Transcripts For CSPAN Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20150105

Important and difficult policy decisions the president made early on. Josh, plunging oil prices and raising gas prices for infrastructure. In the past, you said is on the table. Is it on the table . We have put forward our very specific or postal for how we believe we can make the investment needed in infrastructure in this company. That is typically what the gas tax revenue is dedicated to. Closingbelieve loopholes and using the revenue for closing the loopholes and infrastructure upgrades. Some have different ideas, including raising the gas tax. That is something we will take a look at, but is not something we have considered from here. Among those, chris mercy chris murphy planned to raise by . 12 per gallon over two years. Are you ruling a gas tax increase out for something specific on infrastructure . Loopholes and using the i do not have anything about the specific topic. As it relates to specific proposals, we will certainly consider proposals put forward bipartisan proposals like the ones you mentioned. We have been clear about what we think is the best way to get this done. That is to close in the well connection wellconnected corporations and use those to connect investments in infrastructure that everyone benefits from. I recognize there are other things out there and we will consider those as well. The gas tax is a permanent and ongoing way to fund the infrastructure there it you are talking about a one time only closing of loopholes. You think others is that heck have adjusted the gas tax and should be replaced by another mechanism . I am not saying that, though some have pointed out that the fact that we have, that our vehicles on the road are becoming more fuelefficient, which means theyre using less gas, which means there will likely be less tax, what we have said is we believe there is a very specific way to close the loophole that will generate a revenue, that will allow us to make some investments in infrastructure. That is not a permanent funding stream for infrastructure. It could be. We are talking about permanently closing the loopholes. That would be a change in the tax policy. It could be. I know, but if you envision it as something that funds infrastructure over time, i do not understand how that becomes a permanent infrastructure. Just abolishing the gas tax. Something could be gleaned from generating the task code and revenue and that is of strategy is that i recognize those ideas and will consider those ideas as we put them forward. We believe gas prices are trending downward and likely to rivers in the nottoodistant future and you do not want to mess with anything in the price market for taxes. We believe we have a better idea how to do that. By closing loopholes, we could actually invest in the kind that create jobs and stimulate growth and the modern infrastructure we could all benefit from. We are open to the other ideas others with forward. We believe our ideas better. Our idea is better. There are a lot of Energy Economist who said, this is a time for a different conversation, because the prices are down, and there is more room with in what people used to budget and the restructure needs have not been any better. They have become more pronounced, if anything. It is time for a fresh look. You are not inclined to give it a fresh look and im trying to figure out why. We remain open to giving it a look. This goes to show in some ways compromise. We do not believe the best way to find modernizing our infrastructure is to raise the gas tax. We are willing to consider those bozos. We believe the best way to do that is to close loopholes that only benefit the wealthy and wealthy reparations here at consider your comments earlier that the president may or may not have a meeting with congressional leaders, it sounds like he out of we will not come looking at the schedule. Is it fair to say that is a lesser priority than getting out of the road and displaying the president s energetic pursuit of his own agenda, and not treating the new Congressional Republican majority as a secondary item not as important as his own rhetorical flourishes for this week . I am more interested in substances policy ideas that will get the economy moving and benefit middleclass families. That is what we will be focused on in our conversations with democrats and republicans for leadership as issues in congress. The president mess met with congressional leaders a couple of times and i am confident he will do it again earlier this year. It is a different crew and a different power structure during the lameduck. I know it is the same participants. Right. Different levels of power. Even in the context of the meetings they had in lameduck everybody knew what would happen after the first year, right . Everyone knew the president was not just meeting with the Senate Minority leader. He was also meeting with the majority leader. I do not think that will change the kinds of conversations they will have this year. Certainly, there is no reason we cannot do both, what the president wants to do is make progress by debating and putting in place, where possible thomas substantive Economic Policy ideas. Some of those, he can do on his own, he will require cooperation with republicans in congress to get done. There was no were against isis or an ongoing airstrike and now there is. He those questions. To what degree will the president used the state of the union to give an assessment of what has been accomplished and what remains to be done, and how does the ongoing conflict influence the Defense Budget being put together, and the ongoing discretionary capital was has one more year to go . Again, this has not been written yet. He has been, but ultimately, he is not the author of it. He has been working on it. The final words on the page will be the ones on january 20. We are trying to figure out how much does the president feel it is necessary or worthwhile to assess what is not a an insignificant matter. Im just trying to make it clear we are still having those kinds of discussions about what is actually being included in their and to what extent. I am confident as a general matter that the president will use the opportunity of that National Address to talk about the threat we face from isil, and what United States continues to do by leading a broader National Coalition of more than 60 countries to degrade and ultimately destroy them. A multifront strategy that includes air strikes taking into border troops on the ground. It involves combating foreign fighters, foreign finance, david just david david cioohen to crisiss methods in the muslim world. I am confident you will hear the president talk about this a little bit at least. The second question about Defense Department budget. Increased funding how disappointed we were, that congress did not act on the kinds of budgetary reforms for civilian and military leadership the pentagon said were desperately needed. I would anticipate all of that maybe not discussed in that much detail in the state of the union, but a priority as we talked to congress about the fiscal year 16 budget. Several more detainees were repatriated from guantanamo and that will be something in the next three or four months, would you be willing to say this company tends to accelerate in the early part of 2013 to move as many detainees as our movable . I do not have a lot of insight to what the shortterm plans are and what sorts of grievances are contemplated and what troops are up for transfer in the short term. It continues to be an important priority in this administration to ultimately transform all of the detainees out of guantanamo. They are too dangerous. That is why we need congress to take action to remove obstacles preventing the president from doing something he believes is clearly in the national interest, closing guantanamo bay. Are there any other pet names he has . To paraphrase a local baseball player here in washington dc, that is a clown question. Using bravo in my own response. I am not able to get much more insight about the private medications between the president of the United States and the Prime Minister of the united kingdom. Reveal publicly, do you have any reason to doubt the Prime Ministers assertion . Less i do not. They have a special relationship. Theater. Given Mitch Mcconnells republican majority, i want to get a sense for me right now, does the president think the American People should be scared of a republican governing majority . Interesting question. I think the president has been pretty clear that there has been a stark difference of opinion about which policies are actually in the best interest of the country, what kind of policies will be in the best interests of the middleclass families. That is, after all, the president s priority. In the policies we have seen republicans make, they do not share that priority. That is a strong difference of opinion. But ultimately, we will have to sort of see whether or not members of congress choose to abide by the new Senate Majority leader. One example i can thinkthat is, after all, the of is the prospect of defaulting on debt for the first time in our nations history. It is a scary prospect. Hopefully, it will not come that come to that. We will have to see, i guess i will say it anyway. The president does believe there are areas where we can corroborate. Setting aside whether or not they are scary we believe there may be an opportunity for us to find areas of Common Ground where democrats and republicans can come together to open up overseas markets for american this is, or reform the tax code in a way that would make it more simple and more fair and close loopholes that only benefit the wealthy and wellconnected. There may be things we can do to cooperate and make progress for the American People. The Police Departments nationwide, some of which indicated the rankandfile people feel betrayed by the president , attorney general eric holder. Basically, the loss of families. Members of Police Departments right now what the president believes is that he is clearly in the best interests of People Living in communities that have legitimate concerns, and clearly, the best interests of Law Enforcement officers to have legitimate concerns to come together to strengthen the bonds of trust between Law Enforcement officers and communities, and that is a pursuit that is important and would benefit communities across the country and would certainly benefit Law Enforcement officers who do the hero ework everyday of getting up and putting on a blue uniform and putting their lives on the line to protect the community they work in. That is a calling the president believes is worthy of our honor and respect. If there are things we can do to make it safer for them to do that important work, while at the same time, inspiring Greater Trust in the communities they are sworn to serve and protect, that is a good thing and a laudable goal and it hopefully will have the effect of fighting crime in communities all across the country. We will hear some remarks given the latest that has been taking place over there. Recently the Police Commissioner called it very an appropriate of the officers turned their back to the mayor during the eulogy. Does the president agree . I have not spoken to the president about it. I do think the commissioner did have an important view that he expressed here this is a letter that he sent to Police Precincts all across the city of new york. He said it is not all officers and it is not disrespect directed at detective ramos, but all officers were painted by it. He stole the valor and the valor mentioned. That was not the intent, i know, but it was the result. Broadly speaking, does the white house think the action is inappropriate . What i will say is the part of the commissioners letter that resonates most strongly here at the white house, is that those who are attending those funerals are there to pay their respect for the service and sacrifice of the two officers being laid to rest. Certainly, the president has believes that their service and sacrifice is worthy of celebration and respect and should be afforded to all of the outward symbols of honor they have been given. That is what the vast majority of people who attended those funerals, including please officers, actually did. Very briefly, we learned a short time ago that two aspiring members were killed in an avalanche in austria. That information is coming to us. I do none of the president was aware or had any thoughts given the tragedy. I was not aware of that report. Olympic athletes to the white house, as they are preparing for competition and after they competed. Our thoughts and prayers of those apparently lost in this specific incident, these will make our country proud. And so, i am not aware. Another update of the holidays would be the recommendations to inform the secret service. Has the president actually been given some sort of report or briefing, and where is the white house specifically on the increase of speculation . Where specifically is the president and white house staff on that . That is a good question. I do not know whether or not the president has received a briefing, but we will follow up on you with you on this. I just want to get in on the record. We look into it and get back to you. Specifically working with congress on the meeting, not just the meeting itself, but why not meet with Republican Leaders this week, but you are getting the impression he was ready to work with Republican Leaders. No meeting this week, probably. Instead, he is going out on the road on his own, and visit on the holidays where he said im ready to veto a lot more stuff and there will be a lot more executive action, the actions are speaking better than the words that he will work with republicans are at with publicans. Talk about where the Common Ground is, i think it speaks to the priority the president places to the American People. The president is going to start the new year by announcing the president s actions and benefit middleclass families and it indicates that he is most focus on results, mostly focused on substantive policy ideas. He is moving forward on executive action in action. He has not been sworn in yet. Youre saying hes getting ready to do more executive action. He is and the president is determined to make more progress on his own. As the president has said many times, we cannot allow a disagreement over one thing to be a dealbreaker over all the others. I have no doubt there will be republicans who will be critical. It may be an area where an honest disagreement exists. What were mostly focused on with republicans is figuring out where is there Common Ground where do we agree, and the disagreements may be more plentiful, but that is all the more reason we should spend a lot of time looking for the area of Common Ground. The president will do that. He did it last year and will continue this year as well. Talking again as many times before, the president S Health Care law, i want to ask you specifically not about that about this new book here this is not a quick drive by, 19 months were spent interviewing a lot of people around here. He points out the good of getting millions more people insurance, but in in the book and his Early Television interviews him a he is indicating after studying it closely that it is a raw deal for taxpayers. A lot more people are getting insurance but the taxpayers are picking up the tab. The Health Care Costs are not coming down because of the law itself, despite what was promised . I will say couple of things about that. It is important for people to member the Affordable Care act substantially reduce the deficit, good for Economic Health and the Fiscal Health of the country, and also good for taxpayers. We have seen that the growth in healthcare costs has been lower than at any other time in recorded history almost 50 years since we have been measuring that statistic here it we have also seen the average premium for Employee Base healthcare coverage, people essentially not really covered by the formal care act they saw that their premiums only went up 3 , even though in previous years, it had gone up by double digits. One of the goals come as pointed out in the book, has been to limit the Health Care Costs and indicate the has been very important success associated with the Affordable Care act in doing exactly that and that is what we will continue to do. In addition to expanding coverage and getting more people with health care, in addition to placing the kinds of patient protections, everything from ensuring that men and women will get the kind of Preventative Health care maintenance, annual checkups and things, if they can be covered free of charge, cannot be turned away because of a preexisting condition, that is what the Affordable Care act has done. The conclusion from talking the president s own advisers that people in the west wing believe when the author press the president himself in the interview, he would not comment. Why would he not knock that down, why wouldnt he say . Because everybody artie knows that. It obviously plays a very Important Role here in the west wing in advising the president of United States. I think even she would tell you she is not the chief of staff. I have two quick question. One is the personnel question. Maybe his Senior Adviser might leave in a few weeks. Can you up date us on whether or not he will be departing the white house . I do not have any up its on personal matters at this point. You cannot say whether john will be leaving . One is the personnel i can say, we said that when he started last year, he said he would be serving euro into the counter year. He will stay on the beginning of this year to help with the state of union. I do not have an exact date. Maybe february . I do not have any guidance on that, but we will keep you posted. You do not want to say anything about dan . I can say a lot of things about dan. [laughter] in terms of any personal announcements, i am not aware of any. The question is, at the end of the year, the percentage of people who said they approved of the job the president was doing went up there it a lot of people and why that is, i was wondering if the white house could share its own interpretation of why that percentage went up at the end of the year. Like Financial Markets it is a tricky and Risky Business to analyze what is actually driving fluctuations in poll numbers. Saidi can tell you, what i would rather do is sort of convey to you why so many people in this building were so optimistic heading into this holiday. We had been able to make a lot of progress on a variety of important policy requirements. In some cases, we were able to work with republicans to make progress and in some cases, the president had to take executive it serves as a model of the kind of approach the president envisions. We were able to work to pass a proposal that would provide the certainty and government funding for just about every single federal the peer that will be good for the economy. It is a priority you have heard republicans on capitol hill talk about. Common ground we hope we will find as it relates to other measures. There are other steps the president took not so warmly received by republicans. Whether it was reforming our broken immigration system and finally adding accountability to the system, or moving to normalize our relationship with cuba, these are steps the president believe is important to doing to moving forward. Congressional republicans the chamber of commerce supported both of those things. Just because republicans in congress supported them, does not mean they were partisan. They just do not happen to fix the 50 priorities of Congressional Republicans, even though there are a lot of others. I do think as the fourthquarter plays out, you will see the president pursue a strategy that looks for areas where we can work with republicans and take steps on his own where we cannot, and hopefully we will see that trend. Last one. Going back to your earlier conversation with john, you indicated u. S. Troops are still trying to look for the missing schoolgirl in a letter the president sent to congress. And they mention only a small Security Cooperation for us remained separate from the mission. Has something changed since december . Maybe you could clarify that a little bit . I know the ongoing cooperation that has gone underway to work has gone still underway. In terms of helping you understand how the policy fits with this, let me get somebody from the National Security council to give you a call. Following earlier, you said if a republican working to were to continue his position of leadership, it was a lot about priorities. What would it say . This is for them to decide. That is not necessarily mean making an assertion they would disagree with. I think all of them, as they consider who they want to serve in their leadership, do so knowing that their leaders will have will be more prominent and will send a pretty clear signal about what their priorities are and values are and what theyre congress represents their they will have to decide for themselves what kind of message it sends to allie is somebody without the baggage. You say you do not have anybody in mind . What message do you think theyre risking . Less im just telling you i am just telling you my own thoughts. They are irrelevant in this case. If i did, that would be interesting, but i do not fear they will have to make the decision for themselves. Im sure the part of the decision will be what kind of message it sends. At the Republican National committee, it is said there look and need to do more to broaden their appeal to women minorities, gays, and others, and that the success of their Political Party depends on it. They will have to decide for themselves that exact question. You have quoted police as saying he is david duke. What if someone described the welcome here at the white house . Interesting david duke without the baggage calling himself that. Someone can fix that description be well, the white house . What i will say is the president will meet with who the republicans choose to serve in the conference. The president is willing to work with republicans to get something done. Republicans make the decision to take to keep the leadership position, the president will meet with him in pursuit of trying to get things done for the middle class. Event that or dont pays me. If you missed any of their briefing, we will have an online for you. In 2006 cspan aired a documentary on another branch of government call thing capital an indepth look at the building and history. We also took a look at the House Chamber and learned something about the famous symbols in that room. Here is a look. The symbols are very important. There is a yeah next to the clock, a traditional american symbol of abundance. There are stars. We are familiar with stars stripes. There are lots of other things. I love them. All of these little rods were bound together in ancient rome. These are individual that you can snap. Put them all together and theyre very strong. The traditional symbol of the roman republic. In which the people ruled. Those are there, too. You are in the chamber and you raise your eyes up to this wonderful silhouette almost. Unequal beings bright. Up there in the sky. It is rather like a skylight, although it is from behind not open to the heavens. The thing i love most about it is the sense that it is writing its wings over. The congress is a great aspiration as seen in the great symbol of the nation when the congress is in session the mason is always there. 1841. It, too is a bundle of ebony rods topped by a soulful globe within eu goal standing on top of it traditions are important because when you forget about traditions, you forget about the flavor of this waste. Every time i see the speaker of the british house of commons i recuse him because in 1814 with the british burned the capital down they stole our mace. You can read the stories of former speakers when this place got rowdy or people got out of hand or there was a fight on the floor. So it is a simple of what this country has invested in the congress, the power of the congress and people coming together and getting things done. For 114 congress gaveling in tomorrow at noon eastern time. The swearing in of members and the election for the House Speaker. The senate live on the companion network. With a new congress you want the best access, most extensive coverage anywhere. Track the gop on capitol hill. Have your say as events unfold on tv, radio and the web. The new Congress Starting of the year with 246 House Republicans on the largest gop majority since the 1928 elections. Republican congressman Michael Grimm refined effect resigned effective today after pleading guilty to tax reduction facts tax evasion. A special election for his seat will be held later this year. Tonight three Technology Reporters reviewed the big issue of 2014 and Key Communications and Technology Issues facing the new year. Brian long, and Kate Tamara Lowe with politico. The chairman is expected to unveil this until february or march at the earliest, which gives an opening for republicans to introduce a bill about Net Neutrality of their own about what will determine do in response to that. What that forced him to move forward quickly or put him in a position where we will have to do trading with Congressional Republicans. That is not clear yet. Something we will watch early in the year. I am expecting the sec will come out with rules on Net Neutrality. President obama came out with reclassifying broadband under title ii which would make it treated like the utility. The broadband Industry Groups are opposed to this. A lot of pressure on chairman wheeler to go that route. We will see in the first few months what happens there. The fight is not necessarily over. There will be lawsuits almost certainly from the Industries Groups like verizon and comcast. Were also talking about Net Neutrality against the backdrop of the communications update. This is a big effort republicans in congress have undertaken. Now that they are controlling the senate, they have that as well. They have said they want to get pen to paper starting in january. We could see movement on that very soon. That is a tool to push back on any Net Neutrality rules and overreach. Tonight at 8 00 eastern cspan2. Next look at how the white house interacts with congress with the director of anders legislative affairs and have a house and senate and Obama White House can avoid gridlock for the next two years. This was posted recently by american universitys center for congressional and president ial studies. It is about one hour, 45 minutes. This would not happen without pat griffin. He has been with the center and university for 16 years. He has few the unique background as being an assistant director or legislator and assistant to the president under clinton. He organized this and came up with the idea several months ago and i said yes. He has been the acting director and the assistant director for the center and that is part of his role but also has had experience on the hill. He was one of the only elected the only elected staff percy and staff person and assistant to the leader and special policy adviser to tom daschle. Private sector experience also. The point is, he knows the private sector, the white house, the hill and will lend his wisdom to this and leave the discussion of the panelists and will introduce them at this point. Thank you. It is an honor to be here as part of the senate for Congressional Studies in american university. I so appreciate the mission and the desire to implement in terms of reaching out to the washington community. Also a particular honor to join the distinguished panel of friends and colleagues. The purpose is to discuss the Strategic Options available to the president and congressional leaders as they begin the 114th congress in the past two years of the Obama Administration. This is a relatively unique panel and thats among other things we have held the director for the president of the United States. It is the nature of the job to share a common set of experiences, both in terms of what it requires working within the white house and also what it requires working with capitol hill. At the same time, there is many aspects of the jobs that are as unique as one can imagine due to the variety of circumstances associated with having different bosses facing different world realities and sometimes just the actual time you serve for the tenure of your boss. To some extent myself we served in the first two years of the president s tenure. Chuck and dan worked in the past two years of the second term of their respective tenure. The energies of the newly elected resident is obviously distinctly different from the one in lame duck. However, the demands of the country and the world are often blind to that reality requiring the president and congressional leaders to have a Strategic Plan for engagement and government nonetheless. The last the panelists to send the questions regarding the strategic advice they might offer to the president and congressional leaders and light of the current political realities in domestic and International Policy concerns. Some of us on the panel have also advise congressional leaders in addition to serve serving as directors in the white house. Party notwithstanding, some house sometimes the advice you give is the function of the parties serve. Let me introduce my colleagues. Phil second. These guys made me make you first. Phil currently operating as a consultant on nonprofit world getting strategic advice and helping to develop taxable action plans. None hand in d. C. He served before serving director of legislative affairs a Senior Adviser to president obama and the first two years of his term working on any number of issues from fiscal crisis to health care, and those particular he wears that is a proud accomplishment. Chief of staff to henry Waxman Committee staff director covering over 25 years in the house and as also, we share the opportunity to work as an adviser to senator daschle in mid2000. My next collie got the second short straw. Currently the president of the trade association known as airlines for america, the largest trade association of airlines, American Airlines in the country. Formally known as a ta. Now under whole new vision and direction under his leadership. He also has and the executive Vice President for Global Affairs and citibank. Serving as director of legislative affairs for george h. W. Bush as well as george w. Bush. The latter in the first two years of his tenure and also when he was laying down on the job. Dan myers, the gentleman on the end currently the president of one of the most prominent successful lobbying firms in washington. A. M. , head of legislative affairs has spent many years on capitol hill working in the senate for senator boschwitz and members of the congress and i had a chance to meet him mostly under the circumstances. His chief of staff is with and speaker. Chuck brain to my immediate left current president of capitol Hill Strategy worked for a number of members in the house. A long tenure on the ways and means committee, which by the good fortune of his chairman and reality was in the middle of a lot of issues on the front burner of congress. Chuck was the director in the last two years of the clinton administration. You see what we have here is a panel of folks not only with a similar set of experiences but also different times and each administration and i think that is helpful in shaping the perspective of what does a strategic advised change in the past last two years of a lameduck residency versus the first two years and what does not change . The format for today is pretty simple. What i would like to do is ask each of our panelists one question to get started. Maybe two. I would ask each of them to respond and turned to the group to ask any question they would like of any panelists. Let me again. To the panel. There have been much speculation about what president and congressional leaders republican and democrat strategy will be over the next two years. Each institutional player is trying to figure out what strategy is in their own best interest. My experience is each of the entities is first and foremost about survival. As they figure out survival then comes the counterparts in their own party. How do they determine what that self interest is . Obama has been provocative. Does this suggest to years of confrontation . Are republicans seriously thinking they need to demonstrate they can govern . Does harry reid give a dam in the republicans work for this . I would ask not just what advice you might give on strategy thomas but taking it back one step. What does the president or the speaker or leader in the senate have to consider . What elements do they take into account . A very opaque process. We sometimes get additional up to us and we will be confrontational. What were the considerations that preceded that . What are the risks of that team that u. S. Advisers are talking to the president or the leader or speaker about in deciding this is the strategy we must pursue . Versus good i guess you pose the question how this is good, because you pose the question how do you identify each of the players . I really think, and i am not referring to answer, i do not think any of them today can define their self interest for next year. What i mean, when they come back in january they will look at it in a slightly different light than they do here in december. You cannot underestimate what next year will look like getting past this session and whatever fights occur over the final wrapup, it will look different in december. What will they be looking at that would suggest conditions will be different. Go looking at the last two years of president obamas term. They will be looking at the next elections, which will be impending, and looking at and assessing all of their own self interest. In the individually. People will be posting questions about president obamas legacy. Having been there at the end of the clinton administration. What we were looking at and you remember this quite well, at this point it is were being impeached by the house of representatives. To compare that to an executive action on immigration and saying the current opponents of what he has done on immigration to say this is our ability has been soiled to Work Together on anything well, to find the president has worthy of being removed from office or crimes and misdemeanors yet we found a way over the next two years and they found a way to work with us. They will get over it. I think it is fair to say the president will leave for pressed on his legacy. What the white house will be focused on is trying to do the things they started out to accomplish. In other words, they will know they have got 700 days and then 699 and then 98 to do what they think is right to accomplish them anyway they can accomplish them. One is isnt working with congress . Taking an executive action . Moving that direction. In that regard the strategy will be driven by them and being effective and moving policy that has been somewhat underlying important to the president. Absolutely. Things they can work with on the hill. There it is defined by who on the hill is willing and able to work with them. In terms of the elements that go into to find the strategy are reaching a conclusion, one would hope you would start with what you what to do and what you want to accomplish. You have to have that kind of vision and center and build out from there. Then you have the elements that factor into that which is, can you get it done. What is your best way to get it done. Looking at what the speaker in Mitch Mcconnell want to do. Not all of them are probably there in terms of trying to get things done. If you are the president , you have to look at the opposition in congress and your own party where there is plenty of opposition with some of the things he wants to do and also our personality asis there are concerns and lingering aftereffects of a couple of elections. I thought there was a confluence of interest here in terms of the president. I think he does not want to look ineffective in getting things done. The republicans have to get things done to show they can govern govern. What the election told you this time is the whole are fed up with the congress not getting anything done and the congress and the white house not ever working together. We are all older here. We have come from slightly different times than some of the current people. There was a time when democrats and republicans came together. Take the constitutional tension which is ever present regardless of party, and that is something you have to get over but requires a certain amount of outrage and knowing you cannot get everything you want and working what could be common goals and that takes a lot of conversation. You have to factor in all of the elements. Then you have to make a decision i think, what you want to look like in the sense of even if it is hard, can you press the restart button . If i was giving revised advice to republicans it would be not ignore necessarily the elements of the party that like to bargain on the basis of getting what you want. I was told that is the first thing you dont do in a negotiation. If i give you this, are you with me . That is pretty 101 and i think they have to start doing that. There is some notion on the republican side that some of the more older members have been chastened and ready to move forward. The past couple of days in a so much. We will see. If i were giving advice to the president it would be, press the restart button and takes more than a phone call to make friends with people. You have to start somewhere, started now. You might find there are people you can work with but it will take time and they have to get up close and personal to you to make the change with they are willing to make the leap and work on things and has to be trust and credibility there. I think it is awfully basic. This is all politics as a people game. You have to understand what you want and what other people want and try to come to some understanding of what it takes to get them and where you can meet them so that both sides can be either mutually dissatisfied or mutually satisfied and then have something to look at to say we got this done. I want to reiterate a couple of things that chuck just said in a slightly different with. Break down your question of the first part into three categories. First is substance. What is your substantive goal . Second, political self interest for your party. The third is political and selfinterest very narrowed. There are people in the center right now on the republican side that may be looking at their interest as the Republican Party broadly because they want to carve out space for themselves. In my time in government i would always be willing to trade good substance when you work in the Obama Administration they always keep your mike off. That is a really good start. Let me recap. The three categories i have is substantive importance political interest broadly for a party and political self interest for any political person in the process. There are a lot of individual people. In my time in government i would always be willing to trade good substance for bad politics. An example is 1996 democrats were the minority. Republicans running for house became concerned in the summer they would not have a lot of accomplishments to show for this going into reelection and all of a sudden a space opened up to get agreements on a couple of issues. The two issues i were working on was pesticides and safe Drinking Water. Pesticides have been blocked for 18 years. Going to the question about how you make the decisions ahead of time, all of a sudden you could build the space opened up that we might be able to get through to have a pesticides agreement even though it had been blocked for 15 years. The political circumstances had changed. Within three weeks we not only reached an agreement and energy in the subcommittee and then committee, what got the bill passed on the house floor a week later, the week after that, the Senate Passed it unanimously. The week after that we were in the white house where president clinton signing the bill. That was bad politics because we were giving the republicans an accomplishment. The same thing with safe Drinking Water. Sometimes you want to make the trade. Political interest is or is a was harder to evaluating from a party perspective. In washington, and this is a good example of this, can you you follow the so much closer. I have of the advantage of a split personality. I am spending most of my time in new mexico. I am amazed at the thing that dominates here do not get on the radar screen in new mexico. People trying to evaluating the broad political interest of the party, it is easy to miss copulate. Political selfinterest is easy. Anyone who wants to run for president in 2016 has to carve out space and identity and fill a vacuum we saw that last year i thought and two years ago when the Republican Leadership was trying to reach agreements and some of the senators like senator cruz did not see it as substantive interest versus political self interest to be there. That is playing out today in the house and tomorrow or the next few days in the senate on the on the misspending bill where everyone has to strike the calculation. It is more difficult than when i first came to congress. More difficult than when nick was in either administration because of media. Telecommunications has changed everything. It is much more difficult now and it was when i was in the white house in 2009 does everything is accelerated. I think twitter was still not much of a factor. When we did the pesticides law in 1996, it would be infinitely harder to do today because parts of it would become fodder for cable tv, talk radio internet and complicates the entire process and that also affects the calculation. I think at the end of the day most people would rather be consolatory and find Common Ground and reach an agreement despite everything you hear about washington, but sometimes it is just not there to be able to do it. That is the bottom line. The space of the agreement. If it is not because of the eternal dynamics and the other partys caucus, you have the best confrontation policy. Is it fair to say the operating premise is there our instincts on both sides to make stuff happen rather than not. An assessment of the conditions and circumstances that were permitted. Generally, yes. There are exceptions to people who elevate the personal selfinterest over everything else. If they are doing that, we need to realize that is what we are dealing with. Sometimes people do not correctly identify selfinterest. Sometimes people just make that decisions. You have to evaluate the person you are dealing with to see if they will be able to correctly see what the selfinterest is. Nick said something before that i think is right, a lot of blocking and tackling. The reason it is so hard is to do this part of the strategy right, you need to know your opponents interests better than your opponent knows it and be able to figure out better than your opponent how to get your self interest in a way that does not harm your self interest. Easiest thing in washington always is to get a bad deal. Anyone can reach a deal. The hardest thing is to get everything important to you. And one that actually works. That is what is hard and that is why people get upset about gridlock. A lot of the factors do not exist. Enqueue. Thank you. Thank you pat. Thank you for putting this together particularly want to thank pat who is not only a friend in the invitation to come here but and i first met pat republicans had won the majority in 1994. He was assistant to the president of legislative affairs and that was the speakers chief of staff and no one in the republican majority had ever been in the majority for 40 years. Pat was a seasoned hand. We actually, despite the political differences and a very tumultuous first year Government Shutdown and things like that, we develop personal relationships with trust and were able to have serious conversations when things were seriously off the rails with respect to our respect of bosses and parties. Anyway, i appreciate it for the role he played then and now. My approach is framed in terms of 100 14th congress with the prospect for getting anything done and the respective strategies and what goes into developing the strategies to make that happen. Getting a lot of conversation about critically from the president s point of view, i will start with the point you just made between pat and fill phil that there is usually an interesting getting things done. I can tell you the president has an agenda he would love to get done in the next two years so does john boehner in Mitch Mcconnell. The problem we had when we got elected in 1995, the group of republicans had an idea what they wanted to get done and very willing to work with the president to get it done. As long as the president was willing to come into the box we defined. That is where the tension lies that we want to Work Together. Cooperation from everybody. A lot of times that means we are willing to cooperate. We are willing to come into what i defined as the corners of the cooperation. That is where the challenge lies to some degree. For the leaders in congress what they have to to take into consideration is the fact that they get their job for the same reason that is a perfect analogy. The same reason someone get tired to coach football or baseball team. Gets hired to coach a football or baseball team. The members are bringing in john boehner, nancy pelosi or Mitch Mcconnell or harry reid to get them the best chance to succeed so that begs the question what do i mean by success . It will affect public policy. Usually that get interpreted by who gets us into power . That is how you have the greatest impact because the majority of the house and senate and even more so the majority of the housesenate with president of your same party you can have the greatest impact on public holocene. Defining that affects, for the leaders, one of the biggest components of developing strategy is what kind of consensus they can build within their own conference and has been obvious the past few years it is pretty challenging. John boehner to go back to a case study of a little over a year ago, adopted a strategy to shut down the government, not because he thought that was the right thing to do or would be very successful, he did that as a management basically to manage his caucus. He had a group of members that were relatively younger members who had never been through the experience before and were convinced they could when the showdown with the white house. If we confront the white house we can get them to capitulate and win. We went through the same thing in 1995. John maker john boehner made the calculation he could fight internally but at some point this minority in his caucus was going to insist they have the opportunity to win the war. The analogy that got used back then is he had a group of members who would be determined they would not get burned. He made the calculation i would rather have them touch the stove earlier rather than later. Other october 2014 that in june with the election coming up. It was intentional on his part. A disaster politically. They got saved it to some degree because of the problems. The country moved on. If you talk to the leadership and most of the members who were advocating for and, they realized it was unsuccessful and politically they dodged a bullet because of the other issues that came about thereafter. The consensus and the ability for the leaders to lead and develop a consensus would take a strange twist. Leaders come them to look up polling data and talking to members and constituents and listening to people in the grocery store. I also strongly believe people are cynical and and always believe its an absolutely want to do the right thing. The marriage of can we do the right thing you come can i bring people along you go if you do not have the ability they will probably elect someone else to lead. We can go into this deeper but i will just stop. Let me ask if it is to difficult to find that it has been defined by the congressional leaders that confrontation will get me more of what i want in 2016 then cooperation. Cooperation would be nice but confrontation seemed like senator mcconnell had a notion of that six years ago and did not seem to harm the much. Is that just being cynical or are people really struggling . Nick mentioned it earlier, i think republicans feel a political imperative to try to govern and that would suggest cooperation. The best case study of that was one that phil mentioned in 1996. I was the speakers chief. What happens is there had been the Government Shutdown. That was the end of 1995 and ended the first week of 1996. The republican numbers were awful. There was a very conscious decision that we need to get stuff done. Fortunately the president was running for reelection and felt a similar need so there was if you look at the time to train the end of april when the government got funded to the august recess, the farm bill, kennedy kassebaum, clean Drinking Water Telecommunications Bill there must have been eight major pieces of legislation. There was a sense that both sides the Clinton White house and republicans needed to get this done in congress. I think they have the same perspective the leadership does now. Not quite as acute as it was in 1996. They proved they are willing to go the confrontation route. The country expects that. That has become a political negative for them. They have to try to overcome that. Which is why i kind of agree with chuck that i do not think the executive order is the showstopper they like to claim. Part of that is managing their side whether internally or the outside groups. Nobody is going to shut down the government over this thing. I think in the long run they will conclude the best strategy for dealing with immigration is this path. Let me build on that. Then we will turn it over to the audience. Triangulation is a term that got a lot of attention during the clinton presidency. Talking with leaders of the Opposition Party with or without Democratic Leaders on the hill. During that time of 1996 is what we are talking about where a lot of the triangulation you merged. What advice would you give regarding triangulation as you approach or attempt to make legislative success . Do you think it is wise for the president to triangulate with the congress of the risk of upsetting collings, particularly in the senate and working directly president leaders as president clinton did . Under this scenario hypothetical legislation could take only six vote 60 votes. Alternatively, might you recommend macconnell working with reed to work directly with each other where you would wind up meeting 67 both votes to overcome a president ial veto yucca would you advise the president and congressional leaders to actively pursue a trained you wish and strategy, which having had to carry that to the hill was not easy. Your good friends did not like you for doing that. Some. I think it is a difficult question to answer in the current context. There is some disaffection for the president within his own party already ended different time and the interests are different. Whether the president can do that and meet the republicans to the point he would be getting something members of his own party is something i think only fair out over time or not and i do not see a particular issue where that might. I think it could on certain issues. Other issues i am not so sure. That was triangulation as we all have come to know it. A little bit of the creature of what was going on at that particular time. I think that it is what do you want to get done and two is against hitting and done . Getting it done . I do not see president working against interest of his own party there. I think it is a tough one to get your arms around in the current context. This would divide the democratic caucus. I was going to answer it and presume to stay for the entire panel. It all depends. It depends on how important the issue is to you. Who youre going to be against and when in the term is it . And trade is a good example. We are likely to see that relatively soon. Trade is an issue that is exceedingly divisive in the democratic party. Almost to the point where it is not really divisive at all. Almost unanimous opinion against it. Extreme minority position within the party within with favor of trade position. The president may go ahead and push for fasttrack authority. He and senator reid had been linked at the hip in terms of what the legislative agenda would be on major issues. They have been. The train agenda trade negotiations in the real world have not gotten to the point where it is necessary to come to the congress for legislative action on trade agreements. It may be to the point where it may be right to do that. The answer to this question in my mind maybe a distinction between triangulation. If you are suggesting the president throwing his party overboard to work with the president s that really works quite just dramatic the two radically. I would suggest it is not that complicated of a question if you have divided government and want to get something done you have to work with people in the other party. I was filth immediately predecessor as president of legislative affairs. I can remember being interviewed in the december time frame between the election and inauguration by someone asking how his job would be different than mine . To me, it was fairly straight forward. We did not get anything done if we did not get it past ive the congress. He would have majority party. My comments of the time was going to be a quick quite a bit different. Yes, he will be criticized and may have to reach out to republicans but going back to the point we talked about, these folks get elected to try to move the country in the direction consistent with the philosophy and values. There was an opportunity that. If republicans win the white house in 2016 and have the republican majority, they will follow that model rather than some other model. That is why you are elected and run for these jobs. I think circumstances dictate the next two years. If they want to get something done, that is the objective then we will move towards triangulation, depending on how exactly we define it. That is the only way to get it done. Can you imagine senator reid asking, saying to the president we do not need to lead the republicans look like they can govern at all, do not need to put up legislative wins, why dont we play hardball . That could be exactly the right approach for senator reid. President obama may want to get some things done in the past few years last few years. Whether it is legacy or the fact that he got elected to do something. If his legacy becomes ensuring that democrat precedes him in the white house, that is a different calculation. Likes you may recall in 1995 democrats were completely aligned and opposing what the republicans were doing on the shutdown. After we kind of one the narrative war on to caused the shutdown and why it was bad, i remember many hours of deliberation where we talked about reaching out knute and locked about making deals. Knowing full well senator daschle was going to be very upset, and he did, he argued we successfully damaged them for overreaching, why cant we just continue that . The president argued was in his selfinterest to make deals. There is a calculus that goes on. There was a calculus on the republican side of the same time. Bob dole was running for president. There was a sense that as you recall, president clinton had briefed we dont the bill twice. Had vetoed the bill twice. There was a sense coming from the former democrats that have switched that if you pass those you link those two and you signed welfare reform that will split the party that needs to do do needs to do that politically. The Congressional Republicans decided that is what they needed to do to show that they could govern. They got the policy they had been wanting advocating for for a long time. Do you want to say anything and then well turn it over to the audience . I am not a fan of the term triangulation. I think it gives the wrong impression of the process that people go through. I think from the president standpoint right now the numbers he should care about is not 60. I am operating from a substance dance, not a little cold. I will leave political copulations to everybody else. At the numbers that matter to the president are 34 and 136. If he focuses on that, he has the ability to have a disproportionate influence on the process. Those are the numbers he needs to sustain a veto. He does that like what they are doing substantively but has the ability, assuming he continues to have good relations with Democratic Senators and house members to have a disproportionate influence on the process. The other is the summit issue that is complicated is sometimes , and i am doing this from president obama, to but sometimes the senate and House Republicans are the same. In the first two years we had a bill funding the war effort and military issues. My recollection is all but three Senate Republicans voted for the bill. 90 plus boats in the senate. Only five House Republicans voted for the bill when it came to the house. 90 plus votes in the senate. This is why it operates on so many different levels. This is why i use institutional selfinterest in sorting that out. Senate has to an immigration bill. The question is what is in harry reids self and protecting his caucus and my that come out of alignment with the president . I do not want to belabor this but dont underestimate the role substance displays in these decisions. When we came in in 2008, the entire economy was collapsing. Auto industry, financial sector, unemployment going through the roof. The first time dan and i started talking with each other was a mess concept of tarp. The first thing he had to do was to go to congress and say we need a second tranche of tarp which at that point was completely unpopular. Support among republicans had plummeted. It did not make sense. Let them carry it. Going to the house those were substantive conversations. These are what we need to do to rescue the economy. It is not the political calculation two years from now. We knew full well we were making calculations them that were for to be a terrible political price. Just one thing on this, what do you call a triangulation . What will be interesting over the next two years is watching the president and Republican Leadership and how they act because to get in done, one of the things they want to get done that will show progress on the republican side, you want to ignore members and ignore bo votes on the other side of the aisle. As 41 we had to really reach out because the numbers were about what they do are now actually worse. Worse to find a lot of democratic votes in find the middle Common Ground. I do not think on either side if you leave it all to your own party you will end up in a really good lace. [inaudible] i do not claim these guys werent. I know the conventional wisdom is with gridlock terrible, never been like this. I am fascinated as much by the republicans internal conflict that the speaker has managed. I go back to my days as counsel for the house when tip oneill was speaker. He had the southern democrat, northeastern liberal he was constantly doing what john boehner does, which is how do i get these guys and women to a point of consensus . My question is, why is this or is this any different than that one . In terms of john boehner struggling with tea party or whatever you want to call them. Either way. I think it is harder for john boehner. I think the coalition that the speaker had to manage was broader. It may have been harder. I think the point phil brought up about the influence of the media makes it harder for john boehner. Even if there is largely agreement, if he has 20 members bringing a selloff sellout, they can get on cap cabletv, outside groups, people raising money off of it because a lot of the folks on the outside can raise money i taxing the leadership more than they raise money by the other party. That adds a level the very real complication they deal with on a regular basis. I was going to say it is different. There is a different type of member. It is so different now. It puts you so at risk. With all due respect in many cases, there is not a lot considered judgment about the questions you might ask where how you may probe the issue. I think in terms of membership i think there were different in that they came to congress with a different mindset. In 2010 when the republicans took over, some of us were tasked with going to talk to some of the incoming members. And one conversation with ray of the Incoming Freshman talking about how you get things done. The end of the day to accomplish things, you really had to compromise. They country diverse interest, everyone has their own interest. The one incoming member and looks at me and says you are part of the problem. I said ok. Be that as it may, lets say you come in but this attitude and dont do anything, what will the attitude be toward a Republican Congress that did not get anything done . He looked at me and said this job does not define us. There are certain members you cannot break through to. They just do not care. I would not want that management problem. I would be hung if i was the head of legislative affairs working with this. The kind of republicans we have had the past few years. I want to follow on to something make said earlier. Alluding to the importance of personal relationships. Andand congress. I remember when 41 came in, you were telling me about phone calls from republican senators that you had to field and had to push back on that. You were the keeper of the relationship which made a big difference when it came to tax reform at that time. These days, what we hear is that this white house, this president does not have those relationship and is not making in is not interested in making those great i do not are counseling the president , urging him and trying to make something happen why isnt it . I am going to give you an answer to that question, which flies in the face of the supposition of the question, and so it will be hard to believe. I say this with no disrespect to reporting that is done on congress or the presidency. Most everything i read is inaccurate. It just is. And i feel bad for the reporters. I do not talk about my time in the Obama White House. I am only here because im doing this a favor for pat. I do not talk about what i said to the president. But that is the reality, and because i will not talk to reporters about it, people who will sometimes will give a distorted view of what happened. When we came in, the president was sincere about trying to bring the country together and working with democrats and republicans. Part of my job, because that was his charge, was to figure out that space i talked about before can we find places where we can Work Together . This is going to be a very longwinded answer, so i will shorten it, but i will give you a context to answer your question more fully. As the president was coming in one of the first assignments i had was to outline for him and other on staff what we have coming up, and i put this in the compulsory category. November, 2008. Probably the first thing he did was ask for an unpopular think about 350 billion for tarp. Economists were saying we needed 300 50 billion for stimulus. A month later it would be for 200 billion. We were going to need 600 billion for stimulus. There is over a 1 trillion on of us spending bill that we were going to have to do in the first months of 2009. On top of that we were going to have to do the budget for the following year, which was going to be 1 trillionplus plus a sentimental supplemental. That as of two of their big number, that the president had to do. None of this would be political popular, but it would have to be done. His approach was we had to do that. I want to reach out to republicans as well as democrats. So as we did tarp, and in and i worked together on this committee as he was leaving the white house and i was coming in, let see how Many Republican votes we can get. When we get stimulus, we brought in large number of House Republicans. We worked with Senate Republicans. We only had 59 votes in the senate so we cannot do whatever we wanted to do, to see if there were changes we could make. One of the things i learned very early on that told me things had changed his we had House Republicans who came in and said if you give me these provisions i think i can support the bill. So we put those provisions in the stimulus, and they opposed the bill. The president of the same thing on health care, where we had extensive meetings with house and Senate Republicans. One of the Unsung Heroes there are lots of people who describe themselves as architects of the Health Care Bill a person with me spent day in and day out on the hill, and she spent as much on the house as on the senate side. Im breaking my room now, with conversations, but all the things he could do for outreach. I put together a memo for him of social events, policy events. He narrowly agreed all of them but asked to add some. From january to may we invited now some people did not come we invited every House Democrat and republican to the white house for social events. Every tuesday evening we had 30 or so of those folks just to get to know everybody as little bit. We had a candlelight dinner for chairman and leadership in almost 200 people in march of 2009, so they could get to the know each other thats so they could get to know each other a little bit. We put together lunches with a chair and a Ranking Member in the president s own dining room. I used to keep metrics. By march, more than 80 of senate rubber goods had been to the white house for policy or social event with the president. Every House Republican and democrat had been there or had been invited. Some things were not in our control. We had our first state dinner. We invited the republic of leadership. They decided not to come. We had our second state dinner, they decided not to come. You cannot force people to come. Are you can do is invite them. I thought dan made the point before when he talked about House Speaker boehner was dealing with his caucus last year and there were people intent on touching the hot stove. It does not make any difference and you ask people and the president , breakfast, lunch and dinner having them over for a little wine party, if that is what the mindset is that we were going to force this hand among your caucus, theres nothing you can do with the leadership that can change that. My fundamental disagreement is the president did those things. He continues to do them. Could he do more . Anybody could continue to do more. By the time i would to the white house, i had been involved in government and politics for over 25 years. I never saw anybody better than that and he was worried it is not all i know in my job, i need somebody who was terrific added who was willing to do it, and he was. Jim . Thank you, pat. Philip, i can appreciate that social context that you just remarked having worked in the Bush White House when Queen Elizabeth came, and senator reid did not come to the state dinner. He did not have a white tie. That is what we were told. I can appreciate those overtures and how important they are in building relationships. I would like to go to something that nick had mentioned about trust and credibility, that in listening to all these you represented here the experience of working with white houses and congresses not only the leadership, but the staff and how you have had to build that trust and credibility among each other. I am wondering if you can all comment and all president have had difficult backdrops to do their jobs, and the congress has, too if you can comment on the level of trust and credibility amongst the president and congress and staff, against the backdrop of executive action, executive authority that has realized by the president that seems to be more than what we have seen in the past but mayby you can maybe you can dispute that, and maybe that is not the case, but that is what is appears to be, and how does that trust and credibility amongst our executive branch . Well, i am not involved in any of those executive actions. But my advice to this president would be if you have reached out and tried to get things done and the response has been not forthcoming i will not use certain quotes, which i think are obvious and you have got opinions from the Justice Department and your own counsel that you are well within your authority to do it, i would urge give him the thumbs up. To get back to pats prioritization and the original purpose of this panel, you have got to lay out your priorities and not only put the list together, put some sort of value on them, structure them from 1 to 10, and also put the resources necessary and the consequences of doing them. And if there are some things that are exceedingly important to you and the likelihood of getting them done through regular order or going through the hill are just not there and, just go ahead and do it because you are not going to go ahead and get it any other way and not burn any bridges that are not already burned so just to go for it mr. President. That would be my advice. I guess my response in the combined last two questions, i have served on a number of panels at couple of times. Sheila batista beat bob doles sheila burke used to be bob doles chief of staff. She would quote gerald ford who was not the most qualified to comment on theiws, and he said the key to it all is four c s communication cooperation, compromise, and conciliation. And i mention that because i think and maybe partly to pauls question what has changed over time and made it more difficult is people and i have made this point earlier people defining what they consider to be cooperation on their own terms. So again, using the example because it is what i lived through when the republicans won in 1994, we were more than willing to cooperate with the Clinton White house if they were willing to capitulate. But that is the problem here,. We all the fine absolutely want to cooperate but going back to the time phil said before you have to understand what your political opponents need, but you need to hear them out on what they think they need rather than u. S. Urging if we do this and this and this you should be fine. There are some of that goes on to often on both sides of the aisle, that, ok, i have gone halfway to meet them, and that does not get it. That goes to the other c the can medication, where you are actually hearing each other out. I think it can become much more difficult to do those things for the reasons we talked about particularly when you have got all these external forces looking over everybodys shoulder and i do not want to be repetitive, but raising money off of it and going to the Cable Networks makes it harder to find that Common Ground rather than to define cooperation on your own terms. So just going off of what several comments about individuals and individual personalities, and in terms of some of the priorities, it seems the one priority is for lack of a better word screw the other guy. In terms of defining priorities, it seems like a basic understanding that someone has to make the first move as far as working for cooperation and real cooperation, not cooperation defined as [indiscernible] but it is making that first move is sort of already become defined as a capitulation in terms of working with obama is a capitulation. How do you see it and how would you advise, think about strategies to encourage a more positive discourse and so that democrats and republicans can feel proud of working together . So if there is a bipartisan bill, that becomes a point of a political score for both parties. I want to follow up the point that dan was just making as part of that, which is if dan and i are negotiating which each other with each other, it is not in my interest to have him capitulate on a negotiation because i do not want to do just one piece of this with dan. I want to have him be in a position where we can negotiation on 10 bills over the next two years, and if he capitulates, and i get total victory, it is going to be very hard for him to negotiate the next time, because he will lose the support of his caucus. You have raised a fundamental issue which is if is not issue specific not tax specific, but for own political reasons we cannot work with the president i do not have an answer for that because it is very hard. Immigration of the last two years is an example of it. To the president was advised just take a very low profile on immigration, let it work out in a bipartisan way in the senate, do not politicize the issue. So bite your tongue while it is going on because a good result could happen. As a matter of fact, a good result did happen. There was a bill that got 70 votes in the senate on immigration that was bipartisan and comprehension. Comprehensive. A lot of people in the Public Interest community liked it as well. Then the president was told do not exploit that issue in the house, let it work its will so the house could vote on that bill or a similar bill. Then we get to the end of the process and for other reasons that issue cannot be voted on in the house. Then that takes us to the previous question about executive action. The president has been very restraint in the first six years on both vetoes, because he has never done a real veto. The two vetoes he did were on technical issues. Fewer executive orders than previous president had. I do not know this because i was not their time and i did not talking about the issue but my guess is he looked at the issue and said i did everything the way both republicans and democrats advised me to do. I did not politicize immigration. Ice eight it out i stayed out of it. They produced a bipartisan, comprehensive bill, but it cannot happen in the house. Then i assume he went to his counsel and said, what is within our Legal Authority to act . Under the hypothetical you are posing, if you have a group of people who will not negotiate with you, and that bass you talked about earlier does not exist and you have to await until the space does exist. I have a question about [indiscernible] would you gentlemen recognize [indiscernible] why, and the second is, the president and you emphasized the leverage that comes from veto threats from actually exercising a veto. And you talk about the advice you have given the president in the last few years how to use the veto threat effectively to move things forward as opposed to just blocking . I would tackle the latter one. I am not sure i wanted to talk to senator mcconnell about the Nuclear Option just because copout that is right. It is such an institutional issue. I am guessing there is not a person i do not notice before anybody else i think many of us have experienced if the senate rules were different wouldnt it be better, but then at times you are on the other side of that. It is such an institutional issue, and that is a legislative audit made up of people who have been there for so long, i would differ to them to sort that out defer to them to sort that out. I do not offer an opinion. On the second point, one of the reasons president obama has not exercised many vetoes is the democrats were in control of one body. So most of the time. So there has been a filter. Senator reid was not going to let anything get through, even if the house passed it. The house complained about all the bills that got stacked up in the senate. That is going to change. So if im advising the president , republican or democrat, you have to use it once in a while and it is tremendously effective. In the old days, abortion politics playing a big role, when nick was president bush 41 and i was working for the House Republican whip, and the same principle applied when president clinton came in, sometimes the legislative process produced a bill that was instances and was inconsistent with the president s view on abortion possibility. Policy. If you cannot uphold the veto, then we win, sort of thing. That is what was happening that sort of understanding. Our member one of the vetoes on a difficult issue that we got 146 votes when nick was president bushs 41. Then the legislative process works itself out. We went through the same thing when i was there after the democrats won a majority after the 2006 election. A big issue in that election was the iraq war and many of those new members, democratic members, got elected running against the war, and the legislative agenda of that year for the new democratic majority was to restrict the war funding. And the president thought that was wrong so we just employed a veto strategy and send you can add anything you want any dell, we can veto to any bill, we can veto it. Over time, republicans played a political price for that. He felt that was the right thing to do and why he stuck to it. You do not want overuse if you can. Part of it is if you use it, you usually get the majority to understand that that is an option for the president. So if you want to send a message to send things down for veto, that is fine. If you actually want to get something signed into law, that requires cooperation, and exercising the veto once in a while proves that point. You need to make sure you get the votes. Bush 41 thevetoed 43 bills. We could not do it, so we would veto it, and sometimes changes were made, it was all an inter rative process. One thing you do not want to do is veto legislation and lose the veto. You will then here about the lame duck. He will see in the last two years of this presidency and this next congress, the science of politics. Having served last two years in the clinton administration, one of the first days on the job i was pulled aside by the House Democratic whip and he said, one thing you have to know is when you use the vwrord you have to mean it because we would do anything we can to sustain the president s veto. We never lost a veto. The other thing is you have to know when to do it, but you have to be unpredictable when you do it. There was a person in the white house who said, had a crazy aunt or uncle in the attic, ok, we are going to veto this because we can. And they know we can sustain it, so lets just do it. We threatened one veto because there was this rather significant democratic senator to us, and it was a provision that was documented in an appropriations bill, so we told him even before the report was done. You stick that in there, we are going to veto it. He said, really . Yeah. It was that night. So it is going to be interesting the next two years from the perspective of vetoes. Again, going back to how historic everything was, everything was historic. This election was historic because we evidence captured because republicans captured the senate. It is them mirror image of the Reagan Administration where he won a decisive victory in 1980, democrats picked up 35 seats in 1982 the president won in a landslide in 1980 four, and that was a defining moment for the country, and in 1986 democrats act of eight seats and got the senate back. During his administration, i think the president vetoed 75, 78, 80 bills during his time. What i am sure will happen sometime next year, and people will say it is unprecedented, is president obama will get presented a bill that is bipartisan but he will have to veto it. People will say now he is vetoing the work of his own party, that as dan can tell you, they faced that situation in 2007 and 2008. There was one issue that came to president bush twice. President bush opposed it for substantive reasons, and the bill got vetoed. What happens the next time because of the tunnel vision that exists now, it will be played much bigger issue than it otherwise would be. [indiscernible] a kind of what is going on with the Affordable Care act. I am wondering what your strategic advice would be for both parties at this point. Should they wait for the Supreme Court to rule . How worried should democrats be . Is there a chance this thing will be pulled out root and branch the way practically every republican in congress campaigned . It seems it is a zerosome game, and somebody will be a 100 loser in this game, but what is the way out . I just have to comment i do not think republicans feel they are painted into a corner on this. They feel pretty good about where they are. I think the leadership im not sure you will see repeated attempts to repeal obamacare and i think it has proven that will never happen. You can try to do that or you can try to make changes to it and certain provisions of it which might be a far more constructive way to go. I agree with nick in his attitudes towards it. A perfect analogy, but i equate it to the war funding issue at the end of the Bush Administration where people forget all the criticisms of republicans when they voted so many times restrict or repeal obamacare, 2007 we had 40 some votes to restrict war funding in the democraticcontrolled house after they had won a majority because they had a political imperative based on their victory in 2006 to do that. It did not succeed legislatively. it succeeded politically. I think republicans perspective is the same with respect to the Affordable Care act over the last few years. Going forward, you will see at least one more effort to repeal. Again, i think some of the new members feel that was a big factor in their election. Obviously, not going to succeed. Now that they have the senate, there may be some effort to use the reconciliation process but i think they would all understand that under the rules of the senate you cannot repeal entirely the Affordable Care act under reconciliation that would be subject to further restrictions. I do not know how much they will try to root out through that process. At some point, i have thought for some time that if they perceive real problems by their constituents that they would get to the point where nick thinks they would go, which is to look at reforms what are the most difficult for folks back home . But they have not got there yet. My disclaimer on this is i spent thousands of hours trying to get it passed, and went back to the white house this year for six months to help after the website did not work. So i have a certain point of view. So let me answer by first going there. Because the formal care act now more than 10 Million People have insureds who did not have it right . We have the lowest rate of increase in Health Care Costs and over 50 years, not sibley because of the aca, but it is playing a role. Since the law was passed, 10 million jobs have been created in the country. It has not impeded and has helped create some of those jobs. We have more innovation in health care than we have had in decades largely because of the Affordable Care act. Senior citizens have saved over 12 billion and the cbo says if you repeal the law it will add 1. 7 trillion to the deficit. If those are my