Transcripts For CSPAN Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20141106 : c

about earlier, is that more likely to give someone who has gotten things done outside of washington? >> it all comes down to the quality of the candidate, i think. candidate quality really matters. what is more important is the caliber of the candidate and and have aty to lead vision for the country than where they come from. >> i agree with what he is saying. you think about 2012 for week ended with people declaring they were not witches and that there was legitimate right. in 2014, it was really dramatic. we have is our front runner secretary clinton who is considered a supreme quality candidate by the voters. candidate whon really speaks to women's lives. she always has mobilized women voters and can be very effective. plan and weconomic will fight, fight, fight until the economy is back on its feet for ordinary people. i cannot imagine anyone better to nominate dan a clinton. i think 2016 is really good and i plan to be on vacation all of 2015. virginia and when i was walking out of the voting booth yesterday after really not deciding who i was going to vote for until the last minute, i realized i wish most people had a choice like this. gillespie and warner, that is the reason why we're so close because it was one of the places where people had to good choices. this is an electorate that is all largen on institutions, we have lost faith in them. we are really down on washington and politics. secretary clinton is an institution. an era when people are looking for change and freshness in a new way of covering in this however someone of her background breakthrough that, how do she make herself the change agent that i think the next president is going to have to be? sincerelyree with you a little bit about this change notion. it wasn't a true change election. if it were, republican governors would have lost, too. somethingessage, get done for a change. that is the change that people want. hillary clinton in her own record, and in general linens communicate a different kind of notion. it is competence, qualifications, getting things done every and the ability to compromise to do that. that is the history there. people have very positive memories of the clinton years, perhaps more positive than they were at the time. secretary clinton herself has shown an ability to work with the person that beat her in the primary. tom delay, she authored the foster care bill for children. last night was a mandate about get something done. >> in a few minutes we will be taking questions. if you line up at the microphones. do you agree with what she is saying about secretary clinton? >> there is no question that secretary clinton will be a very formidable candidate. i don't think anyone believes she won't be. i will sell you that it is exceedingly difficult for one party to win three presidential elections in a row. history suggest that is a very unusual event. it occurred in 1988 with george h.w. bush. keep in mind that ronald reagan was a far more popular president than barack obama. making the case that you are the candidate to follow an unpopular president for a third consecutive term for one party is going to be a very challenging case for her to make every >> besides the history, what else goes against her? because we defy history all the time. >> i think people think eight clinton presidency and a barack presidencyack obama would be very different. nobody questions her qualifications or experience. obamahe was part of the administration and a key component of the national security foreign affairs team that people now disapprove of obama for handling. it's going to be real tough for her to separate yourself from an administration in which she served. much smartere have questions out there than i have been able to come up with. any smart thinkers out there? >> you talked about the democratic issues coming mentioned minimum wage and legalization of pot. is that part of the republican agenda now? >> it should be. >> why? >> because the voters are in favor of it. the drug laws are a nightmare. this is an insane policy. we should be legalizing marijuana in this country. >> or changing the severity of the sentencing? >> we should be doing both. the majority of americans support legalizing marijuana. >> with regard to how the election outcome in the senate may have some impact on the president in terms of his judicial appointments, and specifically if a supreme court justice decides to retire over the next two years, how do you think that's going to play out, both in terms of who he might nominate as a replacement and how the senate might deal with it? >> i was going to say, in some -- my think honestly expertise is nothing more than i would have written in national journal. i think many democrats hope that everyone stays healthy for two years. is, it'sick answer going to be a very different nominee than it would have been before. there?ore questions out i want more from the audience, please. can each of you quickly mention the biggest warning sign use all in the results for your party? what was the biggest red flag for your party. >> i would say to red flags. well, how many. a couple of things. one is turnout. turnout, butlleled i think we have vastly underestimated and don't have enough respect for the turnout operations of republicans. it doesn't look like hours, but we don't tend to respect it. .e underestimated it >> i looked at the rnc micro-targeting effort. it is very real. the second thing is, we are not going to win anything if we -- the number one thing we need to do is lay out our economic plan and agenda for the future that ensures that everyone in this country can for themselves and their kids. >> a congressional committee put in place is light years better than it was two years ago. as we have learned, we have adapted. >> my column today will be on this. everybody be sure you see it this afternoon. >> which is why no one political party has a lock on everything. andother party adapts figures it out. the biggest warning sign yesterday was exactly what we saw coming, the exurb of march of demographic change. it will be 2% less white four years from now than it was yesterday. we got a third of the hispanic vote. with got to do better with hispanics, with asians. we have seen that coming. it is simply the challenge that .e have to meet successfully math is math. >> i appreciate your comments about the female voters. i'm curious if you can been some analysis on the female candidates that one last night. and don't pretend to be an expert, so correct me when i get it wrong. it seems like the gear of the republican woman candidate. there are two things that i that ior three things think happened. it outlic and women made of republican primaries better than they have in the past. democratic primaries are about 58% female. republican mayors are about 45% women voters. include some of the voters that are most in favor of women candidates. african americans, liberals. the republican primary traditionally has included some of the voters who are least in favor of women candidates. what you saw is republican women having a hard time getting out of their primaries. iowa,r it was utah or they got out of their primaries. , she was able to use her , forr and bracket independent women in her state as well. she is a real model for future republican women. last night was the year of the republican women. i believe we now have a record number of women in congress and a record number of republican women in office. >> least upon it is now the youngest ever republic -- a member of congress is 30 years old. >> a huge victory yesterday in a swing district in northern virginia. what is happening? >> you have better, more qualified, more capable females that are running and doing well. i hope that in the future, not all republicans e-mails will start an ad with the word castration in it. [laughter] >> but she carried it off well. quick she carried it off beautifully. ad and ahell of an hell of a campaign. >> if we could just pull back a little bit, i'm so interested in how vastly changing the populace is and how it is affecting all our institutions and leaders against two cents. for a pollster you are at t at the edge of change and how and pull quality information out of people. tell me how the polling industry has changed the last few years and where you think it is going. >> i will be glad to answer that question. i want to point out one demographic change we have discussed today which is also huge, and that is the rise of unmarried voters. 42% of all births to unmarried women. we talked about education which is something we have to bipartisan only work on. in places like omaha, it is already true. there is a sea change going on going to and it's demand a lot of changes in policy. >> and a disproportionate number of unmarried women stayed home. >> we would have won a lot of those senate seats because unmarried women voted 65% democratic. married women voted republican. this is a huge change and getting that turn out the vote is very important. both of us have more gray hair than we want to admit. more aside we try much combination of cell phones, online, over the telephone. field for longer times, because it is much more difficult to reach people. >> what do you think polling will be 10 years from now? >> our industry is in the midst of the same kind of transition that occurred in the 1960's when we moved from door-to-door interviewing two telephone interview. we had the same kind of complaints then. not everyone has the telephone, for example. if there is a survey that doesn't include cell phones, you should not pay attention to it, frankly. not exactly young person anymore, and i don't have a landline. the idea that you can do is significant survey without a significant portion of cell phones is fanciful. soon here at 50% very in our samples. then ultimately we've got to figure out how to go to online data collection. that has all kinds of challenges regarding randomness. you can have panels, but you still have to opt in to the panels. 10 years from now most of our data i think will be collected through some version of online data collection, but we have a lot of methodological challenges to work out. is really interesting. i thank you guys so much for helping us out. thank you. >> more now from the national law journal with a look at last night's election results and the likely impact on congress. former hear from senators olympia snowe and bob bennett. this is 45 minutes. thanks, everyone, for being here. i appreciate all these former members coming here right and early. it's the first thing we want to discuss is the question of whether the next congress will be able to govern any better than the current one, given what we saw last night. the hundreds of trinh congress has been historically unproductive, has gotten very the 100 13th- congress. after last night i think the big question is, with the bigger men -- republican majority in the house and a new republican majority in the senate, is this congress more likely to come together and agree on things and get the president to sign them, or less likely? >> i think most certainly the message should have been heard in this election. it was certainly a broad and sweeping repudiation of the status quo, of the dysfunction in the senate and the presidential leadership and policies. across the country people are fearful of the political paralysis in washington. i think it is abundantly clear that congress is going to have to move forward and learn how to legislate and to govern. messaging to governing. consensus has to be the operative language. it's going to be critical. i believe senator mitch mcconnell underscored that last night in his own speech, but also in a speech he delivered earlier in the senate this year, where he outlined how they wanted to restore the senate to what it was intended to do, which was to govern, to deliberate, to consider legislative initiative, to have robust debates on policy, have the committees considering legislation, marking it up and bringing it to the floor. it is returning to the senate -- returning the senate to its original purpose. i believe that's going to be his underlying objective moving forward. andoes that mean the house senate republicans will be coming together themselves on things and sending them to obama to see what he will do? arnold will they try to pre-agree with the white house and work things out ahead of time? the president will be meeting with the bipartisan leadership. that is the first step in the process. they have to learn to work together to develop political compatibility on the issues that matter to this country and synchronize that agenda. there will obviously be areas in which they differ. but first and foremost they have to find areas of common agreement to move the country forward when it comes to the economy and also on the budget. it would standpoint, be prudent and wise for the republican leadership and the president to work in sync on some of these critical issues. both in the lame duck, just getting what needs to be done. beginning,w congress establishing those areas in immediately,ree, such as repealing the medical device tax, for example, or infrastructure. ,> the two big issues immigration reform and tax reform are what people talk about most. the last nights results make either of those deals more likely? >> first, if i can mention that former councilman tom davis and i have written a book about the issue of partisanship in congress that will be out in january. you will hear more about it at that time. you correctly identified the two toughest issues, which will be the real test of whether you can have bipartisan cooperation. very difficult issue because you have a lot of s, and to try to resolve this issue will be a real test of whether you can operate on a bipartisan basis. immigration reform is a hardly complex issue. i often tell people that immigration reform makes social security reform look like a walk in the park. it's so difficult to come to grips with. those are the issues that will be the test of whether you can have true bipartisanship. when in congress in 1986 you did have the last immigration reform bill passed. it was not perfect and took a long time to get it done. the role of the president is very important here. hopefully, president obama will see these last two years as the opportunity to build whatever legacy he has as the president, and that he will then want to work with the new republican leadership in congress. that has yet to be determined how successful that will be. while the institutional problems you will have is in the house of representatives, there are so it eitherdistricts, safely republican or safely democratic because of the way the lines are drawn. republican are worried about a challenge from the far right and democrats worry about a challenge from the far left. people change their voting patterns because they are afraid they might lose in a primary, and that makes it more difficult to meet in the center and compromise. , we are allout hopeful and would like to see bipartisanship and cooperation, but we cannot tell you whether it is really going to happen. i think mitch mcconnell is a very able leader, at think he will want to try and get some things done. the question will be for him, just as john boehner has a similar question, how does he deal with the more extreme element in his own party? willing tothem to be join in this dialogue and do something constructive? we cannot tell that yet. the extreme element, the tea party element, had a veto power over what john boehner could do in the last congress. we are all hopeful. this is a new day. i'm old enough that i remember the cartoon when richard nixon was elected president in 1968. he had a clean-shaven richard nixon sitting in a chair and said everybody should get a clean shave, everybody should start a new. that is where we are right now. we will see if all these folks can work together. >> the idea that the house republican majority has gotten bigger and that a lot of tea party a line republicans are coming in its a lot of press attention. there are a lot of members elected from northeastern and upper midwest states who might be more sympathetic. to those new members may be push boehner in a direction toward compromise? york and aook at new couple of the other -- maine, for instance. you have the tea party faction but you have what i call pragmatists. people who want to govern. that's going to strengthen the speakers hand moving forward. you're still going to have the the people is, affectionately refer to as chuckleheads. mitch mcconnell and john boehner, you have two people who are dealmakers, who can put together the legislative packages. ertple talk about the hast rule in the house. it's not that you have to have but you have to have the majority of the republican conference. if you put together 120 republicans with a like number isdemocrats, and steny hoyer a great dealmaker as well on the other side. you can get some of these things done. we will see. to dance, buthas if the president dances, they can get a lot of stuff done. boehner had a little bit of a scare. there were a few members who want to vote against him for speaker. do you see anything like that happening again? >> you will have people show up on opening day and say i think we can take him. speaker's have circled the wagons as well and to the pretty clear, rabble-rousers, and the other lessons that emboldened the speaker come the republican establishment did a very good job of making sure that normal people were nominated. nuts,ou don't nominate the squirrels have nothing to eat. it was all about barack obama a nuts record rather than running against this person or that person. pick senator bennett, going back over to the senate, you know mitch mcconnell well. he said he would have a more open floor process, more freewheeling debate. he is even more circumspect on what he will do with harry reid rule changes on nominees. will he allow an open amendment process? hei don't know exactly what will do with respect to the rules. i do know that he is deadly serious about returning to regular order. he made that speech almost a year before the elections. in told by people that were the conference that republican senators came up to him and said if you do not do what you just promised to do, we will replace you as leader. one of the things it has been ignored with all the cutting and slicing and dicing of the data, half of the senate is in their first term. who has half the senate never seen legislation occur in their lives. they have lived with continuing resolutions and omnibus bills and blocking of regular order. they have never attended a conference of any kind between the house and the senate. they don't understand how that is supposed to be done. they don't understand how amendments have been handled. there, the normal pattern was, you had a string of amendments, you spent your time as manager of the bill, or managers, because you had a republican manager and a democratic manager, negotiating with all the people offering the amendment saying please do not offer that for the following reasons. or saying, we will accept that, and then we will drop it in conference. you end up with about four important amendments that are debated, voted on, and then you take the bill to conference. neverf the senate has seen an activity take place. determined to return to that kind of the world. when you go back to that kind of the world and start to educate the people who have come into do is make al you speech and all of the legislation is cooked into the leader's office, and then tucked pass crdrop into a must or something of that kind so that you as a senator have no input on any legislation, the leader takes care of all of that , for all of the historical analysis of lyndon johnson and how powerful he was, lyndon johnson never had the kind of harryative power that reid has abrogated within his office and staff and mitch is determined to change that. i think when that begins to happen, all kinds of good things will begin to happen. two managers have on the floor, republican and democrat, you have to get together. olympia has done it, she has managed. you cannot be mad at your democratic counterpart when you're trying to move a bill across the floor. all kind of one of things begin to happen and that is mitch's number one goal, he has an enormous advantage that is not available to most senators. he knows that he is not going to be president of the united states some day. consequently, he will focus on the institution and making it work. that if i were advising him at this point, i rid ofay do this to get some of the difficulties that gripped the senate and i think the house. it eliminates the sequester. go back to the days when appropriators made decisions based on what needs to be done instead of being locked in a straitjacket of a sequester that says we are going to lower the without regard to any need, all we thinking about is the top line number and we will force everything to that. if he can restore regular order and convince boehner to convince his troops, let's get rid of the sequester and go back to legislating intelligently, i think it would be enormously powerful. thingk it is the best that republicans can do in preparation for 2016. in 2016, the question will be couldparty which parties bowl of governing. right now the answer is neither one. if the republicans by controlling both houses of ongress and tamping down your comments, tamping down the chuckleheads, it can establish itself as the party that should win, i leave you with this one history, i am older than you are. i remember the cliche for nixon and so on. 1964. the analysis after 1964 was that the republican party was doomed. and it was only a question of how quickly a new party would be formed to replace it. because of the tremendous , to use president obama's word, that republicans had received in the 64 election. four years later, the republicans won the presidency because of all of the andiculties that were there the inability of the democrats to deal with their biggest problem which is the vietnam war. think that the republicans are doomed for the future, i don't think they will disappear. they have to demonstrate that they can govern and that means in the congress they have to demonstrate that they can legislate and that is mitch mcconnell's number one priority. >> i'm am old enough to remember even when appropriations used to pass bills and regular order one by one and most or all would get considered separately. do you think that all republican-controlled congress means we will go back to that or ?ould that still pass >> i was there when we birthed the blue dog coalition. after the devastation of the a-95 election cycle as we saw lot of change. i had a career threatening night, i looked around and saw a lot of blood on the table, a lot of colleagues around the south. . we put that centrist coalition together. we wanted to project that we will working legislators, we partyot there to carry labels or the president's agenda. it was a reaction there, but to pick up the pieces and say, we are serious about this. we intended for this to be a bipartisan group. the new republican leadership put its thumb on its members. we had committee assignments that they threatened us with an error member some interesting conversations about that that i tried to dodge but we did come together as a democratic group. but i made it to the appropriations committee. a serious appropriator with serious issues that affected my congressional district. getting those bills done was important to me. i know to senator mcconnell, mikulski, shelby, the appropriators over there that i know are serious about returning to the day when those bills can be passed, the job can be accomplished and not done by cr. the dust will begin to settle. what harry reid's attitude is now coming in off of this very bad night, that the democratic -- that the democrats had. quickly, because i want to involve the audience in this, we will see at the next two years, the message of last night is translated by new members and members coming back from the trenches. this is a time to fight the president, this is the time to repeal obamacare, repeal obamacare. we have serious issues that need to be addressed. process,priations certainly. you had issues that will seriously affect the economy. can tax reform be addressed? steve and i are involved -- i center board called forward. we try to bring ourselves together to bring senate members across the aisle, house numbers across the aisle, together over issues, specific topics to try to show what kind of give and take is going on. i hope we see more of that. >> on the question of regular order and i was in the house for 26 years, we have had a succession of speakers starting with newt gingrich continuing through nancy pelosi, continuing through dennis hastert, john boehner, all of whom have said they wanted to return to regular order, none of whom actually did it. they decided they needed to write bills in the speaker's office. order,ng to regular maybe that is possible in the senate. it is hard to do because leaders of the house are not inclined to go to regular order. have ae inclined to strong speakership and to have a top-down operation. it is very hard because you have democratic and republican speakers. there are very few centrist that are there that moderate with their leadership is coming from. >> he took some stance and make some deals with republicans that his own party was not happy with. i'm wondering if you think that president obama will react by bucking his own party, by willing to do things that a majority of this party does not want to do. >> it really rests with the attitude of the president. if the president decides that he really does want to try and get things done on a bipartisan basis and he is going to take some risks then i think democrats will follow his lead, if he kind of hides in the white house, if he doesn't take a strong role, then i'm afraid it would be much harder. i am hopeful the president will in fact look to his legacy and provide some real leadership. >> one of the big issues that has bedeviled hungers is the debt ceiling, it is coming up again, maybe in march, maybe in tax revenues. senator mcconnell has made clear his not interested in government shutdown. the issue whether it moves in a clean way like the white house hass wanting or it conditions attached to it, i am. says do what you think will happen. >> they need to have a bipartisan agreement that that is not going to be where they will spend their time. >> what do you think? >> i think certainly they don't want to repeat the fiasco of the debt ceiling crisis in 2011 which could have been avoided. you think about all of the crises that has occurred, designed by congress. everyone was manufactured. i am sure that senator mcconnell intowant to avoid getting a major conflict on that very question because frankly we are in the worst postrecession .ecovery in history needsesult, the economy certainty. i'm sure they will find a way to pay forward. that would mean other issues along the way, setting the agenda. what will be key for senator mcconnell and's weaker boehner is to agree on the areas in which they should take action. frankly, that is what is different today than it was in previous times when all of us served is that the first year after the election, you could really count on legislating and governing. now, the perpetual campaign. establishing that agenda, because the more conversations between the president and the bipartisan leadership and regularizing those meetings between the president and bipartisan leadership and communication will be essential. they both had to have the motivation to make divided government work. that is what the american people want. the will occur in legislative process. you have got to nail it down sooner rather than later. certainly on these critical questions. i'm sure that senator mcconnell and speaker boehner will want to clear the decks so that they can begin a new. >> a test for senator mcconnell will be whether he is willing to thatted cruz from my state he is a leader, ted cruz is not the leader. he is got to make it very clear that he is in charge and that ted cruz cannot be the tail wagging the dog. >> mitch mcconnell may not envision himself as president but a lot of other republican senators envision themselves as president. we could have multiple members of the chamber running all at once. will that make it harder for mcconnell to move things when you have people that want to make a stand? >> there is no candy or politician in washington and mitch mcconnell. nier politician in washington van mitch mcconnell. things not being there, this comes from , mitch has very carefully, very methodically, very much under the radar isolated ted cruz. he is kind of sealed him off like the body puts a sack around some foreign manner. formed party caucus was that was going to be so powerful, we heard about that in utah when mike lee was elected and he said, oh, you're not going to be will to do anything. he said, i'm going to have -- we're are going to take over. by the time they got through, it was ted cruz and jim demint. and randemint left paul didn't join, marco rubio didn't join, and all of these other people. well, maybe we will stay away from this. and mcconnell, i do know some specifics of people who publicly they're saying, he will not be for mcconnell and i know theately that they have had conversation and now there with mcconnell. and crews will look around and there will not be that many people with him. mcconnell can deal with this. >> we are couple of minutes away from the audience to -- q and a section. there are microphones that you can't stand that if you want to line up. so, a couple of more minutes of conversation and then we will go to the q&a. one more question i had, we can talk briefly about health care and if it will get repealed. do you think it is possible that the parties will agree on some smaller part of the affordable care act that might get fixed or repealed? paul ryane like recognize that it is probably not good to have the 59th vote to repeal obamacare in the opening session. that there arel some decent prize to the affordable care act and some really horrible parts, the process was up noxious. it requires that you have buy-in from both parties and in the public buys in. there has to be an alternative, that you cannot just be hell no, that you have to say, let's repair and replace. so i think there is the opportunity to do that. i do want to go back to regular order and the appropriations process. the dumbest thing that the house of representatives was to illuminate earmarks when it comes to behaving in regular order. people misunderstand it, i was bought off or bridge or that. that happened a couple times in my 18 years but i will tell you that more often than not if you were on the bubble on a 900 page bill and somebody said to you, well, we can take care of something that is important to is logrolling, it is a cost any more money. but senator flake and his crusade to and earmarks i think has done tremendous damage to the ability of the leaders to get their folks in line and legislate. >> can the new congress ring consensus on infrastructure, roads, clean water, safe water, other infrastructure? about thatight know more than anybody. >> the congress better address, those issues have been postponed. we saw a rahal having lost his race. i broke my teeth on that committee when i came to the congress. not to belabor the air marks issue but that bill has been part of the surface transportation which has been a hard pill to crack without the issue of earmarks or directed funding in the bill like that. that is a perfect example of a serious piece of legislation that is overdue for bipartisan participation. >> complete abdication of leadership by everybody in washington on the infrastructure question. we have known since we wrote the bill in 2005 at you have to have more money. there are only a couple of ways you get more money, you tax important barrels of oil. thepresident has been awol, congress has been awol and no one wants to take the mantle. as a republican, transcontinental railroad, interstate highway system, the republicans are known for building america. we should be ashamed of ourselves. >> i wondered what the panel thought harry reid's approach is going to be in his new job as minority leader. will he be a perfectionist or will he be a dealmaker. harry when he was in the house. i heard, served with him when he was in the house. he is a very able skilled politician. i don't know how he is going to approach things. i think that he understands that it is in the interest of everybody that there be progress on some important issues. have a situation that he had in the selection, he and if you really try to protect the senators who came from red states and not having to cast a lot of hard votes, that is not the case. he is not in control. mitch mcconnell will not be in control. i am hopeful that harry will find a way. harry and mcconnell are both very capable people and it is just the question of whether they can sit down and work this out in a mutually agreeable way. they are both skilled politicians. >> one person asked an interesting question, how does trade including trade promotion authority look as an area for bipartisan cooperation? the majorityssue, of democrats are heavily influenced by my friends in organized labor on trade issue. the republicans will have the votes now that they are in the majority to pass trade legislation, depends on the president's attitude, whether he is really to work with him and agreed to sign it. will be easier to move trade legislation now that the republicans control the senate but there is no guarantee. >> of the pesto great deal on how much leadership the president decides that he is going to insert. pro-tradeent has been and the divisions in the congress are strong enough that you cannot get it done kind of. you've got to be very firm and very solid, i think that if president obama comes out and says, ok, this is what we have to do on the trade issue, and democrats get in line and support me on this, i think you'll get that back. >> probably the best he can do to get a significant minority of democrats to agree and you will not get a majority of democrats on that issue, but if you have enough democrats to join with the president and with the republicans, you have a real chance. nafta and itd with happened with china. the majority of democratic congress voted no but there were enough democrats willing to vote yes that you can achieve it but we will see. this is a very difficult, tough issue. >> what do you think the election portends for what will get done during the lame-duck session. >> very little. we have all served in lame-duck sessions, they are frustrating and not overly productive, i will speak briefly, i hope they can reach an agreed upon on the bus appropriation bill rather than just pointing this to the next congress but even that remains to be seen. but in 2010 there was a very productive lame-duck session but i would not expect that to take place now. basically, it will be what has to pass at this point between either continuing resolution or omnibus. he did to mid-next year or two the end of the fiscal year. next october and beyond that, maybe the internet tax freedom and several other items, but i doubt this would be productive. >> they will get in and out of town as quickly as they can. >> they are anxious to get a shot at some omnibus effort. you have been national defense authorization act which has been .assed every year you got in the lame-duck some serious issues that can be addressed, more funding for ebola, loose ends that inevitably present themselves, will they do a quick in, quick out next week. with a continue into december? >> if i were a republican serving in the senate, i wouldn't want much done in the lame-duck because i would want to do for as many things as i could until my party would be in the majority. institutionally, it will be hard to get things done. >> mcconnell says he wants a clean slate. that is, he would like to get everything put together and passed and done so the republicans don't have to deal with a bang hangover of the other congress. and it's interesting that two senators have sent him a formal letter saying they will object and you can guess who the three names are. >> if one objects, then that is it. >> i would like to ask what the actual incentives are for this congress to work together and cooperate because it seems that you had an instruction is andress in the last session republicans obstructing the legislative process in the senate. what exceptions are there was ich a narrow majority and mean the republicans almost shut down the government and they were handed victory. >> wait a minute. the control of the senate was in democratic hands, the person who kept bills from coming to the floor was the democratic majority leader, you have democratic senators, former up , furious, for example because they cannot get any other legislation even discussed , any of their amendments even , back to my opening statement, mcconnell is going to open that up. it is not the obstructionist republicans who have shut down the senate, it has been the strategy of harry reid, which i understand, i think you made a mistake, i can understand his motives in going that direction. what will harry be like? harry learns. i think that harry will recognize, ok, i had a strategy, we tried it, it didn't work. i am willing to change. he is also a senator who knows he will not be president of the united states and has great respect for the institution. i think there is a great opportunity here for something moving forward. >> what incentive do they have? was in a throw the bums out mood. there were more democrats up and republicans. democrats got tossed out in the senate. there are more republicans up and democrats and if the defendant is able to act, and the republicans would be in a throw the bums out mood in 2016 and a lot of republican senators will suffer. there is a party incentive to try to get things done because they have some new people up in the next election. >> also, both sides have an interest in getting something done, yet the republicans are making their own image and also the democrats in the way in which they handled the senate. basically, shut down. a denial ofwas offering amendments. in fact, they were only allowed to vote on 11 amendments over a year. the amendments are the bridge towards consensus. if you cannot offer amendments, you cannot reach a compromise on any legislative initiative. they were all about messaging and not about solving the problem. that is what is fundamental it difficult and that is what mitch mcconnell was to return to. the opening day in both the house and senate will be critical in terms of the message sent, the roles that are we have come up with a number of recommendations in that regard on how to institutionally change, a lot of which dovetails with senator mcconnell's proposal. it will be crucial because if you don't have a process, you cannot move legislation forward, and that is what has been absent for too long on so many of the issues that the american people care about. if either side becomes they face peril in 2016. that window is very limited in which they can function. so, there is a lot of interest on a mutual basis to be viewedve and not to be as being obstructionist. >> don't think that the public's love bus for throwing people out of office was satisfied just with the 2014 election and if congress cannot function, there are a lot of people will be in trouble in 2016, so really it is getoth parties interest to some agreement but it is more so in the republicans interest because they have a lot of their people up in the senate in 2016. >> i want to thank my panelists for joining us. we did not get to all of your questions. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> president obama and incoming majority leader senator mitch mcconnell held news conferences. we will hear from the president and senator mcconnell here tonight on c-span. later, we will bring you more postelection analysis from "the national journal." one of the races we continue to keep an eye on is the virginia senate race. it was senator mark warner's margin of victory is subtle that votes in000 -- 13,000 his race for a second term against republican ed gillespie. warner declared victory over gillespie late tuesday. in a remarkably close contest for a second term that is likely to tarnish the democrats image as an untarnished force in virginia politics. the contest was so close that gillespie declined to concede, raising the possibility of a recount. in virginia, the loser can ask for a recount if the margin is less than one thing percent of the total amount of votes cast. you can read more at washingtonpost.com. at a newsobama said conference he understands the frustrations of voters who gave senate control to republicans. he was asked whether the election was repudiation of his policies. this is an hour and 10 minutes. >> good afternoon, everybody. have a seat. today, i had a chance to speak with john boehner and congratulated mitch mcconnell on becoming the next senate majority leader. i told them both that i look forward to finishing up this congress's business and then working together for the next two years to advance american business. look forward to the prospect of working together. i look forward to hosting the entire republican and democratic leadership at the white house on friday to chart a new course forward. republicans had a good night. they deserve credit for their campaigns. i will leave it to all of you that's what stands out to me is the american people send a message. one they have sent for several elections. they expect the people they elect to work as hard as they do and expect us to focus on their ambitions and not ours. they want us to get the job done. all of us in both parties have a responsibility to address that sentiment. still, as president, i have a unique responsibility to try to make this town work. i hear you. we had to give americans more reason to feel that the ground is stable beneath their feet. the future is secure. there is a path for young people to succeed. and folks here in washington are concerned about them. i plan on spending every moment of the next two years doing my job the best i can to keep this country safe and make sure that more americans share in its prosperity. this country has made real progress since the crisis six years ago. the fact is more americans are working. unemployment has come down. more americans have health insurance. manufacturing has grown. our deficits have shrunk. our dependences on foreign oil is down, as are gas prices. our graduation rates are up. businesses aren't just creating jobs at the fastest pace since the 1990's, our economy is outpacing most of the world. but we just got to keep at it until every american feels the gains of a growing economy where it matters most, and that is in their own lives. obviously much of this will take action from congress. i'm eager to work with the new congress to make the next two years as productive as possible. i measure ideas not whether they are from democrats or republicans, but whether they work for the american people. that is not to say that we won't disagree over some issues that we are passionate about, we will. congress will pass some bills i cannot sign. i'm pretty sure i'll take some actions that some in congress will not like. that is natural. that is how a democracy works. we will find ways to work on issues where there is broad commitment among the american people. i will offer my idea. i will offer areas where you can respond together to economic needs. take one example. we all agree on the need to create more jobs to pay well. both parties have been for jobs, recreating the infrastructure. roads, bridges, ports, waterways. we can hone in on a way to pay for it through tax reform that closes loopholes. we could also work together to grow our exports and open new markets for our manufacturers to sell more american made goods through the rest of the world. we share the same aspirations for our young people and i was encouraged that this year republicans agreed to investments that expanded early childhood education. i think we have a chance to do more on that front. we have some common ideas to help more young people afford college and graduate without crippling debt so they have the freedom to fill the good jobs of tomorrow and buy their first homes and start a family. and in the five states where a minimum wage increase is on the ballot voters went 5-5 to increase it. that will give about 325,000 americans a raise in states where republican candidates prevailed. so that should give us new reason to get it done for everybody with a national increase in the minimum wage. so those are some areas where i think we have some real opportunities to cooperate. i'm eager to hear republican ideas for what they think we can do together the next couple of years. there is still business that needs attention this year. there are things we can work on before the congress wraps up for the holidays. i'm submitting a request for funding to ensure that doctors, scientists, and troops have resources they need to combat the spread of ebola in africa and to increase our preparedness for future cases here at home. second, i will begin engaging congress over a new authorization to use military force against isil. the world needs to know we are united behind this effort and the men and women of our military deserve our clear and unified support. third, back in september congress passed short-term legislation to keep the government open and operating into december. that gives congress five weeks to pass a budget for the rest of the fiscal year. when our companies are steadily creating jobs which they are we don't want to inject any new uncertainty into the world and the american economy. the point is, it is time for us to take care of business. there are things this country has to do that can't wait another two years or another four years. there are plans the country has to put in place for our future. and the truth is i'm optimistic about our future. i have good reason to be. i meet americans across the country who are determined and big hearted and ask what they can do and never give up. and overcome obstacles. and they inspire me every single day. so, the fact is i still believe in what i said when i was first elected six years ago last night. all of the maps plastered across the tv screens today and for all of the cynics who say otherwise. i believe we are more than a collection of red and blue states. we are the united states. and whether it is immigration or climate change or making sure our kids are going to the best possible schools to making sure that our communities are creating jobs, whether it is stopping the spread of terror and disease, to opening up doors of opportunity to everybody who is willing to work hard and take responsibility, the united states has big things to do. we can and we will make progress if we do it together. and i look forward to the work ahead. so with that, let me take some questions. i think that our team got my list and we will start with julie at associated press. >> thank you, mr. president. you said during this election that while your name wasn't on the ballot your policies were. and despite the optimism that you are expressing here, last night was a devastating night for your party. do you feel a responsibility to recalibrate your agenda and what changes do you need to make to address the concerns that voters expressed with your administration? >> well, as i said in my opening remarks, the american people overwhelmingly believe that this town doesn't work well and it is not attentive to their needs. as president, they rightly hold me accountable to do more to make it work properly. i'm the guy who is elected by everybody, not just from a particular state or a particular district, and they want me to push hard to close some of these divisions, break through some of the gridlock and get stuff done. so the most important thing i can do is just get stuff done and help congress get some things done. in terms of agenda items, julie, if you look -- as i just mentioned, to a minimum wage increase, for example, that is something i talked about a lot during the campaign where voters had a chance to vote directly on that agenda item they voted for it. and so i think it would be hard to suggest that people aren't supportive of it. we know that the surveys consistently say they want to see that happen. that the key is to find areas where the agenda that i put forward one that i believe will help strengthen the middle class and create more ladders of opportunity into the middle class and improve our schools and make college more affordable to young people and make sure that we are growing faster as an economy, the key is to make sure that the ideas that i have overlap somewhere with the ideas that that the republicans have. there will be some ideas that i have got that i think the evidence backs up would be good for the economy. and republicans disagree. they are not going to support those ideas, but i will keep on arguing for them because i think they are the right thing for the country to do. there are going to be some ideas that they have got that they believe that will improve the economy or create jobs that from my perspective isn't going to help middle class families improve their economic situation. so i probably won't support theirs. but i do think there will be areas where we do agree on infrastructure and making sure that we are boosting american exports. and part of my task then is to reach out to republicans, make sure that i'm listening to them. i'm looking forward to them putting forward a very specific agenda in terms of what they would like to accomplish. let's compare notes in terms of what i'm looking at and what they are looking at. and let's get started on those things where we agree. even if we don't agree 100%, let's get started on those things where we agree 70%, 80%, 90%. and if we can do that and build up some trust and improve how processes work in washington, then i think that is going to give the american people a little bit more confidence that in fact their government is looking after them. [inaudible question from the gallery] >> julie, i think -- every single day i'm looking for how can we do what we need to do better. whether that is delivering basic services the government provides to the american people, whether that is our capacity to work with congress so that they are passing legislation, whether it is how we communicate with the american people about what our priorities and vision is, we are constantly asking ourselves questions about, you know, how do we make sure that we are doing a better job. that is not going to stop. every election is a moment for reflection, and i think that everybody in the white house is going to look and say all right, what do we need to do differently. but the principles that we are fighting for the things that motivate me every single day and my staff every single day, those things aren't going to change. there will be a consistent focus on how do we deliver more opportunity to more people in the country. how do we grow the economy faster. how do we put more people back to work. and i maybe have a naive confidence that if we continue to focus on the american people and not on our own ambitions or image or various concerns like that, that at the end of the day when i look back i will be able to say the american people are better off than they were before i was president. and that is my most important goal. so, but the other thing i just want to emphasize is i have said this before and i want to reiterate it, if there are ideas that the republicans have that i have confidence will make things better for ordinary americans, the fact that the republicans suggesting it as opposed to a democrat, that will be irrelevant to me. i want to see what works. some things like rebuilding the infrastructure or early childhood education that we know works. i'm hoping that the kind of attitude and approach that mitch mcconnell and john boehner expressed their desire to get things done allows us to find some common ground. jeff mason? >> thank you, mr. president. in 2010 you called the results of the midterm election a shellacking. what do you call this? and can you give us an update on your feelings about the immigration executive order and result in the aftermath of the election? does the election affect your plans to release it? is it likely to come out before the lame duck session is over, and how do you reduce the scope to just a million people? >> as i said in the opening statement, no doubt that the republicans had a good night. we will make sure what we do is to reach out to mitch mcconnell and john boehner who are now running both chambers in congress and find out what their agenda is. and my hope is that they have got some specific things they want to do that correspond with some things that we want to get done. what is most important to the american people right now, the resounding message not just of this election but basically the last several is get stuff done. don't worry about the next election. don't worry about party affiliation. do worry about our concerns. worry about the fact that i'm a single mom and at the end of the month it is hard for me to pay the bills in part because i have these huge childcare costs. worry about the fact that i'm a young person qualified to go to college but i'm worried about taking $50,000 a year out in debt and i don't know how i will pay that back. do worry about the fact that i'm a construction worker who has been working all my life and there is construction work that should be done but for some reason projects are stalled. if we are thinking about those folks, i think we will hopefully be able to get some stuff done. in terms of immigration, i have consistently said it is my preference to see congress act on a comprehensive immigration reform bill that would strengthen our borders, would streamline our legal immigration system so that it works and we are attracting the best and brightest from around the world and that we give an opportunity for folks who live here in many cases for a very long time, may have kids who are u.s. citizens, but aren't properly documented. give them a chance to pay their back taxes, get in the back of the line but get through a process that allows them to get legal. the senate on a bipartisan basis passed a good bill. it wasn't perfect. it wasn't exactly what i wanted but it was a sound, smart piece of legislation that really would greatly improve not just our immigration system but our economy and would improve business conditions here in the united states. and make sure that american born workers aren't undercut by workers who are undocumented and aren't always paid a fair wage and as a consequence employers who are breaking the rules are able to undercut folks who are doing the right thing. we got a bipartisan bill out of the senate. i asked john boehner at that point can we pass this through the house? is there a majority of votes in the house to get this passed? and speaker boehner i think was sincere about wanting to pass it but had difficulty over the last year trying to get it done. so when he finally told me he wasn't going to call it up this year, what i indicated to him is i feel obliged to do everything i can lawfully with my executive authority to make sure that we don't keep on making the system worse, but that whatever executive actions that i take will be replaced and supplanted by actions by congress. that is a commitment i made not just to the american people and to the business and evangelical community and law enforcement folks and everybody who has looked at this issue and thinks that we need immigration reform. that is a commitment that i made to john boehner i would act in the absence of action by congress. before the end of the year we are going to take whatever lawful actions that i can take that i believe will improve the functioning of our immigration system that will allow us to surge additional resources to the border where i think the vast majority of americans have the deepest concern. and at the same time, i will be reaching out to both mitch mcconnell, john boehner and other republican and democratic leaders to find out how it is that they want to proceed. and if they want to get a bill >> thank you, mr. president. i want to follow up on a couple of things and start with immigration. and are you concerned that if you sign an executive order on immigration before the end of the year it will scuttle whatever chances there may be for there to be some sort of compromise on the issues that you talked about? >> i wonder given the unhappy electorate why they publish the republicans versus the democrats by far? >> when it comes to the analysis, that is your job. what is also true is i am the president of the united states and understandably people are going to ask for greater accountability and more responsibility from me than from anybody else in this town. appropriately so. and i welcome that. and the commitment that i will make to the american people and the way i have tried to conduct myself throughout this presidency is i will wake up every single day doing my absolute best to deliver for them. there are areas where we have made real progress. i think economically i can look back and there is no doubt that on almost every measure we are better off economically than we were when i took office. but what is also true is there is still a lot of folks out there who are anxious and hurting and having trouble making ends meet or are worried about their children's future and it is my job to give them some confidence that this town can work to respond to some of those worries that folks have. and we haven't done a good enough job convincing them of that and i understand that. if they have been watching washington over the last two, four years what they have seen is a lot of arguing and a lot of gridlock but not a lot of concrete actions at least legislatively that have made a difference in their lives. and so we have got to make sure that we do a better job. and i'm committed to doing that. on immigration, i know that concerns have been expressed if you do something through executive actions even if it is within your own authorities that that will make it harder to pass immigration reform. i just have to remind everybody, i have heard that argument now for a couple of years. this is an issue i actually wanted to get done in my first term and we didn't see legislative action. and in my second term i made it my top legislative priority. we got good work done by a bipartisan group of senators and it froze up in the house. i think that the best way if folks are serious about getting immigration reform done is go ahead and pass the bill. and get it to my desk. and then the executive actions that i take go away. they are superseded by the law that has passed. and i will engage any member of congress who is interested in this in how we can shape legislation that will be a significant improvement over the existing system. but, what we can't do is just keep on waiting. there is a cost to waiting. there is a cost to our economy. it means that resources are misallocated. when the issue of unaccompanied children cropped up during the summer, there was a lot of folks who perceived this as a major crisis in our immigration system. now the fact is that those numbers have now come down and they are approximately where they were a year ago or two years ago or a year before that. but it did identify a real problem in a certain portion of the border where you got to get more resources. but, those resources may be misallocated separating families right now that most of us, most americans would say probably we would rather have them just pay their back taxes, pay a fine, learn english, get to the back of the line but we will give you a pathway where you can be legal in this country. so where i have got executive authorities to do that we should get started on that. but i want to emphasize once again, if in fact republican leadership wants to see an immigration bill passed they now have the capacity to pass it and hopefully engaging with me and democrats in both the house and the senate it is a bill that i can sign because it addresses the real concerns that are out there. and the sooner they do it from my perspective, the better. johnathan carl? >> thank you, mr. president. mitch mcconnell has been the republican leader for six years, as long as you have been president. his office tells me that he has only met with you one on one once or twice through the six year period. as somebody who came to washington promising to end the hyperpartisanship, it was a mistake to do so little to develop relationships with the republicans in congress? >> i think that every day i'm asking myself are there some things i can do better. and i will keep on asking that every single day. the fact is that most of my interactions with members, most of my interactions with congress cordial and constructive. oftentimes we haven't been able to get what is discussed in a leadership meeting through -- through caucuses in the house and the senate to deliver a bill. the good news is that now mitch mcconnell and john boehner are from the same party. i think they can come together and decide what their agenda is. they have sufficient majorities to make real progress on some of these issues. and you know, i'm certainly going to be spending a lot more time with them now because that is the only way that we will be able to get some stuff done. and i take them at their word that they want to produce. they are in the majority. they need to present their agenda. i need to put forth my best ideas. i think the american people will be able to watch us and they are paying attention to see whether or not we are serious about actually compromising and being constructive. and my commitment to them, and i said this when i spoke to them, is that anywhere where we can find common ground i'm eager to pursue it. >> are you going to have the drink with mitch mcconnell that you joked about at the white house dinner? >> i would enjoy having some kentucky bourbon with mitch mcconnell. i don't know what his preferred drink is, but -- my interactions with mitch mcconnell. he has always been very straightforward with me. to his credit, he has never made a promise that he couldn't deliver and he knows the legislative process well. he obviously knows his caucus well. he has always given me i think realistic assessments of what he can get through his caucus and what he can't. and so i think we can have a productive relationship. bill manning. >> thank you, mr. president. another deadline coming up is your negotiators by november 24 have to figure out if they will reach a deal with iran on a nuclear agreement. i'm interested what your current perspective is on how the negotiations are going? also, if it is your feeling that you have the power to implement any type of agreement that is reached without any action from congress? and then also wanted to quickly touch on the aumf. more of a codification of the limits that you put in place for the mission up to this point? or what should we be looking for on that when you send it to the hill? thank you. >> on aumf, the leaders will be coming here on friday. an expanded group, not just the four leaders but a larger group who all have an interest in the issues we are discussing today. and i'm actually going to invite lloyd austin the cencom commander to make a presentation about how our fight against isil is proceeding. and i think to answer questions and assure that congress is fully briefed on what we are doing there. with respect to the aumf, we already had conversations with members of both parties in congress and the idea is to right-size and update whatever authorization congress provides to suit the current fight rather than previous fights. in 2001, after the heartbreaking tragedy of 9/11 we had a specific set of missions that we had to conduct and the aumf was designed to pursue those missions. with respect to iraq there was a specific aumf. we now have a different type of enemy. the strategy is different, how we partner with iraq and other gulf countries and the international coalition that has to be structured differently so it makes sense for us to make sure that the authorization from congress reflects what we perceive to be not just our strategy over the next two or three months but our strategy going forward. and it will be a process of listening to members of congress as well as us presenting what we think needs to be the set of authorities that we have. and i'm confident we will be able to get that done. and that may just be a process of us getting it started now. it may carry over into the next congress. on iran, because of the unprecedented sanctions that we put in place that really did have a crippling effect on iran's economy, they have come to the table and they have negotiated seriously around providing assurances that they are not developing a nuclear weapon for the first time and they have abided by the interim rules. we have been able to freeze their program, in some cases reduce the stockpile of nuclear material that they already had in hand and the discussions and the negotiations have been constructive. the international community has been unified and cohesive. even countries where we have differences like russia have agreed with us and have worked with us cooperatively in trying to find ways to make sure that we can verify and have confidence going forward that iran doesn't have the capacity to develop a nuclear weapon that could not only threaten friends of ours like israel and trigger a nuclear arms race in the region but could over the long term potentially threaten us. whether we can actually get a deal done, we will have to find out over the next three to four weeks. we have presented to them a framework that would allow them to meet their peaceful energy needs and if in fact what their leadership says that they don't want to develop a nuclear weapon, if that is in fact true they have an avenue here to provide that assurance to the world community and in a progressive step-by-step verifiable way allow them to get out from under sanctions so that they can re-enter as full fledged members of the international community. but they have their own politics and there is a long tradition of mistrust between the two countries and there is a sizeable portion of the political elite that can cut its teeth on antiamericannism and still finds it convenient to blame america for every ill that there is, and whether they can manage to say yes to what clearly would be better for iran, better for the region, and better for the world, is an open question. we'll find out over the next several weeks. >> sir, if the -- on whether or not you have power unilaterally to relax sanctions to implement an agreement? >> there are a series of different sanctions. multilateral, u.n. sanctions, sanctions that have been imposed by us, this administration unilaterally and i think it is different for each of those areas. but i don't want to put the cart before the horse. what i want to do is see if we, in fact, have a deal. if we do have a deal that i have confidence will prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon and that we can convince the world and the public will prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon, then it will be time to engage in congress and i think we will be able to make a strong argument to congress this is the best way to avoid a nuclear iran. it will be more effective than any other alternatives we would take including military action. i would rather have no deal than a bad deal. what we don't want to do is lift sanctions and provide iran legitimacy but not have the verifiable mechanisms to make sure that they don't break up and produce a nuclear weapon. ed henry? i missed you guys. i haven't done this in awhile. >> i missed you. thank you, mr. president. i haven't heard you -- i haven't heard you say a specific thing during the news conference that you would do differently. you have been asked it a few different ways. i understand you said you are going to reach out. almost like you are doubling down on the same policies and approach you had for six years. why not pull a page from the clinton playbook and admit you have to make a much more dramatic shift in course for the last two years? and on isis, it was a pretty dramatic setback in the last few days with it appearing the syrian rebels routed, gitmo detainees who rejoined the battlefield helping isis and other terror groups is the report. my question is, are we winning? >> i think it is too early to say whether we are "winning" because as i said at the outset of the isil campaign, this is going to be a long-term plan to solidify the iraqi government, to solidify their security forces, to make sure that in addition to our air cover that they have the capacity to run a ground game that pushes isil back from some of the territories that they had taken, that we have a strong international coalition that we have now built but that they are on the ground providing the training, providing the equipment, providing the supplies that are necessary for iraqis to fight on behalf of their territory. and what i also said was that in syria that is complicated and that is not going to be solved any time soon. our focus in syria is not to solve the entire syria situation, but rather to isolate the areas in which isil can operate and there is no doubt that because of the extraordinary bravery of our men and women in uniform and the precision of our pilots and strikes that have taken place that isil is in a more vulnerable position and it is more difficult for them to maneuver than it was previously. there is a specific issue about trying to get a moderate opposition in syria that can serve as a partner with us on the ground. that has always been the hard effort piece of business to get done. there are a lot of opposition groups from syria along a spectrum from radical jihadists who are our enemies to folks who believe in democracy and everything in between. they fight among each other. they are fighting the regime. and what we are trying to do is to find a core group that we can work with that we have confidence in that we vetted that can help in regaining territory from isil and then ultimately serve as a responsible party to sit at the table in eventual political negotiations that are probably some ways off in the future. that has always been difficult. as you know, one of the debates has consistently been should the obama administration provide more support to the opposition? could that have averted some of the problems taking place in syria? and as i have said before, part of the challenge is, it is a messy situation. it is not a situation where we have one single unified broad-based effective reliable -- let me answer the question, ed. and so what we are going to continue to test is can we get a more stable effective cohesive moderate opposition. but that is not the sole measure of whether we are quote, unquote, winning or not. our first focus, ed, here is to drive isil out of iraq. and what we are doing in syria is first and foremost in service of reducing isil's capacity to resupply and send troops and then run back over the syrian border to eventually re-establish a border between iraq and syria so that slowly iraq regains control of its security and its territory. that is our number one mission. that is our number one focus. there are aspects of what is going on in syria that we have got to deal with in order to reduce -- our support for kurds in kobane, that is not just because we are trying to solve a syria problem. that is also because it gives us an opportunity to further weaken isil to meet our number one mission which is iraq. in terms of things to do differently, i guess, ed, the question you are asking is one actually i think i have answered. if you are asking about personnel, if you are asking about position on issues or what have you, then it is probably premature because i want to hear what -- >> something about the -- >> ed, what i would like to do is to hear from the republicans to find out what it is that they would like to see happen. and what i'm committing to is making sure that i am open to working with them on the issues that where they think that there is going to be cooperation. now, that isn't a change because i suggested to them before that where they think there is area of cooperation i would like to see us get some things done. but the fact that they now control both chambers of congress i think means that perhaps they have more confidence, that they can pass their agenda and get a bill on my desk. it means that negotiations end up perhaps being a little more real because they have larger majorities for example in the house and may be to get some things through their caucuses that they couldn't before. but the bottom line to the american people want to know that up -- and that i'm going to repeat here today is that my number one goal, because i'm not running again, i'm not on the ballot, i don't have any further political aspirations -- my number one goal is just to deliver as much as i can for the american people in the last two years. and wherever i see an opportunity no matter how large or how small to make it a little easier for a kid go to college. make it a little more likely that somebody is finding a good paying job. make it a little more likely that somebody has high quality healthcare. even if i'm not getting a whole loaf i'm interested in getting whatever legislation we can get passed that adds up to improved prospects and improve future for the american people. sam stein? >> thank you, mr. president. following the elections, congressional republicans are pushing for major reforms to the healthcare act. can you tell us what specific ideas you are ruling out? have the election results changed your calculus on reforming the law? and how confident heading into the second enrollment period? and have you settled on a nominee to replace attorney general eric holder? and if so, who is it? >> you want to spread out your news a little bit, don't you? you don't want it all in just one big bang. on the attorney general we have a number of outstanding candidates we are taking a look at now and in due course i will have an announcement and you will be there, sam, when it is announced. i'm confident that we will find somebody who is well qualified and will elicit the confidence of the american people and will get confirmed by the senate. on healthcare, there are certainly some lines i'm going to draw. repeal of the law. i won't sign. efforts that would take away healthcare from the 10 million who now have it and the millions more who are eligible to get it we are not going to support. in some cases there may be recommendations that republicans have for changes that would undermine the structure of the law and you know i will be very honest with them about that and say look, the law doesn't work if you pull out that piece or that piece. on the other hand, what i have said is there is no law that has ever been passed that is perfect. and given the contentious nature in which it was passed in the first place there are places where if i were just drafting a bill on our own we would have made those changes back then and certainly as we have been implementing there are some other areas where we think we can do even better. so, you know, if in fact one of the items on mitch mcconnell's agenda and john boehner's agenda is to make responsible changes to the affordable care act to make it work better i'm going to be very open and receptive to hearing those ideas. but what i will remind them is that despite all of the contention we now know that the law works. you have got millions of people who have health insurance who didn't have it before. you have states that have expanded medicaid to folks who did not have it before including republican governors who concluded this is a good deal for their state. and despite some of the previous predictions, even as we have enrolled people in the affordable care act and given more people the security of health insurance, healthcare inflation has gone down every single year since the law passed so that we now have the lowest uncrease in healthcare costs in 50 years. which is saving us about $180 billion in reduced overall costs to the federal government and the medicare program. so we are i think really proud of the work that has been done, but there is no doubt that there are areas where we can improve it. so i will look forward to seeing what list they have of improvements. >> the individual mandate one of the lines you can't cross? >> the individual mandate is a line i can't cross because the concept borrowed from massachusetts from a law instituted by a former opponent of mine, mitt romney, understood that if you are providing health insurance to people through the private marketplace then you have got to make sure that people can't game the system and just wait until they get sick before they try to go and buy health insurance. you can't ensure that people with preexisting conditions can get health insurance unless you also say while you are healthy before you need it you have to get insurance. there are hardship exemptions. some folks who even with the generous subsidies provided still can't afford it but that is a central component of the law. in terms of enrollment, we will do some additional announcements about that in the days to come. starting in the middle of this month, people can sign up again. i think there are a number of people who the first time around sat on the sidelines in part because of our screwups on healthcare.gov. that is one area, ed, by the way, is very particular. we are really making sure the website works super well before the next open enrollment period. we are double and triple checking it. a lot of people who maybe initially thought we are not sure how this works, let's wait and see, they will have an opportunity now to sign up and what has been terrific is to see how more private insurers have come into the marketplace so that there is greater competition in more markets all around the country. the premiums that have come in that are available to people and the choices that are available are better than a lot of people i think had predicted. so the law is working. that doesn't mean it can't be improved. major garrett? >> thank you, mr. president. and if you do miss us, allow me to humbly suggest we do this every week. >> we might. who knows? i'm having a great time. >> let me go back to immigration. moments before you walked out here, sir, mitch mcconnell said, and i quote, if you in fact use your executive authority to legalize a certain number of millions of undocumented workers it would poison the wealth and would be like waving a red flag in front of a bull. do you not believe that is the considered opinion of the new republican majority in the house and senate? and do you also not believe what they have said in the aftermath of last night's results that the verdict rendered by voters should stop you or prevent you from taking this action because it was a subtext in many of the campaigns? i will ask you a couple of specifics. republicans haven't made it a mystery -- >> do i have to write all these down? >> you are familiar with these. keystone excel pipeline. ask you to repeal the medical device tax as part of the mechanism to the affordable care act, and repatriate by reforming the corporate tax code without touching the individual tax code. to use your words, are any of those three lines you will not cross? and also deal with what you perceive to be republican attitude about immigration? >> i think, major, i answered the question on immigration. i have no doubt that there will be some republicans who are angered or frustrated by any executive action that i may take. those are folks, i just have to say, who are also deeply opposed to immigration reform in any form and blocked the house from being able to pass a bipartisan bill. i have said before that i actually believe that john boehner is sincere about wanting to get immigration reform passed. which is why for a year i held off taking any action beyond what we had already done for the so-called dream kids, and did everything i could to give him space and room to get something done. and what i also said at the time was if, in fact, congress, if this congress could not get something done that i would take further executive actions in order to make the system work better, understanding that any bill that they pass will supplant the executive actions that i take. i just want to reemphasize this, major. if, in fact, there is a great eagerness on the part of republicans to tackle a broken immigration system, then they have every opportunity to do it. my executive actions not only do not prevent them from passing a law that supersedes those actions but should be a surge for them to get something done. i'm prepared to engage them every step of the way with their ideas. i think we should have further broad-based debate among the american people. as i said before, i do think that the episode with the unaccompanied children changed a lot of attitudes. i think what may also change a lot of attitudes is when the public now realizes that was a temporary and isolated event and that, in fact, we have fewer illegal immigrants coming in today than we did five years ago, 10 years ago, or 20 years ago but that what we also have is a system that is not serving our economy well. so -- >> republicans who say the reelection was a referendum at least in part on your intentions to use executive authority for immigration. >> as i said before, i don't want to try to read the tea leaves on election results. what i am going to try to do as president is to make sure that i'm advancing what i think is best for the country. and here is an opportunity where i can use my administrative authorities, executive authorities, and lawfully try to make improvements on the existing system, understanding that that is not going to fix the entire problem and we are much better off if we go ahead and pass a comprehensive bill. and i hope that the republicans really want to get it passed. if they do, they will have a lot of cooperation from me. so let me just tick off -- on keystone there is an independent process. it is moving forward. i have given parameters in terms of how i think about it. is it going to create jobs and reduce gas prices that have been coming down? and is it going to be on net something that doesn't increase climate change that we have to grapple with? there is a pending case before a nebraska judge about some of the siting, the process is moving forward and i will gather up the facts. i will note while this debate about canadian oil has been raging, keep in mind this is canadian oil, this isn't u.s. oil, while the debate has been raging, we have seen that some of the biggest increases in american oil production and american natural gas production in our history. we are closer to energy independence than we have ever been before or at least as we have been in decades. we are importing less foreign oil than we produce for the first time in a very long time. we have got a 100-year supply of natural gas that if we responsibly tap puts us in the strongest position when it comes to energy of any industrialized country around the world. if you -- when i travel to asia or i travel to europe, their biggest envy is the incredible homegrown u.s. energy production that is producing jobs and attracting manufacturing because locating here means you have got lower energy costs. so our energy sector is booming. and i'm happy to engage republicans with additional ideas for how we can enhance that. i should note that our clean energy production is booming as well. and so keystone i just consider as one small aspect of a broader trend that is really positive for the american people. and let's see. okay. medical device tax. you know, i have already answered the question, we are going to take a look at whatever ideas -- let me take a look comprehensively at the ideas that they present. let's give them time to tell me -- i would rather hear it from them than from you. major, you know, conceivably i could just cancel my meeting on friday because i heard everything from you. i think i would rather let mitch mcconnell -- i would rather hear from mitch mcconnell and john boehner what ideas they would like to pursue and we will have a conversation with them on that. on repatriation, i said in my opening remarks there is an opportunity for us to do a tax reform package that is good for business, good for jobs and can potentially finance infrastructure development here in the united states. the devil is in the details. conceptually, it is something where we may have overlap and i'm interested in pursuing ideas that can put folks to work right now on roads and bridges and waterways and ports and a better air traffic control system. if we had one, by the way, we could reduce delays by 30%, reduce fuel costs, and hopefully that would translate into cheaper airline tickets. there is all kinds of work we can do on the infrastructure. this may be one mechanism that republicans are comfortable in financing those kinds of efforts. so that will be part of the discussion that i think we are prepared for on friday and then in the weeks to come leading into the new congress. whew. major works me, man. jim acosta? >> thank you, mr. president. i know you don't want to read the tea leaves, but it is a fact that your party rejected you in the midterms, by and large they did not want you out on the campaign trail in these key battleground states. how do you account for that and ur

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , New York , United States , Canada , Iran , Alaska , Kentucky , China , Virginia , Syria , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , Maine , Iraq , Nebraska , Israel , Massachusetts , Iowa , Utah , Americans , America , Canadian , Iraqi , Syrian , Iraqis , American , Mcconnell Mikulski , Marco Rubio , Mike Lee , Lyndon Johnson , Nancy Pelosi , Ronald Reagan , Van Mitch Mcconnell , Olympia Snowe , Dennis Hastert , Harry Reid , Dan A Clinton , Bob Bennett , Tom Davis , Barack Obama , Johnathan Carl , Lloyd Austin , Ed Gillespie , Jeff Mason , John Boehner , Sam Stein , Mitch Mcconnell , Richard Nixon , Newt Gingrich , Jim Acosta , Jim Demint , Ted Cruz , Paul Ryan , Hillary Clinton , Steny Hoyer ,