well get to phone calls in a minute, but lets talk about what happens this week. Guest ok. Host much on the floor. What is happening off of the floor . Guest new member initiation. It is like the first day of school. You are dealing with eight new republican senators elect, and at least one dozen republican members of the house that are members elect, and at least two. Emocrats that i know of they will be here to figure out where their office spaces, where the bathrooms are, when recess is, when do they get to eat lunch, and they will start to put together their staffs and try to figure out the mechanics of running a congressional office. Ngs like writing a bill you read a bill and it reads like chinese. They need to hire people that know how to do that and turned their visions and agenda into legislation. Host who teaches them all of that . Guest well, i know in the senate each memberelect, each new member, if im not mistaken, as a, sort of, mentor that they work with, both of their party and of the other party. It is what they try to do in the senate to keep things collegial content issupposedly nature of the senate, and it helps them establish relationships, which in the senate are extremely important. In the house, i think it is something similar, but you end up with leadership staff working with new members to help them higher chiefs of staff, and other aids that are going to help guide them. Itt and this orientation, is not like it is one day it is about two weeks time. Guest correct. They said in a lot of classes, get a lot of direction. I do not want to oversimplify it or diminish it, but in some ways it reminds me of college orientation. I remember 20something years ago, before my first day at school, you know, they sent us through one or two days of classes to help us navigate the university, figure out where everything was, and how to go about it, she what we were there to do. Get to calls. Sharon in minneapolis, democratic caller. Thank good morning, and you, cspan, for taking my call. I have two questions ok, i want to know more about what president obama wants to do with the immigrants, the Illegal Immigrants that are in the United States. I want to know what the republicans want to do, and what is the pro and cons of doing nothing . Also, my second question is about health care. If the republicans appeal the healthcare law, what will happen to all of these people that do not have insurance . I does not affect me because am 66, and you know, my insurance is fine, but what will happen, and how long will it whento get things running they do come up with some suggestions on health care . Host ok. All right, sharon. The healthcare bill will not be repealed because the president will not sign it. The senate will try to move it on the same time that they try to move their own suggestions for overhauling health care postobamacare, but the president is not going to sign any of it, so the most youre going to see, possibly, is a repeal of the medical device tax that helps fund the Affordable Care act, and possibly rewriting the law to move the official work week back from 40 to 30 hours, which republicans think has been a huge drag on hiring and employment. Continue to try to repeal all the way up to 2016 . Think first of all, i youre going to see repeal votes because republicans voted against this or ran on repealing it, and they just won a pretty big victory so there is no reason for them to feel they should not hold is votes. They will control the senate and the full congress, so they have the power to put a repeal bill on the floor and put other Health Care Overhauls on the floor, and i think you see them try to move it through. If they can get it to the president s desk, which is not necessarily that possible, but if they can get it partially to the president s desk, he will veto it. Republicans will have to try to sell the overhaul and hope they get something done after the president ial election in 2016. With immigration, with the president is looking to do is take a broader population of undocumented immigrants and so that their status they can live in the United States has legal residents. The question is, does he do something small on the level of 500,000 or so, but does he go two 5 big, 1, 2, 3, 4, up million, which is what a lot of democrats think he will do. It depends on your opinion of that policy as to how good or bad it is. Republicans, although they have different ideas for Immigration Reform and whether or not the system should be reformed than the president does, the issue for them, if the president goes big, he comes constitutional in their minds. It is not so much we do not agree with your policy. It is you do not have the Legal Authority to do this. Therefore, we have to fight it. Host some of our viewers will be interested in this story on the front page of the Washington Times this morning that, in order from the obama administration, according to comments made during this lawsuit. The Washington Times has that frontpage story if youre interested this morning. Daniel, virginia beach. Republican. You are up next. Caller hello. Thank you for taking my call. I do not think there is a thing wrong now that could not be fixed if he would simply reform entitlements. There is too much money going out of the treasury. It increases every year. The other day i was looking at some numbers on paper. I made a couple of tweaks that would save hundreds of billions of dollars every year if we just find the courage to do that. Thank you. Host ok, daniel. What do you think, David Drucker . Guest republicans are going to try to move some bills. I do not know how much will make to the president desk, how much he will sign, but with paul ryan as the chair of ways and means, which will happen, you will see House Republicans act on this. You will see Senate Republicans put her on the floor and move elements of entitlement reform. Floor and movee elements of entitlement reform. The question is, can it pass . Democrats, i am sure, will use the filibuster just as aggressively as democrats have republicans have in the minority. Host paul ryan will be heading up the taxwriting committee, the ways and Means Committee in the house. What about tax reform . Somewhere Mitch Mcconnell talked about as an area where he hopes the public and the democrats can find consensus, and there is a hope with the changing of the guard on capitol hill and more of a truly divided government you could get the president to come around on tax reforms impacting individuals that he has not been in favor on. The big disagreement on tax reform is that the president is all about Corporate Tax reform, which the republicans are, too, but he has wanted no part of their plans for individual tax reform glowing individual lowering individual tax code, broaden the base, flattening out the code. So, it is possible and democrats in the senate also have no desire to do that, at least not the leadership. Hoping, in are controllable houses, they could negotiate a compromise. Of wyden, the Ranking Member the senate financing committee, who could play a key role, has been where the republicans are on tax reform, generally speaking. Baucus, the last top democrat on finance, but harry reid has never been there. The changinge atmospherics on the hill could help bring this about. It is at least something republicans are pushing as hey, here is a big area we can compromise. They want to find some areas of compromise to prove to the American People they are wavingng among not just a red dashed governing, not just waving a red flag. Host orrin hatch guest he is a dealmaker. He famously cut deals with ted kennedy. Orrin hatch is the quintessential senator he is a dealmaker, conservative, but he feels he is there to legislate. It is something he would like to do, but again, it is going to come down to whether or not the president is interested in this and that opens up space for 60 votes. Democrats will need you will need to find six or seven democrats, maybe up to 10, depending on where the republicans are, to do bipartisan tax reform bills, and it seems that is how you will see tax reform, in the senate, it is bipartisan. Jesup, georgia. Democratic caller. Caller good morning. Host good morning. Caller let me get my thoughts i want my republican do what the republicans did, of struct, obstruct, of struct. This is mike much into you, mr. Drucker. I have heard this is my question to you, mr. Drucker. I have heard the republicans have sent bills and they will not come to the floor, but you have heard of the whip count. Of the bills, how many were for abortion . 40something for a motion. Obamacare. L i cannot remember how many it was for the keystone pipeline. This is my question to you, namely name me one bill the Republican House sent the senate to create jobs. Not two bills, but one. Please do that for me, sara. Host i did not all right. Guest i did not come with my cheat sheet, but the republicans will tell you they said dozens of bills to the senate that were never brought up for a vote and caused him frustration to know especially republicans who had not been in congress and came here with a schoolhouse rock view of how things were going to work where if we pass a bill, they have devoted down democrats did not choose to do that. Passed on the house side conservative priorities like prolife issues, repealing the Affordable Care act, and other things that democrats would find either politically offensive work, just to prove a political or, just to prove a political point. I think it is fair to say the same way House Republicans did not want to do anything Senate Democrats wanted, that Senate Democrats did choose to ignore a number of economic and jobs related bills passed by republicans because he simply did not agree with them, but they did choose to ignore them, and it did happen. Do we know assuming that harry reid becomes the minority leader for democrats, what will will he play . Harry reid is a very skillful parliamentarian. He was a minority leader before and ran circles around then send majorityate republican leader bill frist. He was effective at wielding the filibuster and keeping bill frist with a 55member majority, iur member republicans renumber republicans thinking they could do anything they want, and harry reid nature that did not happen. Made sure that did not happen. They have found that even if you have majorities, if you do not have 60, there are a lot of things you cannot do. I think you will see harry reid, as minority leader, if he is reelected this week, which we expect him to be reelected, i think you will see him be a very able follow to Mitch Mcconnell oe to mitch fo mcconnell as majority leader. It will be somewhat entertaining and i am going to enjoy it. When harry reid was the ,inority leader to bill frist many times he threatened a nuclear action. He never actually pulled the trigger. Senator harry reid did. I cannot tell you how much it made Senate Republicans want to slow things down even more. Some democrats say they could not have slowed it down even more. But said republicans reacted to Nuclear Option by saying Senate Republicans reacted to the Nuclear Option by saying we will cooperate even less. The question has been, for Mitch Mcconnell, because he was opposed to that move, will the reverse it . Will a vote to put the rules back to the way they were . It is something he said will be discussed. He said he wants to rinse it to regular order, give Committee Chairman there power back, to amendment. Open up the floor to amendments. There are political reasons to think that will happen. Whether or not he sets the rules back, i am not sure. The one thing that is different this time around for harry reid as minority leader and republican majority leader, there is a democrat in the white house, not a republican, so it will be different in terms of the decisions made and how they are viewed by the public. Host really quick, leadership elections are this week, and House Republicans next week, and next week House Democrats. Any races to watch, or will we see the same Leadership Team . Guest it looks like we will see the same Leadership Teams. On the republican side, you will see a lot of status status big. Ecause they won sometimes they are rewarded when they lose. They are definitely rewarded when they win. You are saying a race for the nationalhip of the Republican Senatorial committee between dean heller, the republican from nevada, and roger wicker, the republican from mississippi. Interesting thing about dean heller is if harry reid is on the ballot in 2016, he is from nevada as well, there is no love lost between those two, and that would make things interesting. I know whicker is trying to tell his colleagues he is one of the they were able to survive a run up against a tea party candidate. Scarsdale, new york. Cragg, a republican. Thanks for hanging with me. Caller thank you very much for taking my question. My question is, is there another part to the Nuclear Option, where if they wanted to go further, there is a way to do that . Someone said they did not go all of the way last time as far as pushing the envelope. Host all right. David drucker . The one thing harry reid did not do lets be clear what the Nuclear Option is. It takes a vote of 167 members to change a senate rule. Senate rules are not written. You create your parliamentarian rules within it. When harry reid did was change the senate along a simple majority. That is really what was nuclear because if they had done it with 67 votes, they never would have had the votes to do it harry reid did, which was to bring the number of votes it takes to break a filibuster down from 60, basically to 51. What harry reid did affected executive branch nominees, including executive branch nominees for judges, except for the Supreme Court. So, what could be done to go further . You could basically take away the ability to have a 60vote filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. I do not expect republicans to do that. There are actually republican and democratic analysts who would probably be in favor of doing that, and just say let the president have what he wants to we fight it out in the elections, but i do not expect Mitch Mcconnell to push this further, but you never know what another congress, another majority leader does not the rubicon has been cross. Host brandywine, maryland. You are up, joe. Caller good morning, greta, cspan, and mr. Drucker. One of the problems we have with our government is we need a realignment. The Supreme Court has become the head of congress, and they are the ones making the laws, and congress is supposed to make the laws. They need to realign the thing, and put it back into example give us an example of where the Supreme Court is making the law. Take for caller instance, the Affordable Health care. Host ok, lets take that example. Guest that decision will come down in the spring, for the end of june, and it will deal with whether or not the federal government has to follow the letter of the law which said to receive a subsidy to Purchase Health insurance you need to be buying insurance from a state exchange. Many people are buying from the federal and change put in place to deal with states that did not create their own exchanges, except the medicaid expansion. So, i think the question here is what does the Supreme Court decide, and do they make any decisions that are similar to what the Supreme Court did in the main obamacare decision, which was ruled that it is not a mandate, but attacks. They said they were not raising taxes, but forcing you to buy a product. Thread the chief justice areneedle, he said mandates illegal, but taxes are fine and i am calling it a tax. That is how it survived. Some people want the Supreme Court to interpret the purpose of the law, even if it was not written in a certain way. Others want people to interpret the law as written, and sometimes laws can be open to interpretation because they are so unclear, and it is the reme courts job to make a what we refer to as a final interpretation at least until another law is passed. Have about 15 minutes here or so with David Drucker of washington examiner. Taking questions about congress the lameduck returning to washington. They will be in session for about 12 legislative days, out for thanksgiving, and then adjourning for good in mid december. George. Knoxville, tennessee. Independent. Greta. Good morning, i guess the question i have for david is, in my view, the biggest security problem, and the biggest problem for this country is our huge debt. I know the administration has been making a lot of noise the last two years because of the improving economy and some. Egree of control by the house they have reduced the annual deficit, but we still have in the order of active a billion dollars i mean half of a trillion dollars a year of annual deficit. Do you think the lameduck congress,or the next is going to do anything effective on the National Debt . Know, effective is the operative question. I would not look for anything in the lameduck. I do know republicans say in the new congress there plan is to try to rein in federal spending and try to rein in the Regulatory Regime that has built up over the under the current administration. If youre looking for areas where republicans will openly pick fights with the obama administration, it is going to be on spending, because the main Power Congress has is the power to set spending limits. Look for them to attack us. The question is whether or not they can reduce spending over the long term and reduce the debt it is a different question. The president still has a veto and a large role to play. A federale spring for budget that he proposes to see how much different it is from the budget resolution you can expect the congress to pass next year. See how far apart they are to see where they might end up coming together. There is always a difference in washington in terms of spending, because you know, one mans waste of money, is another mans necessary object and program. I think it is the best way for the country to deal with the debt problem more jobs, and faster economic growth, because that speeds the increase of tax revenues into the federal government. Host on our line for republicans. Bill. Virginia beach. Caller thanks for taking my call. How are you . Host good morning. Caller i will make a statement and then ask a question. My statement is i do not think a whole lot will be a college in the next two years, mainly because until we get a republican accomplished in the next two years in the mainly because until we get a republican in the white house we will have a problem getting enough votes to overcome president ial veto. I think it will be mostly gridlock for the next two years. My question is do you know of any ideas that are on the drawing board or republican bills that have been conveniently pushed under the desk by the democrats and not brought to the floor for consideration which would reduce the cost of health care under the new healthcare law . I will stand by and listen to your answer. Host all right, bill. Guest it is a great question, because what republicans have been trying to grapple with is how do they Fix Health Care from their Vantage Point in a postobamacare environment. Plans, and there were a lot of them, were based a paris obamacare threeobamacare world. Or republicans were trying to figure out what to do was what do we propose to overhaul the new system, because what they are posing to do and there is one bill out there put together by a group of conservative republicans in what we call the republican study committee, which is a collective of the more conservative elements of the House Republicans congress, everyone is a member these days. They had a bill dealing with the Health Care System as it stands today. A lot of the proposals have to do with just loosely speaking, giving them the ability to purchase insurance across state lines and having more control over which dr. Dacey, and things of that make which dr. They see, and things of that nature. Any bill that would go away with the end of this congress would be reintroduced. What i would look for, if youre looking for republican proposes to do with health care as it currently is, and there is a huge amount of support in public to continue reforming Health Care Look for a joint proposal coming from paul ryan and marco rubio next year. Both of them might run for president. One of them might run for president , but they both spent a lot of time on this. You might not like it, but it will probably be the very first serious proposal to reform the obamacare system of health care the republicans have put out. In the partylout stared a bill like that could go far, especially paul ryan in ways and means. Host lets talk about immigration again. We learned that Chuck Grassley the senator from iowa, decided not to try for them finance Committee Chair should. He will stick with you dish era, the committee immigration legislation will have to go through. He is adamantly opposed. He was around 1986 when they passed Immigration Reform with ronald reagan, and he said anything is amnesty. He is up in 2016. He could have been in charge of a panel like finance where he could have cut a deal in tax reform, it decided to stay as chairman of the Judiciary Committee and be the foe for obama on immigration. Does that set him up well for 2016 . Guest i think, especially if Chuck Grassley is going to be looking over his shoulder in 2016 with a republican primary, it does. I do not know if he has to worry about a primary. They love him there. If tom harkin had not retired, he would be easily reelected. Chuck grassley, who was the republican on the debate, he made a decision on where he wants to be in the work he wants to do. He has been here so long. It is interesting because there are a lot of agricultural interests in iowa, but Chuck Grassley feels very strong about this. I think it signals what most people already know republicans are not going to be moving a, sort of, broadbased, comprehensive Immigration Reform bill like the one that passed the senate in 2013 again. You could look for president bill having to do with border bills,y targeted maybe having to do with employment revocation and things like that, but you will not see employment verification, and things like that, you will not see what the president wants, which is a broad bill. Does notck grassley have a republican challenger yet, but the des moines boblenger reported that krause is exploring a run. He explored this last year and threw his support behind the credit candidate jack hatch. Frank, fort lauderdale. I need clarification. The press makes like even though the republicans have both houses, no legislation can be passed. What exactly do they need in the senate in votes to override vetoes . 67 votes tot override vetoes, which means you will need 12 more votes than they currently are going to have. Well, currently, they will need 13 more votes. If bill cassidy wins a runoff in louisiana and ousts senator mary landrieu, they will need 12 more votes. The key then is they would need six more votes to get to 60. Democrats had a 60 vote majority and it was how they were able to get most of the Affordable Care act through. There is a narrow window, early next year, with the budget resolution, to avoid a filibuster and pass a piece of legislation with 51 votes. It is not a grab bag. Basically, one, thing. They will probably use it to pass an Obamacare Repeal not a full repeal, but a basic gutting of the law by getting rid of the individual mandate and a couple of other provisions. The president will veto it, but basically youre dealing with the need for six more votes and to override a veto in the senate you need to get to 67, and you need to get to something on the nature of 290 or something in the house to override a veto. Host one last phone call for you here comes from jordan in d. C. Democratic caller. Caller hi, am i on the air . Host you are, go ahead. I have a twopart question given congressional accountability given the fact that we have a lameduck congress. Is there any truth to the rumor that mr. Mitch mcconnells fatherinlaw shipped drugs into kentucky and contributed about 2 million to his campaign . Stop youdan, can i where did you hear that . Aller i heard it on broadcast on cspan. One of your callers called in and informed everyone. I would like to know, if it is true, what is going to be done about hearing this and asking questions, and possibly holding mr. Mitch mcconnell accountable . Host all right, jordan. For the was in kentucky last five days of the senate campaign, and with every tough race, there was millions of dollars and adds thrown at him and some regulations, the mcconnell camp found egregious. It is compared to those found typically egregious. This is one that was never heard. I think democrats would have been happy, and it would have if itmart to dig it up existed, but if we have not heard it, i do not think there is anything there. Go, this storyu in private polling, both sides saw the gop wave coming. What did you learn . Guest these are the polls the candidates depend on to make correct strategic incisions. If their message is not working, they need to try another message. They need to know that. Usually, some of the best polls out there are some of the private ones you never hear about. One of the reasons is when things are going back, and for instance, he for number democrats, things are going bad, for a number of democrats, they are going bad. They start to release internal polls and it shows them waning, but they are not releasing the real private poll, which shows we are in trouble. All of the private polling showed republicans having a good night, but some public polling did not show how good was going to be. The private polls, by the final few days of the campaign, were very clear, unanimous on both sides. We are in trouble. Youll never hear the losing side that says i have a private poll that will show me losing. They will never do that. The democratic pollsters in 2012 were just as good in 2014, but it was not as good of a night. For republicans, their polling was suspect in 2012. They felt they would have a good election. They did not. They went back and changed methodology. They were cautious as time. They gave democrats credit for expanding the electorate and do with turnout what they were promising to do. They do not want to get caught flatfooted. Even in the campaign, my cautious republican sources had grown bullish and said we are in for a great night. Host if you want to read t i enjoyed listening to him and the comments that were done today. As being in the middle east he accurate on and on her on point. I greatly enjoyed it. I hope you have more guests like that. He was right on target this morning. That ialling to say think cspan is wonderful. As to criticism i almost have none. I think you do a tremendous job. Of showing just about every side of thing and the way people look at things in d. C. And elsewhere. I take my hat off to you. Thank you very much. Continue to let us know what you think about the programs are watching. At comments cspan. Org or send us a tweet. Join the cspan conversation. Like us on facebook. Follow us on twitter. Security council held an emergency meeting on wednesday to address reports of Russian Military movement into ukraine. The u. S. Ambassador, samantha power, was there along with russian and ukrainian representatives. Good afternoon. 7003 hundred and 11th meeting of the Security Council is called to order. As you know the provisional aenda for this meeting is letter dated for 32014 from the ofent representative a ukraine to the u. N. Address to the president of the Security Council. The agenda is adopted. 37 ofordance with rule the councils provisional rules of procedure i invite the representative of ukraine to participate in this meeting. It is so decided. In accordance to rule 39 of the councils provisional rules of procedure i invite the following to participate in this meeting. Generalstant secretary at interim for political affairs. The chief monitor of the Osce Special Monitoring Mission to ukraine and ambassador, representative of the osc chairperson in office. It is so decided. I will come the investor who is adjoining todays meeting by video. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of item two of the agenda. I give the floor to [indiscernible] it will focus on two issues. The latest development relates to the conflict in the east of the country. I will provide a brief update for you and activities in relation to ukraine. Although there was no voting in crimea and parts that were under rebel control, elections were held throughout the rest of ukraine in a manner which osce democratic upholding commitments. Yesterday the Central Electoral Commission announced official results of the election. Discussions are underway for the formation of government and we are hopeful that the leading coalition will be committed to a rapid implementation of the comprehensive political, legal, and Economic Reforms to which the ukrainian authorities have committed themselves. The ability of the leading coalition to clearly the ability to work alongside the opposition will be key for the unity and stability of the ukraine. Also hope to see a start of a comprehensive dialogue to build could cohesion and address critical issues. Following the elections, the rebels have engaged in rhetoric, declaring themselves as independent from toaine and threatening expand the territory under their control. A full mobilization including of local armies and Security Forces was also announced