of hats.a lot your considered one of the top gop strategist and before coming to congress, you are a political consultant and then congress, and number of responsibilities including appropriations committee and sharing the partmmittee on labor and of the budget committee and rules committee and member of the republican steering committee and the study committee which put you in the middle of all the debates going on in the house. thank you for being with us. kristina peterson is with us from the wall street journal and scott wong and christina you're up earth. you think it's likely that house republicans will be able to pass a budget. ? this would be the first time since republicans took control of the house since 2011 that you would not be able to pass a budget. is that likely given where we are in the process quick guest: we have passed a budget every year in the 12 years we had it. i think we will get there. a budget is always the perils of pauline exercise. you get to the last minute and looks like falling will be run over by the train and magically it never quite happens. we are continuing to negotiate in good faith. i don't think the budget itself is likely to change very much. it's a matter of law and i think it has passed out of the budget committee. there are some folks that have concerns. they aren't interested in dressing entitlements and rules that will force us to deal with unauthorized appropriations. i think those are good things. those aren't need to be dealt with. you have to count on the leadership team to get it done. >> there have been requests that are fairly difficult to grant, saying they want ironclad assurances that some of these cuts will be enacted into law. beyond the ability of the speaker and the leadership to promise. sometimes folks forget that we operate in the house of with notatives executive and legislative authority. there is no way that speaker ryan can commit to what the united states senate will do under its rules let alone what the president will accept. sometimes people demand things that are unrealistic. there is only so much we can do from one chamber. prettyress is a truncated calendar this year in part because of the presidential nominating convention. lawmakers will be leaving earlier for the summer recess. do you anticipate that will mean congress will need to pass a short-term spending bill in september in order to take the threat of a government shutdown off the table before the 2016 election? guest: that is more likely than not. we have not waited on the budget. it will be easier if we get a budget done. the hearing schedule is complete and the first bill has been marked up in subcommittee. we will be ready to move bills but that becomes a larger leadership decision. we think the conference is ready to attack. some of these bills will be pretty basic. con has been marked up for military construction and conventions and others are more controversial. >> if hillary clinton wins in november, you would not like to see that but -- guest: that's another statement. >> will that give democrats a stronger hand heading into the lame duck session when it comes to spending negotiations? guest: it probably does. whoever wins in november, it transcends your hand a little bit. -- it strengthens your hand a little bit. there is much in the balance as to whether that would still be republican. the morning after the election, each side will wake up and ask of it smarter to delay or to expedite the process. you would hope that whoever is going to be the next president that we do him a favor and have a functioning government running when they get there. they will have to deal with the debt ceiling in march as it is. they have to get their new team nominated and confirmed. be worryingeed to about writing a whole budget because we did not get our job done. worke both sides will together and we did that last year, we got the omnibus done. for the first time in many years, the bills went through both the senate and the house committees of jurisdiction. up product you could sit down and negotiate over. >> you mentioned the senate hanging in the balance in november. if donald trump is the republican nominee, do you have concerns that could make it harder for republicans to control the senate and maybe retained your house majority? guest: i think he is very unpredictable. frankly, i have seen him change numbers within the republican electorate in a way i would not have thought possible six months ago. nominatey tells you we others, we will definitely win or lose. you either have a lot better predictor than anybody so far this year or they have already formed their opinion. it's more likely to me that this campaign is very volatile in a political year. i don'tseen things think anybody in january was predicting. i think we will wait and see. there is an argument that donald trump will bring voters out that and movebeen voting some of the democratic coalition to our side. it will hurt other areas which is true of any candidate. i still take it will be a pretty close presidential election. i look act two 2008. i don't think politics works anymore where you can have a wipeout like we had a 1964 for the democrats had a 1972. was aack to 2008 which volatile year, a terrible year for republicans with two george bush at 30% approval rating and you throw in financial disaster 40 days before the election. it should have been a democratic wipeout. it was not a great year but john mccain still got what today would be 180 electoral votes and carried over 20 states and got 46% of the popular vote and the republican party was left strong enough to have an historic victory two years later. i think there is a race on each side. anybody-- i don't think will put new york or california in play. there are bases that are fairly secure. that that suggest helps the house majority is republicans retain that. i think it will be very close. youor ryan very well and serve with him a long time in the house. he gave a big speech earlier , crying essentially about the state of politics today and talking about how politics today is full of angry rhetoric and we have seen some violence on the campaign trail at donald trump events. do you think is speech will have any impact on the campaign as its unfolding or will that speech fall on deaf ears? guest: frankly, it never hurts better angels of very nature. it's a reminder to members not to be caught up in the presidential rhetoric and not to participate in mad. you want to try to elevate that little bit. all the speaker can do is use the platform he's got. i think he has done that effectively. speech thatseen a he thought was inappropriate or ideas inconsistent with republican ideals like a ban on muslims or the careless rhetoric around david duke and the kkk, he has been willing to step forward and say things and i appreciate that and that has contributed to the softening. host: we are talking about a potential trump candidacy. do you see that is the death of the conservative movement in the united states? that: i have heard multiple times in my life. i certainly have a great deal of respect for george well. he is a remarkable commentator but there will always be a center right party. we may go through difficult times but i have been around politically for a long time. as recently as 2009, we were told that the republican party is gone for a generation and two years later back with the largest house majority that it has had in the modern era. the parties show a remarkable ability to self correct and reform over time. i would suggest that that same thing will happen now. there is no question it's a turbulent era. todo you think we are likely get a contested convention in cleveland? is there a possibility that house speaker paul ryan might end up eating the nominee? hesays no but we had said said no to the speakership and changed his mind. guest: it's certainly more contestedhave a nomination any time in my life line. i have been at everyone since 1976 and teen this stuff but i have never seen anything like now. the primaries are one thing and the delegate selection process is white another. they are not necessarily connected. how people will vote in the first round or longer can be determined but i have seen situations before and i would expect this to happen in my own home state. we were very closely contested. ted cruz caret the state for the delegate election was 15 for senator cruz and 13 for senator rubio and 13 for donald trump. the party regulars are the ones running the process and we will choose district delegates in april and file for the state convention. most of those people are more likely to be for ted cruz. he is still in the race. rubioill pick up the delegates, in my view and they are likely that the trump delegates will be trump voters on the first round but they are -- if they are not trump people, they will move in another direction. that is happening in states across the country. if you cannot win when you get there, no one has it in the tag when you arrive. there will be multiple ballots. as for speaker ryan, i don't think he has a desire to be the presidential nominee. sometimes you can be a figure of destiny and he was very much that in the speaker's race. he did not want to do it but frankly, it became evident he really was the only person that could have united the conference and gotten us through the end of last year and gotten us to a decent start. vettedalready been and people have voted for him and we know how he performs area there is no one who does not like and respect paul ryan. don't vote for him, they like and respect him and he represents the kind of vision and values as a republican you would want to put forward. if we develop a chaotic situation at a convention, there is a chance that he or summary else could emerge. fan,ly, as a big paul ryan i would be happy to see something like that happen. it literally would have to happen on its own. we saw that in the speaker's race. process. more complex if you think the house conference can be chaotic, just look at thousands of delegates from every state in the union. a lot of them have never been to a convention before and they show up with various allegiance. how somebody emerges out of that i don't know. i can envision the worst results than paul ryan, for sure. would there be a popular revolt if donald trump of voters were frustrated? the way the to settle that is to win the nomination and that's responsibility of the candidates seeking it. i will not speculate on whether there would be a revolt but you have to have a majority of the delegates. that donaldely trump for ted cruz or maybe john kasich has been through the process and have a base of delegates to start with and will enter the convention with operations already set up and -- itse already thinking former likely that one of the three of them would emerge. nobody is capable of malignant -- of manipulating this process. it's pretty logical to look beyond them to try to find somebody that's more of a consensus figure. that ian is somebody think has been fair in this process and not try to scheme. white wooden shoe and up with somebody like that if the blocks were such that they could not find another person acceptable and that's what happened in the republican conference. we had a number of talented potential people that could have been there but there was only one person that everybody could really agree on. that could happen again. >> if donald trump keeps marching along but comes up short from the number of delegates, is there a point in my calendar where it's time for the party to rally behind him and call on john kasich as the spoiler to drop out of the race? guest: i don't think there is a party in that sense i can make that kind of decision. the moment to unite is the moment when somebody gets a majority of the delegates. you accept the process and you competed. you do have to get the majority. it's not like horseshoes. you either win or lose. that way on any election i have been part of. a majority of the delegates, i would hope anybody who lost would accept the outcome. and support the winner. if you don't get there, it's not as if you can say i don't have to go through the convention. you really do and you do need to get the majority. don't think short-circuiting the process would be wise either. i think you let it lay out. host: getting away from presidential politics -- guest: thank you. host: you have tweeted before nominatedck garland for the supreme court that the senate does not have to act. from the republican party standpoint, is it advantageous to stall and not to have hearings or should they go forward with hearings and let the senate work it out? about havingrned that vacancy long-term? guest: i am more concerned about who controls the court over the longer term. any role here in the house. i think mitch mcconnell has taken the right course. the senate has done the right thing but this is unprecedented in the final year and it's nobody's fault. unexpected and terrific loss. the court hangs in the balance. i think the american people have a right to express an opinion on this through a presidential election and its emerging as a presidential year. if the senate wants to hold hearings and want to meet individually, those are individual decisions they get to make it i think they are wise to wait until after the presidential election to make a decision. at that point, the new president -- the person that wakes up the day after as the winner will be very happy that mitch mcconnell did what he did. host: seven minutes left. >> if that happens and a democrat wins the white house am a do you think republicans next january would be comparable confirming a potentially younger and more liberal court nominee? guest: they would not be comfortable. just because you're nominated does not mean you are are accepted. the next president will have to be careful who they choose. there will be a political calculus there as well. changes control, republicans will have to rely on a ella buster. -- rely on a filibuster. i think you wait to see what it's like. president that will be there for four years that has the legitimacy of one a national election, they deserve a lot of respect in terms of nominating. the supreme court is different. you know of cap no members are only there as long as the presences -- we know that cabinet members are only there as long as the president. nominees will be there for a long time. i hope the next resident will want somebody that heals the congress a little bit. these judicial battles have been very divisive and there will be a minority that the next president has to agree with whoever wins. the lesson the last two years as you better build these relationships early. i think the president did not do that his first two years. he thought he had a coalition enduring majority but he had very few friends on the other side and that's at the root of the problems he's had legislatively. >> you mentioned the donald trump proposal to ban muslims from the united states and last are you call that an american. attackhe recent brussels , ted cruz from texas had his own proposal. he proposed stepping up patrols by law enforcement officials of muslim communities in the united states. what you think of that idea? guest: it depends on what he meant. if we are talking about making sure we've got good intelligence and relationships and communications, that's appropriate. if you're talking about putting cops on the street and turning this into heavily policed areas, that's not the right thing to do. that he to believe probably misspoke or what have you. we are very fortunate in this country. we have a muslim community that is well integrated and has therebuted are beyond -- is an iranian family who are devout muslims who are wonderful people in a very big contributor to our community. i don't think those kind of folks need scrutiny. they need to be lifted up and celebrated and praise. i would hope we avoid rhetoric like that. all these guys need to read the constitution. it's pretty clear, no religious test in the united states. it's one of our great principles and why we can be as diverse as we are. we want the lively public life we have. celebrate thell same values of american so it's unfortunate when a presidential am paying put that out there. i have been proudest about speaker ryan that when he see something like that, being willing to speak out and rely on americans and who we are in the values we live by. host: final questions? >> in dealing with islamic state militants, do you think congress will at any point be able to pass a new authorization for the use of military force? guest: i hope so, i think we have been remiss. if you are a democrat and you didn't like george w bush, at least he had authorization for afghanistan and iraq. this person did not do that and libya has not done that in the islamic state and is committed to this war. i agree these are dangerous people and money to fight them but we need to have a full-scale debate and people need to hold their members accountable for how they vote and the judgments they make. we have short-circuited the process. we did that in libya with disastrous results. we are doing it now. you don't know what the consequences will be down the line. essentially, the president of the united states by congressional inaction has got the ability to wage war against anybody anywhere on the basis of authorizations that were passed before most members of congress were elected. i was not around in 2001 to vote on those authorizations. i should be held accountable for libya which way i voted. i should be held accountable for the islamic state. i think it's doable. you have to have the will to do it. the president frankly should have had the decency and democrats did not want him to do in 2014 so he woke up a few months later and sent a something february. by that time you are committed and he said i don't need this anyway. he said it would be nice if you past it. there is a lot of inexcusable activity. we should've held the vote in august, 2014. the president should have come in asked. host: a quick final question? >> in the wake of the brussels attack, we saw some action from congress after the paris attacks. is there another roll for congress to play in this? guest: other than oversight and making sure we learn the appropriate lessons from brussels and we are alert, i don't know that there is a lot to do. this is a nato country. we have wonderful relationships with belgium and we grieve for what happened and many to offer them every assistance possible. i'm sure that's being done, quite frankly. there is no partisanship when it comes to situations like this. there is no emergency funding for the zika virus before the recess. we have told the administration -- there is a lot of unobligated money. ebola will be spent over many years. we have a list of questions to the administration to try to get a better handle on the amount of money and the doherty they are asking for. they have not yet had a chance to respond to that. it's been about 10 days. i know secretary burwell is within the jurisdiction of my committee and so is dr. collins of the national institute of health and they are terrific people. we have a serious problem but we've got the means to deal with it in the short term and we need to come back with a real authorization. anding up a piece of paper not giving people a chance to as questions i think is a mistake. i think we can get there but i doubt it will be in exactly the form of the administration request or the exact amount of money. a group of us were in south america and we met with cdc officials in brazil and talked to the brazilian government so we have dialogue and looking at this. demanding that we hang around when they have the resources they need in the short-term term to do whatever they want to do, we have made it apparent we will be supported. think that is politicizing the virus in a way that is unfortunate. host: we covered a lot of ground, thank you so much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] questioners, let's start with the budget. he is an appropriator and was fairly optimistic that the budget process would work for congress this year. is that what you hear when you are in the halls of congress #>> i am a little skeptical that house republicans can pass their own resolution this year. is internalre resistance and no democrats will vote for it. that seems like a pretty big lift to me. there is no consequence that they don't pass a budget. they have a bipartisan agreement in place that they reached last fall just as former house speaker john boehner was on his way out. we know there is a bipartisan agreement in place. it seems fairly likely they will oft pass some kind short-term spending measure in september to avoid any possibility of a shot down. host: the conservative freedom caucus was part of john weiner's demise. i was paul ryan doing in his relations with his group >>? >> i think relations have been pretty good. he has spent a lot of time trying to woo the freedom caucus members. invited the chairman of the group to a weekly meeting in his office. with some ofers the freedom caucus members when they are in session. he has restored some of the members who had been booted off committees by speaker boehner and put them back on committees. he has made an effort to reach out to this group. in terms of the audit, i think there is still an impact with where the freedom caucus wants to go and where leadership wants to go. the budgetcus wants numbers to be pushed lower. also commentsu about the relationship between the house and senate under the new speaker? >> the house and senate have had -- republicans it had a joint retreat the last two years but house and senate republicans are not on the same page yet. are suggestingns to the senate to get rid of pesky rules and senate republicans don't want to do that. agreements on policy issues but way comes to working to gather, the two chambers seem to be at odds. host: on the presidential what did you hear from him today? a verbal comments on speaker ryan as a possible dark horse nominee in the event of a contested convention. thatnk you are hearing from a lot of republicans who with thechanted candidates currently available, specifically donald trump and tecr