National Press Foundation Hosts Discussion on Covering the Trump... CSPAN December 6, 2016 4:34am-5:39am EST
174 which is at the desk. the vice president: the clerk will report. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 174 directing the clerk of the house of representatives to make a correction in the enrollment of h.r. 34. the vice president: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i call up an amendment which would rename a title of the bill. i would say to the clerk i would like for her to read the entire thing. the vice president: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from kentucky mr. mcconnell for himself and mr. reid proposes an amendment numbered 5137. beginning on page 1, line 7, strike following correction and all that follows and insert the following: following corrections. one, amend the long title so as to read an act to accelerate the discovery, development, and delivery of 21st century cures and for other purposes. two, amend the section heading for section 1001 so as to read, beau biden, cancer moonshot and
n.i.h. innovation projects. three, amend the table of contents in section 1 so that the item relating to section 1001 reads as follows: 1001, beau biden, cancer moonshot and n.i.h. innovation projects. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the amendment be agreed to, the concurrent resolution as amended be agreed toened a the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the vice president: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president? the vice president: the democratic leader. mr. reid: i see all my colleagues. the presiding officer served in the senate for 36 years. during the time he was here, he was about as much a man of the senate as anyone could be. he was a democrat, but he was
also available to anybody any time, and i so admire him. i know that he's worked very closely with the republican leader on some very important issues in the last eight years. so i want the record to be spread with the fact that the presiding officer, proud of his family as anyone could be, and doing this for beau only furthers the effect that this man, the presiding officer, has had on this country. and i am grateful to the republican leader for allowing me to cosponsor this important amendment changing the name of this bill to the beau biden memorial moonshot. so grateful to you, the republican leader, all the senators, understand the man presiding is really a man of the senate and always will be.
the discussion about what will be having with one party controlling the event on capitol hill and at the second will be dealing with the presidential authorities and what the president can do from the oval office without dealing with congress in the third panel will deal with the relationship between the administration. for each of these panels there will be a discussion from the moderator but a lot of it is from questions we want to set the time questions from the audience and when it comes time for q-and-a i believe people have a microphone going around, so we want to make sure you talk into the microphone and the moderator will always be here because we are recording everything. it's on the record and will be recorded on c-span it is also streaming live on pizza. the other thing i wanted to keep in mind -- streaming live on
c-span. i'm a paul miller fellow so i want to give a recognition to the paul miller fellow adults are two of the panelists including one as a former member. we always like to see paul miller do well so the first panel jason will be leaving and he will give you more and sarah bender from the brookings institution and george washington university and christina peterson from "the wall street journal." >> thank you very much, chris and the university of maryland hosting this. just a quick psa we are talking into microphones so you won't necessarily here amplification. we will project for the cameras and the transcription and
recording. it has been a whirlwind for those of us that were covering it. it was a whirlwind year or two for those in the election. politics never sleeps though. we see the contours of the race and it is easy to get distracted. what we want to talk about is congress and one thing we have noticed as journalists and scholars is that it's always a sort of omnipresence in our lives that's necessarily not on the public side, so we want to talk about how it always relevant but how do we make it resonant for the people that are watching our staff and our news reports. everybody can introduce themselves and talk a bit about themselves for a couple of
minutes and then we will get into a couple questions before handing it over to the q-and-a. i've covered congress for about four years at "the wall street t journal" and previously i covered the federa federal audid tax policy and the stock market. >> professor sarah binder. >> half of the lives at brookings and the other a professor of the science department. i study congress and every year it gets slightly worse. >> on the policy it's been since 2009 and covering congress since the summer of 2011.
my first was a nice introduction to congress and i'm from iowa. >> let's start off with our alumni and when we were talking before we were talking about what happens in unified control. in 2009 and 2010 it was under the bush administration from 2003 ended i2003 and in the shod from the 2001. the tendency is for people to make more in politics you exaggerate the mandate that you may or may not have. let's talk about the burden that can be also. if you remember at the beginning the democrats once he was sworn
and you have 60 votes in the senate and control of the house and president obama in the white house and they were ambitious with their legislative agenda. at least the house pushed through the energy bill and i think it will be interesting to see how they handle what they do, do they see a mandate that was handed to them and also what do they do with that and i think what will help guide that is the philosophy of the leaders in the house. christina and i were talking about this. it's actually interesting how the majority leader mitch mcconnell has differing views on what they see as the mandate. paul ryan talked about this
because voters for the first time in many years handed them full control of washington but mitch mcconnell and his own conference two days after sad look, i've seen in the past there is a tendency to overreach if he's going to be very careful not to do that. so how do those two different philosophies kind of collided with each other as they try to set up a broad agenda what does that mean for their desire to repeal the healthcare law to handle immigration and also how the president elect sees this and it will be interesting to see how they are thinking with their own agenda. they'vthey fiftysomething voteso appeal the affordable care act but now that they are playing with more bullets it's a dicey proposition and they have to think about not just repealing of the kind of transition.
how and what you replace it with. that becomes something of a landmine. you don't need of the democratic vote to repeal it but you will need the democratic votes to replace it so those are the different procedures they have to go through, and i think you can see them grappling now with how tricky that is going to be. it's easier to say we want to repeal obamacare van is to figurthan it is tofigure out a o that. ..
let me just say one thing about the rules and second just think about by the house and senate looked so different. just keep in mind and this may seem obvious but you were going to realize that the majority of it has materialize. most coalitions have to be built from the bottom from the bottom up and the way in which they get dealt depends on the rules of the game and so the rules of the game are going to get paid first
of all who has agenda power and who want to put the proposal on the table and tell us which party has an easier time advancing their policy proposal on the floor and there are rules of the game that tell us how many lawmakers are required for majority two-thirds, three-fifths. this isn't just kind of scientist playing the game. just to be clear it is important to familiarize yourself with not so much why but how they differ. i guess the house has evolved into an institution that is largely driven by a majority party assuming the majority party is cohesive. the windstrom and the keep in mind for your porting is to keep your eyes on the house rules committee which really we think
of it as an arm of the majority party leadership because the speaker points to nine in this case republican members. democratic leader will point the four democratic members. you might think wow, nine republicans and four democrats. so that is stacked in the favor of the majority party and stacked in the favor of leadership. once we decide the structures of the bill, will be open that is can anybody get a vote in favor to the awful -- able to offer a member of the floor or wealth or the closed and no amendments or tax reform package and no amendments as close pic is you don't want to start rattling the campaign package verses somewhere in between. as somewhere between as with most bills are. somewhere in between treats from
their perspective somewhat unfairly and advantage the majority party and it's usually not that innate ability for bipartisan coalition to come to the floor or to allow a minority member and member of the majority party but if you look at the house and say wow the majority party rules it depends on the rules of the majority party sticking together to detect those rules. it has a nice happen. >> when they can't get the rules and the other rules on the floor or the bill gets yanked from the floor. the majority doesn't like to air their dirty laundry on the house floor. turning to the senate i think the thing to keep in mind here is there is one rule in the house that is the critical thing in the senate. all you have to know is if the majority is ready to stick about
in the house he moved ready to vote all you need a simple majority need take a vote. in the senate if he open up a senate rule book there is no pre-discussion moment so there is no ability. some circumcisions -- circumstances majority. you have to get a bill on the floor. mitch mcconnell will need to have 90% of centers meaning all democrats as well as all the republicans or he needs 60 votes for the process. we know there are two republicans in that means he needs john mccain and senator collins and ted cruz. so they need eight democrats to come over and eight democrats with very partisan politics you need 20 or 30.
you think joe manchin and they're a handful of moderates in red states. e but most of them aren't going to cross over. why is an important? you need 60 votes to get stuff done and that means obamacare to immigration reform for more defense spending all big-ticket items are going to need 50 votes. sin there's a budget procedure and they don't need to get too far into it but there's a special budget procedure that allows majority to work with 51 votes in the senate because you can't filibuster. there are post some pretty strict rules about how to get to reconciliation. it's much easier. tax reform will probably be done that way. it's not clear but again otherwise you get. >> moving on to some of the personalities that we run into
on a daily basis in the house and senate. congress can be a very intimidating place. it's not just the more than 500 members of congress and their staff. it's a big place like a small city. they are 27,000 people the work of the legislative ranch that state. the big apparatus. how do you start melding sources there? >> i think you just kind of start with a focus, start small. if you work for a publication and if you're a washington correspondent for a state newspaper obviously you start with your local representative and the two senators. if you cover policy members of the committee that have jurisdiction over that policy not just the committee members in terms of the law might or some self but the staff members on the committee and staff members for members who sit on
the committee. i think i came into congress as a general assignment reporter so being tossed everywhere, kind of whichever breaking news story was going on at the time but when i transfer to covering immigration exclusively in the late fall and really focused on members of leadership members of the gang evaded the judiciary committee's that really became important stuff was not only helped me with the reporting but also help me ride that expertise to other policies and help me to where i got today. i think if you look at congress as an oh my -- how do i get to know these people and their staff and their agenda you're going to be overwhelmed. still overwhelming to me everyday but if you start with developing a niche within your home state or policy or leadership or interesting
coalitions anyone to cover just the progressives in the house and the senate, that will be interesting. i think you tackle it like that that's the way to tip your foot into the water. >> i think that makes a lot of sense and since it is a new session of congress there are new lawmakers and they want to get to know people so that can be a good toehold into this. and we do have one party controlling members of congress and the white house. there are more issues that are actually moving so i do think there are more industries and fields with advocates like immigration or health care policy or tax reform. they know a lot and are happy to talk on back around with reporters so that's a good opportunity to start chatting with people from different angles. i think what is so nice about the hill are there so many different ways to get into every story in every beat so you can
be a white house reporter and cover the administration from the hillside because we have so much access and ability to talk to different lawmakers and aides we could do the same on the foreign-policy beat so it's just a great place to be able to have so many interactions on a daily basis. >> i think he can't emphasize enough the fact that there are no small pieces. your background covering the feds will probably come in very handy when we start talking about a new federal reserve term >> and immigration which we have covered a lot. senator sessions is a key person that because you was a vocal critic of legal immigration at the time when it wasn't being boys from us in congress have now looks like he'll be the next attorney general. it's really interesting how people you talk two years ago
have a different role. >> sarah binder how important is it to know it sounds like a squishy term but the culture of congress in washington? washington has been disparaged like no other place in the universe of the last couple of years as the campaign so you know it may be difficult to think like i'm going to spend more time getting to know the city are getting to know the people but how important is that in forming the basis of the context for developing an expertise covering congress in the administrative? >> i have two comprehensive dancers. we tend not to study the interactions of personalities all be described as a way in which life gets done and things happen on the hill. >> as we do more of. >> you are better at it than we
are. but the reality is particularly inept period the polarization we can't just count on some broad political census to come together to mold a group of coalitions. the only way for people on opposite sides who don't interact with each other get to know the other side. and just think about this. if you have a single piety divided up and you get to pieces and you get two pieces that democrats don't have to talk to republicans. you can just send somebody over to divide up the pipe you are done. big deals don't look like that. immigration reform, i think of it as a larger pie. you really care about taxes than you care about border security, fighting. we are going to knit them together. barney frank once told me you knowing congress the ankle bone
is connected to the shoulder bone. i'm not really a doctor and they are connected but they are in congress. the only way members put things together is if they know the other side wants it. it's your ability to figure out those relationships are really important. on budget deals patty murray and paul ryan. some of these folks just say no to each other in and some of them have dealt with each other over the years. you don't get fixed up unless you find a way to bring blog. c before we get into questions from the audience and the conversations there i do want to go over to the flipside of this which is polling data following money trails and so forth. polling took a real beating in this particular campaign.
how important is it end how much of it is your repertoire as a reporter and the academic world to look at those polling numbers and data trends and so forth? >> e, that is a really good question. i don't know how things shake out with polling. it is something that during the campaign year was relied on a lie relied on a lot. know from covering senate races we looked at the real clear average of polls. i will say just broadly i do think dave is really important and on the hill things that have been very helpful are congressional research service reports, cbo reports and congressional budget office that gives dollar figures on legislation, gao reports. it's a very well respected independent agency that i hope still gives out facts and analyses that both sides tend to agree upon.
will present a lecture on to say gao said that for cbo is going this way, i don't know but in the past it's been a very helpful resource for reporting. >> i agree with everything she just said. i'm not a polling expert either. i rely on the numbers when we were covering senate races especially in the battleground states but my one personal lesson from this is that i in terms of pitching a story i would way to rely on polling to base the story. i actually, last week of the race we were pondering the wisconsin senate race but i thought russ feingold may be losing his lead over johnson but look at all the polling. we also thought he was going to
to -- we should have done more in that race and i was probably relying on polling. now for the next cycle we are going to go with more than where the numbers are. i can see there's much more to that to reporting these races than getting a sense of what the numbers are. >> did we overuse pulling? >> we talked on the phone about election day. i'm sure by 9:00, 9:30 --. >> that story got written several times in the course of the election night. >> i would just offer one way to think about polls in terms of legislative politics and that's the example of a shutdown would be helpful so october 2013 the
government shut down for two and a half weeks and it was all over the spending bills and coming to terms with how they work you why it's so important. ted cruz and taken the spending bill hostage for an obamacare repeal. keep in mind democratic senate and a republican house. who is going to get the blame? are republicans going to be blamed for taking the government hostage by going after obamacare or would democrats be blamed for the ability to govern? i see it as a messaging battle that will play out but if play out but if you look at polling results what do people think of democratic leaders in and whether people think of republican leaders? even most republicans you see this happen by the second or the third week in october in the
public and republican perceptions of republican leadership. i think mcconnell and i think boehner clearly understood once the numbers tank they go to members and say we have got to go to the table. of course they really didn't get anything. they raise the debt limit and they had a budget deal. i actually think despite my discipline having a little issue about polling i think leaders will still be relying on them and it may help determine the direction that these battles go. see if that's a very good point because candidates still use polling a lot so even if journalists reduce their reliance to some extent they are important behind-the-scenes in shaping legislative battles, campaigns.
we are not done with polls, for sure. >> we will probably have more of them. there's a staggering amount of information to sift there therein is a caveat a lot of the polling at the national level predicted the margin of the popular vote. where they missed it was with the turnout in the battleground states. c in some cases the margin of air was large enough that what occurred was still technically accurate are the poll was still technically accurate. >> that does tend to get lost a little bit because it's no fun to start with a margin of air. with that i think i would like to get into some of the questions with the audience. i know there are probably a lot of questions, we hope. who wants to go first?
>> i can restate the question. >> i had a couple questions for dr. bender. he talked about what was going on with the senate in the majority and they need at least eight democrats but then he said you'd really have to peel off 20 and i was a little confused about how that would work. >> the question is just getting into explanations of the majority. they're likely going to be 52 republican senators but you need 60 to cut off debate on any kind of legislation and professor bender's statement that you need to go higher than that, 20 to 30. c to clarify you need 60 as jason just said. the thing is let's say you end up left or right liberals to
conservatives. your left and my right. i am spatially challenged especially when we talk about directions. the challenge here is that democrats and republicans, the republicans are over here in the right that democrats are scattered over here. there is anybody in the middle so we have to go all the way over to track your votes to go manchin from west virginia heidi heitkamp and north dakota. donnelly. the further you go you're going to hit the liberals. to get the eight you need you're going to hit the liberals. so that's when an essence it's not that you were aiming -- it's not that you need 80 votes but
the fact is the moderation of your pillar of the changes you need to get to 60 will probably be amenable to the other democratic senators near them. so you're not just buying peoples people's votes. you're probably making concessions to bring everybody of her. >> also there's a tactical element to this. was schumer who could be the next senate democratic leader he may left for five of its most vulnerable democrats vote with republicans on the issues. those are the people in the middle that you are talking about the democrats may not want to let eight or nine go and give republicans the legislative win unless it's a very bipartisan topic for which you get 20 democrats on board. you could see six democrats but republicans when it helps them but you don't, you won't get to the member aides to pass legislation unless it's good for
a lot of democrats. >> i think the last major legislation in the senate where they got right around 60 was trade promotion authority -- you know 2015. it was like we were out there counting. who is going to be the democrat and because of those political dynamics those situations tend to be more rare. >> i would say democratic white house lobbying democrats hard to get their votes. >> sort of precursor to some of these battles next year this week in the senate on the 21st century health related legislation that gets into user fees and so forth, sounds like a very chewy topic but there's a little division among democrats and you might be of the see some of this play out on the floor where liberals like elizabeth warren are not super happy about
it. the white house wants this bill. they have sent out a statement of administration policy saying they want this pass into law. sardi passed the house of seeing those divisions and how you get to, get past 60 and get everybody on board you can tune in this week. the white house feel strongly enough about it that today they announced that vice president biden will preside over the vote tomorrow. >> next question. >> since the election everybody in the republican party seems to be more on the same page at least a lot more than they were during a campaign the campaign. we think would take for house republicans for senate republicans to start. >> the question is where seeing a cohesion among republicans in the house and senate that we didn't see during the campaign and how long can we expect to see this piece until somebody starts to pick a fight in the
republican party with the president-elect? >> it's a really good question. we were talking about that this morning on the hill because they house majority leader kevin mccarthy held a pen and pad talking to reporters and we were asking him about president-elect trump tweets over the weekend about imposing tariffs on u.s. companies that ship production offshore. this is a difficult question for free-market republicans who they say well our answer is overhauling the tax code. they didn't want to directly answer the question of what where you pass legislation imposing tariffs because republicans don't traditionally believe in interest-bearing with the free market and have been reluctant impose tariffs. so there was this real moment that discomfort with what trump was treating but we did see a reluctance on the part of leader mccarthy to directly say he disagreed with trump and i don't know how long it will take until
people do voice their concerns more candidly. so that's the point that i'm going to be watching for. what do you guys think? >> i think we are a point right now where we are in a -- the republicans are status that they control all the levers to government or they will next year and i think that's natural to have a reticence like that to criticize the president coming from your own party in those respects when he says things that you may not personally agree with. i do think once you start digging into the policies next year president trump -- trump has an immigration plan whatever immigration plan that hands up sending you will have people like jeff flake and lindsey graham voice their objections
saying it looks like we imagined what an immigration plan by president trump of the light. and they have already put once it becomes a reality of what these policies are i think this i have much less knowledge of. civic i think you're going to hear more from the freedom caucus and perhaps right now. >> i do think and maybe this is true in every demonstrations but it's very clear that people who were early supporters of trump are being rewarded. they are on transition teams and they're able to step -- talk with the staff much more closely. they are discussing cabinet official posts. there is a price to pay for criticizing trump. you could be the subject of a tweet storm and i don't know, it's that will factor into the people's political cat collations moving forward. >> i will just add an as long as
you vote for things that they disagree with the ideologically because it's good for their reputation back home for the party's brand name and vice versa. sometimes lott or slow vote or things that they oppose or that they would prefer become law. he gets really early here but the party is one of the most valuable lessons i took after beings wrong so much about the election is not to forget that pattern that there is remarkable lieu across the branches and in the chamber and there will be a lot war sac by sidney might expect and it will be demanding of some of these republicans on many issues. we don't really know.
keep in mind two pairs of them didn't run on the same ticket with trump. they will never be on the ballot as a presidential term limits. the house is much harder to get that distance from trump. connect their terms are shorter. >> it ratchets up pretty quickly. >> one thing to note is there has been a lot of emphasis on the challenging political environment for democrats in 2018 the senate. there are 25 democrats up to eight republicans and some of those democrats are running in very republican states like west virginia or indiana or north dakota. but we sometimes neglect to mention is to people as we mentioned dean heller in nevada
up and jeff flake is up in arizona. they were both in a little bit more moderate on integration to say the least bit donald trump's had to campaign against jeff flake and they are cognizant of the fact that their states are heavily hispanic and that's where demographics are heading. not to always divert towards the political situation but it is helpful to know the context of what people are making decisions for in this. the next questions. >> there's a narrative that's a bit democrats are really going to try to hold back because of what's going on with merrick garland this year. how successful can it conceivably be with that? >> the question is how successful can democrats be in a case that they wanted delay the nomination of donald trump's cabinet officials or judges and
so forth because of the way the republicans refused to hold a hearing for merrick garland president obama's nomination to the supreme court. that there's very little little they can do to stop it because the senate democrats called to change the level and now you need 51 votes to confirm all nominees to the supreme court. as was noted earlier pending the outcome of louisiana senate election saturday. what is more important to staff and what will be more important to stop the trump nominees if you have a jeff flake or those republicans against the nominees. democrats can insist on role calls for nominees and recall there were at least half a dozen obama nominees that were -- on
january 2009. i don't see that happening next january. >> your member senate democrats judiciary committee demanding long hearings for jeff sessions and again you have the drawnout caucus so in terms of staffing a nominee there's very little they can do because of the lower threshold. in terms of just making a painful and making it annoying for republicans and eating up for time. republicans would rather be using an act of legislative agenda. >> one exception is general mattis will need a waiver which will need need need legislation in senator gillibrand as already
said that she will insist on a procedural vote that requires 60 votes. he also seems to have the most democratic support. he's the one that the democrats want and confidence. >> we could also talk a little bit about some court nominees which is the one category that has the potential to get really interesting this year. whether democrats do object to trump supreme court. whether republicans will change the rules again so that it only requires a majority to confirm the court nominee. i think it's hard to tell in his press conference the day after the election leader mcconnell seemed to dwell on the apparel of overreaching when you're in the majority which use and
institutionalized and that seems to suggest that he and the veteran republicans might be reluctant to do that. but you know if democrats don't go long i could see there being a lot of public pressure to confirm a nominee and maybe they would. >> we are talking about a fairly small universe of supreme court nominees who have based that kind of scrutiny going back 100 years. some examples aid for this for johnson picked on the supreme court. there were procedural votes on samuel alito but this is relatively unprecedented for the supreme court to filibuster a nominee of the supreme court. >> there are some cloture votes on the most recent ones. i think some got 58 and some of
them were roll call votes. i don't know if there's less precedence for it. if the fact that this is the reality of contemporary american politics which is a tough polarized party particularly in a supreme court particularly in a world where congress weighs in on health care and immigration reform overtime pay. there also ways in which it's immensely important. it makes sense that the parties would fight over it and majority members might. >> about going nuclear. i think eventually the issue could be on the other foot in having a democrat in the white
house. >> one thing i feel compelled to mention is we are focusing on covering congress and the new administration but we have got that other branch government across the street symbolized by the supreme court. the ways that the judicial branch influences the decision-making in congress and the white house and so forth, this seems to me, i don't know if you feel the same way, that the judicial branch may be the most undercovered part of government that we have. do you think there is any merit to back? >> i guess i would answer yes. for many the reasons that we talked about in terms of covering congress is very tough
to come by for the court unless you are in there and you don't ever see the negotiations in conference. the thing to keep in mind here is that we do have examples during unified republican control where the court put a wrench into republican administrations in the court cases that came up. in particular on the war on terror and all of the detainees in guantánamo bay. there was a series of supreme court cases starting in four, six and eight through the administration remarkably for congress to come to the table to figure out what are we going to do about detainees and will there be trials, will they be commissioners?
how are we going to deal with this? is the court that forces congress to the table there. the courts can kind of shake things up. >> it will be a really interesting venue for democrats to push back on the thinnest ration and kind of -- democrats may have been wiped out in congress but you are going to have high-profile influential state attorney general's used as a venue to push back against our policy. the one person per for -- for performance of my mind as congressmen have your becerra's who is an outgoing member of house leadership. he's going to take over for kamala harris as attorney general. you are already saying a lot of what the california legislature in california are doing to push
back against immigration policy. you will be the person pushing that in seeing that antagonist to trump at the state or federal level. the legal field will be a very interesting venue and adjusting story that way as well. >> also you'll see medicaid changes coming out the overhauling of obamacare and that will be interesting to see democratic governors push back although there are fewer states where democrats have control of the state level. >> you are also seeing republican governors saying before you get rid of the medicaid in my state my own state of arizona the governor they are right out of the gate after the election saying before anything takes hold me to figure out how to cute people covered. coming from a very republican pedigree. questions. >> as a health care reporter i
keep hearing conflicting stories about whether they will repeal obamacare. any tips on what to watch for there? >> the question is the reports and republicans using the reconciliation process would require fewer votes in the senate to get through. how much of obamacare the affordable care act could be repealed and how many changes could you make to that using the budget reconciliation process? >> one principle to keep in mind the principle is that the reconciliation becomes huge for measures and provisions. the overall package can be increasing the deficit. provisions are reviewed and
judged by the parliamentarians on whether or not they can go into the package. >> cutting the deficit. they happen to be a budgetary implication of the provision. the language, if the purpose of the provision is -- then i can go in. in a world where they want to repeal the requirement to cover pre-existing conditions i think that would be judged to be incidental to the challenge. this is the easiest and out of there is a parallel to health care reform. when they did tax reform it was done under bush. it was a very costly package because tax cuts actually costs
money. the way they got around it was to sunset in 10 years when he had to score all these provisions it went into the bill it looks neutral. the whole thing look neutral. there are ways in which we get these into a package to make a budget neutral. and just keep in mind if somebody wants to challenge a budgetary issue because it violates the rules to a point of order and that's 60 votes so yes it's a final threshold for passage of regulation but it would have all these thresholds that might be against the reconciliation competing for the reconciliation bill. >> in 2015 they did pass a repeal of the aca through a
congressional resolution but it was vetoed by obama. he did actually go to the parliamentarian a couple of times in initially they couldn't do as much as they wanted to and then they had to rework how it was structured in order to make it, protect it from an order. if i were health care reporter and we kind of do, i would have said house republicans layabout. it repealed the individual employer mandate and that repealed the mental care law. that package that's not the entire health care law obviously but republicans, and if
republicans felt that it got enough of the health care law's and it defunded planned parenthood. that is what we are going to start with in terms of how we repeal it. >> i remember one tiny detail from that was in getting rid of the mandate i think they left it in but said it the road -- is how it made it through. >> they left the mandate in that they got rid of penalties. >> in order to get it through all of these parliamentary -- at least at one point. >> it's important to point out the parliamentarian is a political decision on who is the parliamentarian. they are usually not going to put them into such a dire situation that they have a
face-off with the parliamentarian that they can make for interesting times and they say will this work and will this work? question. >> how much time and energy in worrying about policy and governing? >> members of congress are single-minded to seek re-election. it never really separates them. the politics and policies are like intertwined. you have this notion that you could seek re-election. the re-election motive is the tool. as the first thing you bump into
every single morning and it's seen through prism of how it's going to affect my reputation in my abilities to get reelected. keep in mind they say i want to work on health care. so the house within six months they are worrying about getting people in there. so there is no more honeymoon. i think it's really gone. they are raising money to scale people. >> is interesting conversation with no one was reelected in 2014 is previous dent in congress was 30 years ago i think. it's interesting talking to him when he came back to capitol hill after three decades and what he said the biggest difference with people have to spend so much more time fund-raising now and less time legislating.