forward as to my area of interest, the counterterrorism area. the more we can foster that and translate that partnership into actual operational coordination and cooperation the better. >> i would say the partnership of peace efforts offer a tremendous opportunity to blend them into the overall strategic thought process. discussions like this don't get anywhere until you have a master strategy. it has to be a global strategy. you can't tell the nato countries to do this or that. they don't have a nato strategy, for example, so i think support ought to be give on the that arena. >> exactly, and, again, the bridges that the economic community tried to develop, one is the partnership for peace review that turkey was mandated

by nato to develop centers of excellence to combat terrorism and beyond that and i will say they try to reach out, of course, now the situation is uncertain how things are going to develop but at any rate, we did produce journals in this particular area, partnership for peace review as well as terrorism. anyone else? >> just briefly, i think -- i mean, i would argue -- i think partnership for peace needs a rethink. for all the reasons jorge said we're facing a new panoply of threats, new technology, new kinds of issues and many of the partners have become nato members and others have graduated but it's not really coming together in any way that i think is attuned to the

challenges as it could be. for instance, the enhanced opportunities partners, now we have these five countries that joe mentioned. it's a grab bag, but let's take that further. finland and sweden are frankly just in a class by themselves in terms of the value added they could provide and we could take that further. i have argued for another tier of partnership that would get them as close to being a member as they can. i think the strategy, frankly, given the swedish and finish ni debates is keep getting close so by the time the question is asked in sweden or finland everybody will know what the answer will be. so to push it too hard, it will backfire. but incremental process, get them to be value-added contributors. i mentioned resilience, for instance, it's a whole other area. why didn't we do partnerships in the resilience track.

we need to know how resilient yo ukraine is in all sorts of ways that could be disrupted because otherwise our efforts won't be useful. we need to have a project for that ch that. i don't know why we wouldn't do advisory support teams to a country like ukraine. it gives a new plank of engage ago country like ukraine. japan and south korea wanted to be partners, they have been rebuffed. we have an article five commitment to those countries as well and if we really want to harness combined assets we should see how we should develop that so they could also provide activities. if australia is an enhanced opportunity partner, why aren't these others given that same

opportunity? so i think there's rich area for new thinking. >> anyone else? richard? >> do we want to open it up to the audience who have questions. we have colleagues with a microphone so please raise your hand. please identify yourself and make your question brief. we'll go a little bit over. >> daphne comelli, potomac institutes. in view of the upcoming elections and the changes in europe, where do you see u.s. support for nato going at this point. i know it's everybody's guess, but in any case where would the pendulum swing in terms of u.s. support for nato. >> thank you for that question. can we take one more? we'll take a couple questions. sir. >> i'm with the russian embassy.

gentlemen, i thank you so much for your -- the distinguished panel for interest and insights. mr. weinstein i guess how you can fit into this panel, you mentioned terrorism and nato. being from the russian embassy, i would definitely support -- see the main stret in the world is the scourge of terrorism which our countries -- united states and russia -- are in better position to eliminate this world if we work together. that's an idea and peeking of events in 2001, september 11, you might remember president putin was the first one to call president george w. bush and offer assistance and felt dearly for people who were killed in new york. also russia supported the isaf

mission in afghanistan aid i by the skoecurity council in new yk or providing logistics. now we don't have it in nato. nato suspended the military cooperation very much, intel cooperation, i had hardships to go to, it doesn't contribute to security, that's the separation we have now. i understand that we're in an electoral mood within the belt way and definitely russia kind of supports here to put russia in front of this campaign there was a lot of war opportunity

here and people like to draw circles and say that russia is a threat to the united states. i hope that with the fading political campaign -- the election campaign -- >> sorry, is there a question. >> yeah, to be short i don't approve of the messages that my country broke the trust rand did everything wrong and is, you know, doing the hardships for the united states and other work. let me remind you that nato was the first one to break trust by blowing up military equipment and personnel around the borders and provoking basically an arms race. what kind of resilience does the alliance -- the project forward like in ukraine by supplying armies there and many here call for more robust measures. is that the kind that you call

projecting stability, being a peaceful alliance which doesn't threaten anyone? >> that was the question? >> question, what exactly can nato do to resolve the crisis in ukraine and to stop building up military buildup on its eastern flank, which doesn't contribute to security of europeans, russians, or americans, thank you. >> thank you for your question. so the two questions are one on the new u.s. administration, what's the view of the panel vis-a-vis the overall emphasis and support for nato and the second question is nato's role in ukraine. we have probably time for one more question. sir, right here. and while we take the third question -- right here in the front.

sorry. >> just two very quick -- just building on the administration -- >> identify yourself. >> sorry, i'm from the embassy of canada. just building on the question from the potomac institute, the new administration, especially perhaps if we have a trump administration who has already talked about japan and south korea needing to better support themselves, how does that translate potentially to allies? especially those who don't necessarily live up to the 2% defense spending commitment and then just about resiliency and just late last week we saw moldova all but elect a very pro-russian president. nato has done a lot of work with moldova? how do we go forward not just with moldova but other count flees that area who may be leaning away from europe. thank you. >> we'll take one more question. >> in the back. >> i'm with the lithuanian defense attache and thank you

very much for the present stations. there would be a lot of questions but due to time limits probably there's a short time so i'll be very short. one of the nato vulnerabilities is the time which is used to -- for decision making process and some of the aspects need to be improved and eventually one of the aspects would be an appointment of the new assistant secretary general for intelligence due to the fact that intelligence is one of the most important issues for a lot of planning will depend on. do you see any other possibilities to increase the speed of decision making process in nato? even in the present situation? thank you. >> thank you for that question. we'll turn it over to the panelists if they want to tackle any questions.

>> i'm happy to touch on these quickly then i'm going to have to run as well, too. on u.s. support, the american public has a great reservoir towards nato and the countries that make it up but at the same time has a degree of frustration that we don't want to feel like we're doing things for european security the europeans don't want to do themselves and the situation gives a u.s. president a lot of room to exercise leadership, to define the issues about what the u.s. interests are with nato and to lead a path forward that affirms that commitment and also tries to tackle that sense of frustration, so there's a lot of running room for a u.s. president given the state of the public. on the question as to what nato can do to increase stability in ukraine, it's important to remember the reason there's a crisis in ukraine is because russia invaded and continues to support separatists there, has troops there, has annexed part of the territory of the country

and as long as russia feels that it can continue in that path there's not going to be stability in ukraine so i think what's important is that nato provide additional support, political, economic, financial, military to the government of ukraine so that it is able to resist this more effectively and create some stability. as far as moldova goes, unfortunately there's not a lot we can do in the short term about reversing this. one of the things that we do cling to is the ability of countries to have their own political systems and make their own decisions. what we see is through surreptitious means daunt reis like russia influencing that and then producing an outcome such as we had. but i think what we can best do is to continue to support our own values and do that in a very visible and public way which i think will resonate with publics over time and to make sure we are communicating that

effectively. finally on speeding up decision making, it's an excellent question and jorge was right to put that into a slide. to me, the illogical thing always would have been to make a clear distinction between political decisions and implementation of political decisions. and it is possible, i believe, to preserve for consensus at the north atlantic council at a political level decision making on political issues. but once decisions at a political level are taken, even if it's well, well in advance, it ought to be able to then be implemented through the nato authorities, both civilian and military, without having to go back for additional political decision making. and this is the port that always slows things down. i remember in the kosovo campaign it was about targeting. when it comes to deployments of

forces or how forces would act in a given situation, say, in afghanistan. it always came back to the knack for further decisions. that's something we should try to separate south. we take initial political decisions, we can take future big political decisions but in between we need to let nato authorities get on with their wor work. >> i just wanted to mention on moldova and the point -- i want to mention a book we have out about what we're called europe's gray zone. i mean, the reality is we are facing a vast space of europe and europe's east, nonnato eu or europe that is turbulent, it's violent there are lingering issues, not only russian engagement but corrupt elites, legacy issues, those trying to block it within many of these countries and the people of that region don't know where their future lies.

and i would argue we haven't been all that engaged to help them find that out so this is my other point, i don't know that nato leads on that, though, at the moment, frankly, the european union should be having a real rethink of their eastern partnership policies, the eastern partnership has been the way the eu has engaged these countries, particularly the ones we're talking about and i think people in the region don't understand because this is a process like many of the eu processes where, you know, a country like moldova has a stack of paper in front of it, has to do all this stuff in order to really move forward. it won't become luxembourg tomorrow. and so it's so much procedural issues, so much elite and bureaucratic, so far removed from public attention that people in moldova, people in ukraine, people in these countries, they don't know what the eu would mean to them.

there's nothing tangible so i think a tailored approach to the eastern partnership would be tuned to the basic needs of those countries and how you deal with it and be a bit more willing to deal with the corruption issue. in fact, how we enable the corruption, the banking fraud of moldo moldova, all the money funneled out of moldova ended up funneled through latvian banks. member of the eu, member of nato. there are thousands of examples of this, how we don't even enforce our own laws that allow this type of thing to happen so things we can do for ourselves to help moldova we don't even need to go there but we don't do it. so there's a lot of stuff we have to realize that we're going to be facing this instable east for some time to come. the european commission said no enlargement under this current commission. i would bet there's no enlargement under the next commission. we're facing a decade, at least, of uncertainty and instability and we have to create new tools

by which we engage nato as one but not only one. and we have to be realistic that this is the europe we're facing. it's not fixed, it's not a stable place. it's in fact the potential for violence continuing is very high. particularly in this part of europe. if there's one lesson of history we've learned, wherever we turn away from the gray zones of europe, we end up paying a higher price later so we need to engage up front and think about these things now. >> if i could just add with respect to the public support question, the pew center has done a lot of public opinion research on this. if you look at their data from april among people who lean republican, 75% of them said nato was good for the united states. among people who lean democrat it was 81% who said nato is good for the united states. independents 78%. they even broke it down by whom

you support and so for supporters of donald trump who has been the most critical of nato in this election in this campaign, even among his supporters, 64% people said nato is good for the united states. so that speaks to the reservoir of understanding and of support in the u.s. with regard to the question on ukraine, i don't agree with the facts as you laid them out. i think the facts are different and even if you take one bit about the allegation that nato is moving its military infrastructure closer, if you look at the numbers of forces that nato has placed in the east they are in no way a threat to russia and it was only done after a long and careful evaluatio evaluation. >> i agree with what was said about the other answers.

i'll just briefly focus on decision making. i think it's time for nato to -- for the north atlantic council, the political leader shship, it created these forces. it gives other military commanders the ability to train these forces, to have snap exercises for these fors to move them two to three times a year across the alliance. that's a key need for the alliance. and it will improve deterrents in europe to have these forces more readily deployable and quickly deployed by the military commander commanders. >> let me be the first to freely admit of course there's room for improvement and nato decision

making having spent many hours of my life in windowless rooms like this in nato meetings. but having said that, it's also our experience that in a time of real crisis nato can take important political decisions very quickly. i was at the u.s. delegates at nato on 9/11. and within 24 hours of the subject being put on the table of the declaration of article 5, they agreed to declare article 5 and a couple days later when the united states requested certain measures of support from the allies, within 24 hours, everything the united states requested had been granted by the allies. so when there is a crisis in the offing, is sometime it can move quickly. that doesn't mean we can't do bette better. >> once again, we're way over time so that's why you've asked me to talk. i want to thank our distinguished panelists for a very, very goodies cushion

today. i would only add that -- of course, i'm an old timer now, i'm over the hill but when i had the privilege of commanding the nato strategic reserve forces in the late '70s and early 80s, we invoked -- we didn't worry so much about central europe. our whole effort really was on the flanks of nato and we had a maritime thought process and a maritime strategy and we had sync land and sack land as you would call them. and we talked about a much larger kind of thought process and a much larger kind of an integrated and adaptable strategy and i go back to what i said earlier. you're going to -- you should have a -- there should be a nato strategy and there should be a free world strategy and we don't have to worry so much about russia, i don't think, if we just put our thinking caps on and remember that it's in nobody's interest, russia's interest or anybody else's interest to get too fancy or to

start too much of a problem anywhere in the world. we've got -- you know, we here in an era of globalization now. any strategy has to be an economic thought process, a political thought process, a societal thought process, technology is a part of it and of course the military and we simply don't seem to have that kind of not only national but international thought process going on so if i were asked through -- to advise the new president and all i would think along those kind of lines but don't worry, they're not going to ask me. thank you for being with us. [ applause ] tonight at 8:00 eastern on american history tv, the first of two days of programming on winston churchill's friends and contemporaries. segments about the world war ii british prime minister's relationships with monarchs, american presidents and how he was viewed by other europeans. also a look at winston

churchill's financial team. part one of winston churchill's friends and contemporaries begins tonight on american history tv on c-span 3 at 8:00 eastern. fort knox was chosen because it was america's most inpenetrable location. it was the gold bullion depository, it had been open several years prior, there had been lots of gold already transferred there so secretary of the treasury henry morgenthau gave permission to use a portion of the depository for these documents. sunday night on "q&a" author steven puliot talks about the decision to move america's most important historical documents to fort knox on december 26, 1941. >> mcleash has to make a decision, what documents will be there? the original engrossed declaration, definitely. the original engrossed constitution, definitely.

the articles on confederation, pre-constitution for sure. the gettysburg address, considered critical goes. so he makes this decision very methodically on what's going to go to fort knox. these are considered the most valuable documents in the country and the magna carta is the document he's been asked to preserve for the brits. >> sunday night on "q&a." after i came up with the idea i did research information because -- and this is the case with a lot of pieces that will be done for this competition -- but mental illness especially. it's a complicated issue. it's not black and white and it's so multifaceted that i had to research to get a base knowledge of what i wanted to talk about in this piece and obviously there was a lot of -- it's so complicated that i can't talk about it all in five to seven minutes. >> pharmaceuticals is a broad topic and i thought it would be

nice to have a foal point i wanted to focus on, i started interviewing my parents before i got stuff from the internet, before i started shooting i researched this topic extensively. >> i talked to the pharmacist there, i talked to my mom and her colleagues and co-workers and had to develop internet research and went to the library. >> a lot of internet research to find facts and data and statistics about employment of those with developmental disabilities to see really what was going on. most of the information that i got off of the internet came from government founded web sites so that's how i knew that most of the information i was getting was legitimate. >> this year's theme, your message to washington, d.c. tell us, what is the most urgent issue for the new president and congress to address in 2017? our competition is open to all

middle school or high school students grade six through 2012 with $100,000 awarded in cash prizes. students can work alone more to a group of up to three to produce a five to seven-minute documentary on the issues selected. include c-span programming and explore opposing opinions. the $100,000 in cash prizes will be shared between 150 students and 53 teachers and the grand prize of $5,000 will go to the student or team with the best overall entry. this year's deadline is january 20, 2017. so mark your calendars and help us spread to word to student filmmakers. for more information, go to our web site, studentcam.org. law professors and former house and senate staffers discuss congressional oversight powers of the executive branch and overcoming the tension between the two branches of government, especially in information gathering.

>> well, good morning, everybody, and thanks for joining us today at this beautiful facility, the pew center. i'm one of the co-directors of the levin center at wayne law at wayne state university law school. i currently -- and we are one of the sponsors of today's event along with the constitution project. and the other -- and senator carl levin -- i'm being joined today by jenny sloane, who's the president of the constitution project and senator carl levin who is the chair of the levin center and the distinguished legislator in residence at wayne state university law school. the person who's supposed to be presenting these remark this is morning is jocelyn benson, our executive director, but she's flying in from new york this morning and has not made it yet

so i will assume her position here. we're here today to examine the struggle between the congress and the executive branch over access to information. we titled this conference "a right to know" on the part of congress and then a right to documents and witnesses in if t executive branch as part of a legitimate inquiry by congress into what the executive branch is doing or has done versus a right to no on the part of the administration. that is a refusal by the executive branch to fully respond a congressional request for information or access to a witness in order to protect its deliberative process and the president's right to confidentiality. we're joined by two panels of experienced practitioners and distinguished scholars who will help us grabble with this issue today. our format will be as follows --

first, we will have additional welcoming remarks from ginny sloan and opening comments from senator levin. then we'll hear from a panel of individuals who were involved in a case of house committee oversight versus holder/lynch, it's now the lynch case, which involved the fast and furious program and the case involving harriet mieeyers. we'll break for 15 minutes and then we'll hear from a panel of individual who have from experience and slarship given serious thought to how congress and the executive branch can work through challenging demands and relationships. we'll have a brief wrapup at noon and adjourn at 12:15. so i'd like to invite ginny sloan on behalf of the constitution project to come up and give her welcoming remarks. >> thanks, linda, and good morning. i want to welcome you all here

today on behalf of the constitution project and i want to thank so much the levin center for co-sponsoring this event with us today and i want to thank also senator le vin and my long time friend linda. . thank you also to mort rosenberg who has written both the original "when congress comes calling" for the constitution project and now has updated it or in the process. we're almost done. we're grateful and delighted it's one of the bases for today's discussion. we ran out of the original long ago because it was so popular and such a useful tool for how our government works and we're pleased the update will be available in just a few weeks. if you're interested, go back down stairs and pick up one of the forms and we'll make sure you get it. the other day i watched a pbs show on the making of hamilton, which i had the pleasure to see

a few months ago on broadway. it was an amazing piece of theater but also a great lesson in history and that's what today's event is about. it's about the history of our government and the balance of powers that has been the fulcrum of our democratic system. hamilton was about the executive branch and the differences of philosophies and personalities that ended up creating our system of government. it applies just as well to our current system and debates. who controls the government and in what way? what powers does congress have and how are they balanced against and by the executive branch and ultimately what role did the courts have in resolving any disputes that cannot be resolved by the political system itself. with credit to one of the best songs in hamilton, everyone wants to be in the room where it happens. our program today is about who gets to be in that room, who

makes that decision and how policy is created once the decision is made. hamilton made clear our democracy is not an easy or flawless system. our experts today will discuss what happens when congress comes calling. the tug-of-war between the executive and congressional branchs has always existed and always will. while hamilton didn't turn out all that well, at least for hamilton himself, the founders created a brilliant system that seems today to some to be on the verge of breaking apart. there's no right or wrong in this tug-of-war, but there must be contentious people of good will to exercise their powers. our democracy depend on it. when congress comes calling gives them knowledge and tools to do their jobs responsibly and pursuant to the constitutional powers created during the time hamilton portrayed and developed in the years since then and now

i'm pleased to be able to introduce former senator carl levin, senator levin served for 36 years in the u.s. senate representing the state of michigan. he is, in fact, the longest-serving senator from that state. in the senate he served as both chair and ranking member on the arms services committee and as both chair and ranking member of several oversight subcommittees on the homeland security and governmental affairs committee includeing 15 years on the permanent subcommittee on investigations. senator levin was known for his in-depth investigations into complicated issues, his bipartisan approach to oversight and his commitment to uncovering the facts. these strengths played out significantly in his over sight of the financial sector, in particular the 2008 mortgage bank crisis, offshore tax shelters of wealthy individuals and multinational corporations

and money laundering. he brings a wealth of experience and accomplishments to any discussion of oversight and we are so pleased to have him join thus morning. senator levin. [ applause ] >> jenny, thank you so much for the introduction. according to the program here, i guess you're part of the welcome and i'm sort of the overview part of that line so mine will be longer than a welcome. not quite as long as the paper which is i stuffed into my pocket but longer than the other remarks. thank you so much for the great work of the constitution project. we actually in the teaching that i do with jocelyn benson at wayne state law school, we are now in the middle of a course on legislation and our main focus in that course is on oversight.

and some of the cases and the practices that are involved in oversight we use more to book as one of our texts in our course. i hope jocelyn gets here she until recently was the dean of wayne state law school, now she is taking on responsibilities but she's also going to continue at wayne law as the director of the levin center. i thank the pew center for their hospitality here today. i am tremendously indebted to linda who was my -- the director, my staff director, my -- the one who is also the staff director at the permanent subcommittee on investigations. and on an earlier oversight committee called the oversight of government management. when i walked in here, a number of people greeted me, i said "is

linda here?" they said "linda's here, we all love her." everyone told me how much they love linda. with good reason, folks, she's an extraordinary, extraordinary human being. we have four students with us here from the levin center. we wanted to greet them and give them a chance to participate and watch what goes on at this particular forum and let me kick off now just a few oversight remarks, overview remarks of what we'll be talking about here today i believe very deeply in the constitutional responsibility of congress to serve as a check on the operations of the vast expanse of the executive branch. that responsibility has long been recognized as an integral part of our system of checks and

balances. back in 1927, the supreme court explicitly stated in the case of -- the doherty case "we're of the opinion that the power of inquiry with the power to enforce it is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the lid legislative function. that decision was reinforced in "watkins" when the court acknowledged congress's inherent power to conduct information investigations stating it was a broad power, including inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws needed statutes, defects in our socioeconomic or political system and "probes" to expose can corruption, inefficiency or waste. it was that needed power and

existing power of congress that caused me when i came here in 1979 and for the subsequent 36 years that i was in the senate to choose to dedicate a significant portion of my time as a senator to conducting oversight. in order for oversight to work it has to know what's going in the executive branch and that means making demands on the executive branch for information both documents and witnesses because i taken a expansive view of congress's right to know, i'm concerned about recent court developments like the holder case where the district court recognized a broad deliberative process, deliberative process

privilege. with the growth of e-mail, in other words things that can be put into print that are lasting, not just oral conversation, with the growth of e-mail and with the growth of hacking and leaks i am somewhat sympathetic, frankly, to the need for the executive branch agencies to protect their intraagency and even their interagency communications to the extent that they are communications in preparation for developing a policy or position or responding to an outside event. in other words, frank discussion in the decision making process has real value. so that people can talk and communicate without the fear of being mischaracterized as taking a position, a final position

either for the agency or for the administration or even a position of the person who is uttering the words. but that recognition, like a leak in a dam, can result in a flood over time and the consequences, if not carefully limited, can be devastating to the role of congress in overseeing agency programs. we've actually seen some indication of the overbreadth that is inherent as possibility in that approach, an indication of that happening in the house's recent investigation of the obama administration's actions under the affordable care act where house committees have sought information that had been denied based on the administration's claim of "confidential privileges" which is pretty vague.

i also fear that if congressional oversight is viewed as highly partisan as opposed to institutionally sound that courts may respond with a more protective position than they otherwise would. in other words. if that approach becomes accepted, the unfortunate consequence can be that congress loses its power to know, to know what's going on in the program it creates and in the executive branch and hence loses its power to act on an informed basis. congress doesn't have to go to court, at least theoretically, to enforce its subpoenas. it has its own inherent enforcement authority which means it could issue a contempt citation, hold a trial on its own or hearing on the contempt resolution and if the person is

found guilty of contempt, congress could actually put that person in jail, a congressional jail, congress already seems like a jail to some of its members, this is a different kind of a jail. this sounds bizarre, but the supreme court has recognized this authority and since 1795 congress used this power over 85 times, in most cases successfully. it hasn't been used in 75 years with good reason, but the presence of that inherent contempt authority does speak to the significance of congress's need and its right to know. in the recent myers case and in the holder case the house for the first time adopted resolutions authorizing the house general counsel to bring a suit in federal court seeking enforcement of its subpoenas.

in both of those cases house committees were seeking information, both documents and testimony in the case of myers and documents in the case of holder and chose to go to federal district court to enforce their subpoenas. the reason they did this is because the justice department refused to bring the contempt citation that the house had passed in both instances before a grand jury despite our laws requirement that it is the quote duty of the u.s. attorney to do so. and the myers case contains eloquent words that reflect my view and i want to read them to you. congress's power of inquiry is as broad as its power to legislate and lies at the very heart of congress's constitutional role according to

the supreme court, the ability to compel testimony is "necessary" to the effective functioning of courts and legislatures citing the brian case thus, congress's use and need for vindication of its subpoena power in this case is no less legitimate or important than was the grand juries in united states versus richard nixon. both involve core functions of a co-equal branch of the federal government. now, these -- the recent cases are only district court cases, they're not appellate cases so they're subject to revision and review and the holder case is currently on appeal but we are on new ground here and we have

to recognize that we're now going to face a -- have a new congress and a new president and that we have to think through and talk about and see if we can come to some kind of a resolution of the inherent conflict that we're talking between the need of congress and the need of the executive branch, the goal of any document request is actually to avoid conflict between the branches but we're in a political environment where conflict is inevitable and of course that means that the tension between congress and the constitutional responsibility to oversee the workings of the executive branch and on the other hand the president's claim of executive privilege and deliberative process to have a free and frank discussion both have to be recognized and the resolution of that conflict is something that i hope that we can talk about

here today. and, again, i just want to emphasize a point which i made briefly before that in resolving the tension between the need of the legislative branch and the need of the executive branch that the more intensely partisan oversight becomes that the more likely it is the court will protect the eck we the that is involved in a need for a deliberative process in the administration i think if i was any point that i would want to reinforce in these remarks it would be that. we've seen highly partisan investigations without going beyond that and identifying any particular one. there have been highly partisan

oversight herings and investigations and if that is going to be the perceptions but of a court in trying to resolve what is the equity in an administration, the court is kind of naturally going to say, well, if the congress is going to involve itself in highly partisan use of the investigative process and not do it on a bipartisan basis for the institutional need to use oversight in order to get information that the court i believe -- and this is just based on my experience, the courts are likely to respond and to give greater deference to the equities which are involved in an administration wanting to have freedom debate without it being miskharkized again as being a decision when it's merely a discussion. so high partisanship, intense partisanship jeopardizes

jeopardizes the oversight role. when the new president, a new congress began in 2017 it will face the issues which you'll be discussing today so this is a meaningful time to review the rights and the rules and the principles that govern there tug-of-war between the branches and to contemplate a path forward. what's needed is to ensure that congress can access the information that it needs to oversee the executive branch and were necessary to check the executive branch effectively and how should congress at the same time be held accountable for using its oversight powers and

its tools of oversight appropriately. we look forward to the panelists and these panls, we're very grateful to them for coming here today and to all of you for being with us as we discuss a very, what i'm sure is perceived by the public as a very dry and a very arcane issue but it's an issue which goes right to the heart of government. great being with you. thanks for showing up here today. [ applause ] thank you, senator levin, for those very wise remarks that come from decades of experience. it's my privilege to moderate this first panel which will look at the development of the law and practice with respect to congressional access to access to information and to assess where we are now in light of

recent events, in light of the myers case and the fast and furious case. you're going to hear fast and furious, holder and lynch. those are all the same case. fast and furious is the generic you will hear fast and furious, holder, and lynch. they are all the case. fast and furious is the generic term. holder was the name of the case as it was brought undecided. now it has become lynch with the new attorney general because the case is on appeal. all of those are the name for the same case and the same situation. i spent 24 years in the senate doing oversight with senator carl levin as a member of the then named government affairs committee, homeland security and governmental affairs. i supervised a number of the investigations of the executive branch including dod procurement, irs seizure policy, the apparition of social security disability program, debarment and extension

and web tech and campaign finance reform. throughout those investigations, we took a very limited view of executive privilege and the right of the executive branch to withhold information. it's a position very similar to the legal argument congressman isa made in the lynch case. i don't agree with everything but i am very close to his position on this, i must say. the privilege was very narrow and depended upon the nature of the investigation. i gave little recognition to the deliberative process exception when it involved intra-agency communications.

the kind of questions we were asking of the executive branch i don't think ever raised suspicions about the deliberative process exception. but i must say that my attitude towards it was that we would rarely, if ever, recognize deliberative process in the context of an intra-agency communication. in the past few years, with the decisions in myers and holder, things have changed. there appears to be some greater recognition that the deliberative process documents and conversations are now exempt and can be exempt from congressional access and the courts are the mechanism to settle these disputes. and we've got to know today what that means for the future of congressional oversight. i wouldn't call it a sea change, but it's a significant change that we need to see if it

is in open to go a larger and larger refusal by the executive branch to provide congress with the information it needs. joining me on this panel this morning are three individuals who not only had direct involvement in fast and furious but also have a distinguished history of working on numerous other congressional investigations so they can draw from both recent and past experience. so let me first introduce to you the panel. first we have steven castor. he serves at deputy general counsel for the house oversight and government reform. he joined the committee staff in 2005 and has served on the committee as general counsel and chief counsel for investigations. he has worked on a number of notable investigations, including fast and furious, the irs, steroids in baseball, and jack abramoff. he received ba from penn state, mba from lehigh and jd from george washington. next we have ron weiss.

ron serves as dean of the baltimore school of law. prior to that he served as assistant attorney general for legislative affairs in the justice department. representing that department on all legislative and oversight matters before congress. he has served chief counsel to harry reid, edward kennedy and received his b.a. from columbia and j.d. from yale. third we have andrew wright. andrew is an associate professor at the savannah law school where he focuses on separation of powers with an emphasis on congressional oversight and national security. and he previously served as associate counsel to president and assistant counsel to the vice president in the obama white house, as well as staff director and counsel to national security subcommittee in the house of representatives. and he received his b.a. from washington and lee and j.d. from university of virginia. so i want to thank you all three

for being here today. each panelist will have 10 to 15 minutes to present their comments. i will ask them a few questions. after that, we will open to the audience for additional questions. so let me start with you, steve. you were on the house government reform committee staff for fast and furious. this was only the second time, the first being the myers case, in which the house decided to use the courts to enforce the subpoena and seek a declaratory judgment in doing so. can you give us some background on these cases and why congress felt obligated to seek a declaratory judgment from the district court, why you didn't use your inherent contempt authority and why you didn't seek to use the u.s. attorney to enforce the subpoena. >> well, thank you. thanks for having me. fast and furious was a gun trafficking case gone wrong.

the decision was made along the southwest border to stop interdicting weapons purchased by straw buyers and instead allow straw buyers to purchase the weapons illegally and walk away, with the purpose of allowing the network to develop. and while watching the network, the plan was to take the whole network down and to stem the flow of traffic to the cartels in mexico. and it didn't work. and in hindsight, it is no surprise it didn't work. it is is certainly a case worth while of congressional oversight. nobody has ever said it's not worthwhile to look into what happened. there was a significant thing to look at at the local level of atf, all the way up to senior levels of the justice department.

after the investigation commenced, a very early portion of it, february 4th, 2011, a letter was written to congress that was false, denying charges, telling us essentially to go away. but the problem with that was we had insiders providing us firsthand accounts and documents. and the february 4th letter was wrong. it was false. ten months later, that letter was withdrawn. part of our investigation is what happened during the gun trafficking case gone wrong. but another part of the investigation was what happened between february 4th and december 2nd, 2011, nearly 10 months where congress was stonewalled, obstructed, told to go away, it was not a legitimate oversight effort. and the justice department blanketly, in blanket fashion told us we were not entitled to any documents post february 4th.

and we brought contempt on the house floor. both civil contempt and criminal contempt. it was passed in bipartisan fashion. 15 or 17 democrats joined the republicans. but it was presented to the united states attorney and the united states attorney declined to prosecute. there was a criminal and civil component. after the united states attorney declined to prosecute, the president exerted executive privilege that that certainly is a major factor why the u.s. attorney is not going to prosecute. we filed a civil lawsuit. the lawsuit is ongoing. we filed our appeal brief on october 6th. so as it relates to activities at the district court level, although i might have a great appetite to talk about it, i do need to be restrained.

it is in litigation. it could be remanded. but, you know, that being said, a lot of very important oversight actions happened prior to following the lawsuit. you mentioned inherent contempt. it hasn't been used in the house since 1916. it hasn't been used in the senate since 1934. the process of inherent contempt would involve the committee passing contempt citation, taking it to the house floor, and having the speaker instruct the house sergeant-at-arms to go arrest the attorney general and bring the attorney general to the house jail. and that hasn't been that type of enforcement mechanism, hasn't been used in a very long time. so we certainly are aware of inherent contempt. it certainly is a valued means -- a valid means of enforcement. but it hasn't been used in so

long that it's hard to consider arresting the attorney general of the united states as an ordinary means of enforcement. >> you said u.s. attorney declined to prosecute because of executive privilege. but wasn't that a deliberative process privilege, or was that executive privilege? and maybe you can explain the difference a little bit between executive privilege and deliberative process privilege. >> do you want me to jump in? >> sure. this is executive branch doctrine here so i'm not speaking for congress certainly. but you know, deliberative process would be one component of the executive privilege sort of umbrella doctrine according to olce, executive branch doctrine over the years. so the president asserting executive privilege gave it a slightly different and is there was no contempt if the attorney general is following

executive branch policy under the president's orders, than there was, from the u.s. attorney's perspective, maybe no criminal at at all. act at all. >> the documents being sought were documents that were internal largely to the justice department. they weren't just documents within the white house between -- two and from the president. they were also intra-agency documents. >> our subpoena had 22 categories. and subpoenas are issued at the -- on the early part of the investigation. by the time we got to contempt, we had obtained, not necessarily from the justice department, but we had obtained many of the documents we needed to operate operational component of fast and furious. we ultimately sued on four of the 22 subpoena items. and we sued on documents that were dated or created after. >> ron, do you want to respond

by executive branch, department of justice's perspective on fast and furious? >> sure. first of all, thank you and and senator levin for hosting this event and jenny sloan and the constitution and the pugh trust for providing this wonderful space. i want to pick up on something senator levin said in his introduction. he noted the timeliness of this event, because we're two weeks out from a national election, and to put a finer point on that, we don't know how that election will come out. the poles speculate this and that, but we don't know and we won't know until election day who will control the agencies of the executive branch. and in this particular election, a genuine question about who will chair -- which party will control which senators and house members will chair the various committees and subcommittees of congress. so we have what sometimes is

referred to as a vail of ignorance, a useful thing, where you don't know who is going to have a benefit or have an interest to consider what the proper principles and practices are, no matter who is issuing the subpoena or responding to the subpoena. so i think this is exactly the right moment to ask these questions. i'll turn to fast and furious in a minute, but let me just offer these general thoughts as someone who has been on both ends of pennsylvania avenue, as linda indicated in introducing me. i worked for senator kennedy and later for senator harry reid and was involved in and initiated oversight requests, and then assistant attorney general of the justice department, i was responsible for speaking for the justice department in response to those requests. and let me say at the outset and thank my colleague, steve castor for being too graceful to say i signed that february 4, 2011 letter that was false.

i didn't know it was false. i'll tell you one story. when i became the assistant attorney general, someone who had the job before me, a friend, told me that i was going to sign 100,000 letters, and one was going to blow up in my face, and i didn't know. i wasn't going to know in advance which one it was going to be. it turned out to be february 4, 2011, fast and furious. i believe based on my experience over the years, both branches of government that oversight is a very important and legitimate function of congress. it is beneficial to the congress, in fulfilling its role in legislating and making sure public dollars are well spent crafting new legislation or modifying existing legislation. therefore, it benefits the american people. but i would also add the -- it benefits executive branch agencies. at the justice department, we

recognized that that kind of oversight kept us on our toes, and helped undercover mistakes and programs that weren't working as well as they should work and certainly in this case, it uncovered a law enforcement operation that was fundamentally flawed. having said that, so indeed, the public has a right to know, k-n-o-w. i think there is sometimes on the other side of the ledger, there are times when the executive branch has to say no, n-o. there are several categories in which this becomes acute. especially at the justice department. that's the agency i know best. just to review quickly. the department is concerned any time there is oversight into open matters. when the department is conducting a criminal investigation, perhaps in the middle of a prosecution where there may already be an indictment. it is very dangerous for congress to be mucking around in there. it can alter the course of that law enforcement operation or prosecution in a very

detrimental way. we urge congress to be very careful, and frankly, to withhold oversight while a matter is open. even if a matter is closed, there are concerns about deliberative process, and we've talked about that and can talk some more. because executive branch officials and certainly in law enforcement decisions, need to be able to communicate with each other. senator levin spoke about e-mails, a whole new world when he and i first became lawyers. now we talk to each other electronically very often. it is a very efficient and effective way of doing that, especially in the justice department, which is a sprawling institution, with many, many components, not just in washington, but across the country and you can press a button and speak to 25 people at once, all of whom need to know the information that you're conveying and want to weigh in on strategic questions. but sometimes it is merely conversation. it is figuring out what we're going to do. not a pronouncement of policy or law enforcement action.

we do feel, and i say we, i'm no longer there, but i refer to the "we" there. and you know, we feel that for executive branch officials, especially in an agency of law enforcement agency like the justice department, we need some space to talk amongst our selves without that being revealed. there are also concerns when line attorneys or line law enforcement agencies are career people who are making decisions are the subject of oversight and are asked or answered before a political body, congress, for good faith career law enforcement decisions. then obviously there are national security issues. those are the kind of considerations on both sides. yes, oversight. but we need to have some boundaries. the cases that have been discussed, the meyers case and

the fast and furious case, do present some new boundaries. first of all, i think it must be noted that on the congressional side of it, we now know at least from these district court decisions, we don't have an a -- it appears from those decisions there's a forum which congress can seek enforcement. you don't have to bring the attorney general or assistant general to jail and have the -- in the basement or have sergeant-at-arms watch over him or her. you go to the district court and it appears those judges will hear the claim that a subpoena hasn't been complied with. but judge jackson in the most recent discussion in the fast and furious case did say that there are limits to what the congress can obtain by subpoena. in fast and furious and i'll just answer real briefly. i don't mean to monopolize the mifb, but just briefly, steve

laces out the facts. i only quibble in this respect. certainly as the house committee sought to determine what happened in this flawed law enforcement operation, that was legitimate oversight, and i believe the department was reasonably responsive in providing that information. the committee then wanted to determine how it was that a letter was sent from the justice department that denied facts that turned out to be true. that was legitimate, and documents were provided that explained it, explained that individuals who had knowledge of the matter more closely had asserted facts that turned out not to be true. but then the dispute was should the congress get to review how the department responded to the oversight. what we in the department sometimes call memos on memos. and there, you are getting right to the heart of the ability of the executive branch to function and in a rough way, steve will

quibble here and there, in a rough way, i think the dispute was, should the department, any executive branch agency have the ability to say wait, talk amongst our selves to respond to the oversight and ultimately, after judge jackson's decisions, the department released a lot of material that i think showed that the department was responding in good faith, trying to get to the bottom of a situation that officials in washington didn't fully understand and respecting the prerogative of congress to ask questions that would further a legislative purpose. >> i'll let you respond, and then we'll go to andy and you can give us the professorial view of the case. >> one fact ron didn't mention was that halfway through 2011, head of atf, ken nelson came in to speak with us without his justice department handlers and told us that the justice

department was trying to keep information from congress, that the justice department was trying to push away evidence from their political officials. so that is a very relevant piece that happened in july of 2011, and you know, our investigation, you know, in part was looking at what happened over those ten months. >> andy, do you want to give us the larger view of -- >> sure. >> the significance of these cases are, and especially the holder case. >> yeah, sure. let me just, you know, first of all, as a disclosure here, i was one of president obama's lawyers during all of this and i certainly -- the white house component, several of them got component, several of them got letters during that period. the office of national drug control policy, security council staff. we had a lawyer in the office that had been a senior justice department official who also was interviewed by the committee and the president asserted executive privilege. so i had some work to do on this matter, so i don't want to pretend i'm totally detached, because i was definitely part of

those various roles that have been out in the public domain. and so you know, but i will say this. first of all, based on my experience on the oversight committee, i worked with steve before i went into the white house on the democratic side, and my time in the executive branch in two white houses, the clinton white house and obama white house, the two branches see this from totally different perspectives about how the constitution works. and so that's one thing i want to present to you as food for thought. congress very much sees it as a legal process, like a court and uses all the language, hearings, subpoenas, you know, all of the sort of indicia of court proceedings, contempt, all these things in law. i think there's validity in that. it comes from history of the legislative and judicial

functions being separated at parliament before we were even founded. but executive branch sees it very much from a perspective more like negotiation and accommodation, where these are co-equal branches of government, both of whom have legitimate interesting, recognizing congress's legitimate needs for recognition but recognizing confidentiality interests as well. each and each interaction with congress will be some sort of negotiated result about how can congress get what it needs without damaging the executive, you know, essential functions as the executive branch sees them. so you know, there is a cynical side to this, you know, congress can help upend status quo of executive having documents by suggesting they are entitled to them as a legal process like you would see in a court. that's certainly within the self-interest of congress to do so and certainly within the self-interest of the executive branch to suggest -- to protect the status quo of not giving our documents over, then no --

n-o -- there is generally held views within the two branches going back across administrations of divot parties that are about how the constitution structure works. it is not just a cynical exercise. it is a genuinely held belief than a legal process that is supposed to be fixed as an entitlement. that's just one point i throw out for your as food for thought to the crowd. now, in terms of these particular cases, you know, the meyers case, when it came out with the house judiciary committee, bringing that suit, resulted in a rejection of the executive branch, the bush white house, and of a blanket immunity

from the white house counsel coming to the hill to testify. and basically, the ruling held that there is going to have to be a question by question assertion of privilege in front of the committee. you can't just say this is a such a senior advisor, so close to the president, they can't come up under the circumstances of a subpoena. i think tracking that same thinking on the document context, one of the principles that comes out of lynch and holder is the idea that we are not going to have this at the categorical level, fought at the document level. one of the things that the executive branch really tried to mightily resist was the idea of having to go document by document level, mostly because of burden. you know, if you're asking for every document generated by fast and furious, after february 4th in the department, this getting clip services every day with stories about fast and furious, it is a large volume. the idea that you're going to go through document by document privilege log i think it was a daunting thing.

and so i think that's one lesson that comes out of those cases. this will be fought at the document level when you get into courts and not be able to say this category of documents should be off-limits. that's a big win for congress coming out of these, where the law stands now, depending on what the d.c. circuit does. another point that we've mentioned was this principle that deliberative process privilege applies to congressional requests. this is one of these things where there have been two totally separate legal doctrines, one in congress internal to congress and one internal to the executive branch that are like living mars and venus basically. congress has taken the position forever that common law grounded privileges do not apply to congressional requests. attorney client privilege, spousal immunity, et cetera, including deliberative process privilege outside of the narrow presidential communications

component of executive privilege recognized as having a constitutional basis in nixon. executive branch has always believed -- >> good afternoon, everybody. it's been a while since we met in this venue. it's nice to get together again. i think this briefing is going to go a little differ than we all anticipated it would 24 hours ago but i'll certainly do my best to answer many questions you have in the aftermath of the election. let me just say a couple of things at the top, three things actually. the first is that i think the president and the tone and the priorities he exhibited in the rose garden are indicative of the approach that the white house staff is taking to ensuring a smooth transition and working to insure success of president elected in leading the

country. the second thing is the results of the election are not even 12 hours old. i think it is far too early, at least for me, to discern exactly what message the voters were trying to send last night. there certainly is a lot of speculation about what that may have been. most of that speculation come from people who predicted a very different result last night. that's the essence of punditry, nothing wrong with that, which is why it's going to require more than 12 hours of consideration and investigation to get to the bottom of what was actually motivating so many people who cast votes at the poles yesterday. the other thing is, a lot of questions have been raised about

the policies this administration has prioritized over the last eight years. i think it's going to be difficult, again, less than 12 hours after the outcome of the l election is known, it's difficult to offer a lot of precision in answering those questions today but certainly in the weeks and months ahead over the course of the transition we may get some greater insight into that. but so with those two cautions at the top, let me do my best to answer your questions today. darlene, do you want to go first? >> in all the campaigning we've seen the president do for hillary clinton over the last several months. he talked about she would be the one to carry on the progress he achieved. she often talked about being the one wanting to continue that progress. despite what you said at the top, does the president feel in any way that the results last

night were some sort of a rejection of hillary. not only a rejection of her but him, since the two of them were so slowsly bound during the campaign? >> i think that's an entirely fair question to ask and i think it's an important question to answer. i don't think anybody has the answer to that question now because there are relevant facts. the first is secretary clinton won the popular vote. winning the popular vote is not what gets you the keys to the oval office. have you to win the electoral vote. i know everybody knew the rules going to the contest. but it does underscore the depth of support and enthusiasm for her message and for her campaign. that is a testament to her leadership and her ability to

build support for national campaign. the other thing that happens to be true is there are a lot of people -- again, the math requires this, who voted for barack obama in 2008, voted for his re-election in 2012 and voted for donald trump in 2016. and i don't have an explanation for that, to put it bluntly. i think certainly all of your networks and all of you are going to spend time pondering that question. spend time looking at the returns, the exit polls, and maybe even spending some time in some of those communities across the country where mr. trump -- president-elect trump enjoyed such strong support, support that exceeded the expectations

of everybody, apparently even the expectations of the trump campaign. so that's a worthy question, but i'm not going to pretend i have a real direct answer for you. it's one that's worthy of careful consideration. >> another thing we heard him say on the campaign trail was progress was on the ballot. if hillary wasn't elected, all that progress would go out the window, down the drain, would be lost. what does the outcome last night do for legacy the president wanted to leave behind from obama care to the iran nuclear deal, to putting a third supreme court justice on the supreme cou court. >> just with the caution we're less than 12 hours away from this election being decided, there are some things we knew to

be true before the results started being tallied. one of those things was that the next president, whether it was secretary clinton or mr. trump, were going to have some difficult challenges and some difficult questions to answer with regard to a range of policies. we know that our economy is facing some pretty intense head winds from overseas. what's the kind of approach that the next president will take to ensuring that our economy can strengthen and navigate those head winds in a way that benefits the american middle class and not just those at the top. that's a challenge any president will have to face and certainly president trump will have to consider the best path. either the president would inherit a country that has some deep and passionate political

differences. and what will president-elect trump do to unite the country? it won't be easy. we know that's for sure. we do know he can count on the support of president obama and secretary clinton, both who in the last couple of hours have pledged their support to him as he works to do that. either president -- either secretary clinton or mr. trump would have faced a deeply divided congress that appears totally dysfunctional. at least it has and totally dysfunctional in the last two years. and it's difficult to know -- it's difficult to see how that's going to change. they will have to navigate. president-elect trump and his team will have to figure how to navigate that situation. and it won't be easy either. so i guess the point is it's too early to tell what the impact will be.

there will be an impact, but we knew there would be regardless of the outcome of the race. there certainly were some priorities where secretary clinton debate agree with president obama. in a different scenario, she would be -- you'd be asking me the same question about some of those policy priorities, too. what's true is that the president-elect has some difficult questions to answer and some big challenges to tackle. it's why it's so important for there to be a smooth and effective, efficient transition from president obama's presidency to the trump presidency. because as americans, we're rooting for the success of our president in leading and uniting the country. >> are there any more details you can share about the phone call between the president and

president-elect, how long they spoke, did they get into issues or substance or purely just congratulations on your victory? >> my understanding, it was not a lengthy call. it did take place very, very late last night. based on the fact there is a discussion about meeting in person on thursday, the specifics of any sort of policy discussions will be left until then. >> a couple minutes? >> i don't know with precision the exact timing of it. if there's more details about that we will provide it. >> on the policy differences, is there anything the white house or your administration will do in closing months to shore up priorities on policy areas like affordable care act, climate change, the iran deal, all of which now president-elect called into question. >> well, let me start by saying

president obama will remain in office and will be the president of the united states until january 20th. we will pursue policies accordingly, including the kind you have enumerated. what's also true is president-elect in the context of a smooth and effective transition will have an opportunity to get briefed by members of president obama's team and actually have a conversation with president obama himself about some of these priorities. and i'm not going to speak for him or predict exactly what sort of policy decisions he's going to make. he's pretty explicit on the campaign trail. but part of a smooth transition is ensuring that they have the latest available information about the status of these

policies. that's something that our administration is committed to providing. >> aside from providing that information, is there anything the administration will do to sort of put up a firewall to maintain some of these programs in place against what will probably be efforts to repeal, in obama care's case, or slow walk climate change or -- >> jeff, our position on those issues is well-known. we've reviewed them here at some length. i'll spare you most of that. i think what i -- the way that i would respond to that, there's no specific thing that i have in mind that we're going to do differently now. our plan all along was to ensure the successful implementation of those and other priorities. and we're going to be committed to doing everything we can to ensure the success of those policies between now and january

20th. so the easiest example is the affordable care act. this administration is going to continue to make a strong case that people should go to healthcare.gov, consider the options available to them and sign up for health care. the vast majority who do will be able to purchase health care for $75 a month or less. that is a policy priority that benefits the american people enormously. since the affordable care act went into effect, 20 million americans got access to health care. we want to make sure that as many americans as possible under the opportunity that's available to them. the president-elect when he enters office will have his own opportunity to set the course of health care policy in this country in a way that he sees fit. it's going to require some

cooperation with congress. and that won't be easy. but there's a lot at stake. republicans and congress have voted 50 times to repeal the affordable care act. each time they did that they were voting to take health care away from 22 million americans. they were voting to strip critically important consumer protecteds from people, prevent them from being discriminated against because they have a pre-existing condition or pay more for health insurance because they are a woman. those are the kinds of protections that don't benefit americans since the affordable care act went into effect. 100 or 150 million americans that get access to health care through their employer. these are the kinds of decisions that the incoming administration and incoming congress will be challenged to make. >> how do you reassure foreign allies particularly on issues

like climate change deal, or iran deal that these things will continue when the person succeeding president obama said they wouldn't? >> well, jeff, there's a couple of things. the first is obviously this administration will be committed to implementing those policies through january 20th. we will live up to commitments we have made in each of those areas as we do so. second, there is a tradition, particularly with regard to executive agreements, of successive presidents preserving some element of continuity. i don't know whether or not that will apply in this case. as a part of this effective, smooth transition, president obama will have an opportunity to talk to president-elect trump about some of these policies and about some of the benefits some of these policies. the president-elect's team will have an opportunity to get briefed by the national security experts here in the obama administration that have been working on implementing these

policies. but ultimately the president-elect will be the person that is responsible for setting the path of foreign policy for the united states for the next four years. presumably, some of that strategy that he will pursue will involvay assuring allies about the national security of the united states. that certainly was part of president obama's -- the foreign policy path president obama charted. president obama charted and previous presidents have as well. obviously president-elect trump will have to make the decision for him self when he enters oval office on the afternoonen january 20th. april. >> josh, i want to go back to the firewall and aca tomorrow. is this a tomorrow conversation, a conversation for aca, a legacy piece for this president, and

what would that conversation look like that the president would offer to donald trump about aca and its viabilitying, tweaking but not getting arrived it? >> april, i can assure you the president's top priority is not his legacy but the 20 million people who got health insurance since the affordable care act went bo effect. he's quite concerned about stripping protections from 100 million americans who benefit from protection that is prevent insurance companies from discriminating against them because of pre-existing conditions or imposing lifetime caps. that certainly put young people with an illness at pretty grave risk. those are the kinds of consumer protections that are part and parcel of the affordable care act. tearing them away would negatively affect a lot of people. that's something that republicans will have to consider moving forward. in terms of these kinds of conversations, the way that the

transition is structured is that there are transition teams that have been designated across the agency of the federal government. the president-elect's transition team has designated teams to work with those individual agency teams to ensure a smooth transition. so there will be a venue for staff level conversations to take place, high-level staff conversations to take place. but i wouldn't predict at this point whether or not this will come up in the conversation between president obama and president-elect trump. if this is something president-elect trump is interested in talking about, i'm confident president obama will spend make time doing so. >> one last question. on the issue of tunifying the nation after a hard fought cycle. democrat, republican, black or white, they are looking at

what's going to come in the next four years. a supreme court that's going to lean to the right. the house and senate majority republican in the white house, a republican president. i talked to somebody this morning, black republican, christopher darden, o.j. simpson prosecutor, he said this is going to generate new activism. how do you marry activism and the conversation the president is starting. >> i think the president addressed this in his remarks in the rose garden, about encouraging young people who were engaged in the political process in this election for the very first time. and the president made an effort to encourage young people who got engaged in the process not to be discouraged by the outcome. everybody is discouraged when

the candidate they are supporting loses an election. but the genius and brilliance of our democracy is that when the election is over, we recognize that we're americans and patriots before we're democrats and republicans. and that is certainly a principle president obama and secretary clinton have forcefully advocated in the last 90 minutes or so. i think that's part of the reason that so many people are proud of the campaign that secretary clinton ran, proud of the progress that has been made in this country under president obama's leadership. and frankly, it's why so many young people have been inspired over the course of president obama's career in public life but also secretary clinton's campaign for the presidency. if the outcome of the election encourages more people to be

engaged in the important but difficult work of governing this country, that would be a really good thing. and i say that regardless of whether or not that young person who is possiblized to act is a democrat or republican. the president believes our democracy benefits from more people being engaged and more people involved in the debate regardless of which candidate they support. our democracy is strengthened when more voices and more perspectives and more views are incorporated into the process of governing this country. and the risk really, and this is what the president was warning against, is people being so discouraged they choose to withdraw from that debate. the president is surely hopeful that won't happen. >> one last, the president was at the microphone at the rose garden. he seemed hopeful, optimistic. but really, behind the scenes, what is his mood today? >> i've had an opportunity to

spend a little time with him this morning. the mood that was on display in the rose garden is the mood that he was showing in private as well. look, i'm not trying to convince you that he's not disappointed about the outcome. everybody around here is disappointed by the outcome but just as determined to continue their service to the american people. that service demands that they focus on their institutional responsibility to ensure the success of the next president. the president accident get to choose his successor, the american people do. his responsibility to the american people and his responsibility to this democracy supersedes his own personal views, even on really important issues. that's why the president is

giving clear direction to his team. these are directions he actually gave at the beginning of the year. to ensure that regardless of the outcome, his team or his white house was prepared to give the next president a running start. and president obama is rooting for president-elect trump's success in uniting and leading the country. it doesn't mean that he agrees with everything that president-elect trump has promised to pursue. in fact, as he noted in the rose garden, and rather colorfully at campaign events over the last few weeks, he's deeply concerned about some of the priorities mr. trump laid out in the context of the campaign. but the demands of our democracy apply to everybody, including the president of the united states. our democracy's success depends

on a smooth transition of power and that's a responsibility president obama and everybody here at the white house takes quite seriously. okay. isaac. >> the president campaigning against donald trump spoke about the existential threat he thought a trump presidency would pose. is he concerned about the future of the country and the future of the world given that donald trump has been elected president? >> i think the president had used forceful language in helping people understand exactly why he was so passionate in his support for secretary clinton. and those are authentic views that haven't change. that's not just rhetoric. those aren't just slogans. these represent the president's actual views and preferences about the direction that he'd like to see the country go.

but that's not what the american people voted for. >> do you think war is more of a possibility now? >> i'm not going to speculate on what sort of actions president-elect trump may choose to prioritize or pursue. obviously he and his team are going to spend the next 73 days or so preparing themselves to lead the greatest country in the world. and part of what makes this country so extraordinary and so exceptional is that the united states has the greatest fighting force the world has ever known. that's not just a testament to our technological superiority, it's a testament to the brave

and selfless americans who are prepared to put their lives on the line to fight for this country of that's what makes our military so great. we've also got a federal workforce. people who dedicate this lives to serving the public, that ensure our air and water is clean. that ensure even youngest americans can get access to a quality education, that are working hard to make sure the american people, who don't have access to health care, can purchase is. these are talented, committed americans who after working to ensure the success of president obama will be just as passionate about ensuring the success of president trump. they don't do that because necessarily either president pursues their political views they do this because they care deeply about this country. they care deeply about the suck

of this country. in some ways i think it's something that most people, it's difficult to appreciate until you've had the opportunity to spend some time working in the federal government. you see the people around you who don't get a lot of public glory. they don't get particularly large paychecks. but they feel a calling to serve. and president obama often describes the u.s. government as the largest and most impactful organization in the world. and that is the organization that president-elect trump will lead for the next four years. >> 48 hours ago the president in philadelphia warned of giving donald trump the nuclear codes. is he concerned that donald

trump now as president-elect will be getting the nuclear codes. >> isaac, what i can tell you is the election is over and it's been decided, the american people decided. president obama doesn't get to choose his successor, the american people do that. they have chosen somebody that president obama disagrees with on a wide range of issues. those disagreements in most cases aren't just minor disagreements but rather profound disagreements. but that does not in any way detract from the president's determination to execute a smooth and effective transition of power. that's what our democracy demands. the success of our democracy depends on it, and the president is certainly determined to live up to the very high standard

that was set by president bush eight years ago. >> is the president still doing the foreign trip that was scheduled? >> yes. i do not anticipate any changes to the president's foreign travel next week. okay. jordan. >> thanks, josh. donald trump during the campaign pledged to jail hillary clinton if he was elected over the federal investigations that are under way. some legal experts have said that president obama could close off that opportunity if he pardons hillary clinton. is that something the president is considering doing. >> well, jordan, as you know, the president has offered clemency to a substantial number of americans who were previously serving time in federal prisons. we didn't talk in advance about the president's intent to offer

clemency to any of those individuals. that's because we don't talk about the president's thinking, particularly with respect to any specific cases. it may apply to pardons or commutations. what i would direct your attention to, though, is that the president's observation that he made in the rose garden about the tone that president-elect trump displayed in his remarks last night, and that tone was consistent with the long-standing traditions of our democracy. the president expressed hope that that kind of tone would continue. that's relevant because we have

a long tradition in this country of not -- of people in power not using the criminal justice system to exact political revenge. in fact, we go to great lengths to insulate our criminal justice system from partisan politics. and that commitment has served our country very well for more than two centuries. the president is hopeful that it will continue. >> is he confident it will continue or just hopeful? did he have a chance to talk about those issues with president-elect trump? >> i'm not going to speculate about steps president-elect trump may choose to take. the president expressed optimism about the tone that president-elect trump used when the eyes of the world were on him. when he spoke last night as the president-elect the first time. that was a momentous occasion and his tone was notable.

hopefully it will continue in a way that is consistent with the kind of long standing tradition and laws that served both parties very well for 240 years. okay? chris. >> thanks, josh. so understanding that the president would -- any kind of pursuit of prosecution against hillary clinton, would you expect or is it possible that he would ask for assurances from donald trump that that was not going to happen? >> i don't have anything to preview in terms of their conversation. we'll try to get you a read after that conversation occurs tomorrow. i don't have a preview now. >> other than the nuts and bolts of transition, can you give us any insight into what the president's priorities are tomorrow? >> i think the president's priorities tomorrow are to sit down with president-elect and make clear that this administration's top priority for the next 73 days will be ensuring the next president will get off to a running start.

this is not new. this is the third time in a row a two-temple president will be succeeded by a president from the other party who ran vowing to roll back key aspects of the president's agenda. in 2000 you had then governor bush vowing to role back agenda of president clinton. fast forward eight years. you had then senator barack obama running for president successfully vowing to roll back aspects of then president bush's agenda. here we are eight years later facing a situation where the american people have elected a republican, president-elect trump, who ran on a platform vowing to roll back key aspects of president obama's agenda. but in each case, despite those

vigorous disagreements, there was a commitment to peaceful transition of power. that served the american people and our democracy very well. president obama continues to be committed to that principle. >> there seem to be a commitment on donald trump and many of his republican supporter's side to get rid of the immigration reform that the president has put in place to get of the aca, to go after climate change agreement. i know you said that you are going to pursue those policies accordingly, but was anything done in advance with the possibility knowing that donald trump could be elected president? were people looking at what could be done at all to, from your perspective, safeguard these things, move forward on theegs thi these things? >> at each stage, this administration has worked diligently to implement them as effectively and successfully as possible with an eye toward the

long-term. none of these policies that we have been pursuing were considered a stopgap measure or somehow temporary in nature. the president pursued these policies because of the long-term benefits they have for the american people. and we consistent with that view, we have worked very hard to implement them so that they will be durable. look, when it comes to the aca, the aca has withstood some significant challenges from republicans in the past. we have had two supreme court cases, 50 repeal votes. in the face of all of that, the affordable care act is still limiting the growth on health care costs, expanding coverage, providing consumer protections that guarantee some peace of mind for millions of americans. is it at risk again because the president-elect is vowing to repeal it? yeah, it is again. but we have withstood some

difficult challenges. that law has withstood some difficult challenges. we will see what the future holds. a lot that was will be up to the president-elect. but i think what we have found is that much of that will also require some kind of cooperation from congress. republicans did hold on majorities in the house and senate. they don't have 60 votes in the senate. so it's going to require some bipartisanship in the senate to advance some of this legislation. the house of representatives over the last couple of years has not exactly been the model of organization. that's an unruly place. and even people -- even members on the republican side of the aisle have some deeply held and

diverge ent diver divergent views about the policies they should be pursuing. so it's not going to be easy. but bottom line is, everybody here at the white house is rooting for the success of president-elect trump in his effort to unite and lead the country. >> if i can ask you finally on that point, obviously there's a lot of emotion involved here. there's a lot of people who worked hillary clinton's campaign who are very well-known and worked side by side here in the white house with the folks here. i think they believed, as the president does, that his legacy was at stake here. can you give us a little insight into who the president spoke to this morning? did he talk to his staff in general? did he talk to small groups of people? what was his overall message besides what we heard in the rose garden today? >> the president has on a number of ocean occasions had an oppor to address small groups of his staff. the message that he has

delivered to them in pry rivate consistent to the message he delivered in the rose garden with emphasis on the need for young people to remain engaged. chris, you spent enough time around the white house now to know that a lot of people who have spent last two or three years here working at this white house are pretty young. and they've got -- if they choose to pursue it -- a bright future in politics. president obama wanted to deliver them a very personal message, that they should not be discouraged. that it's easy to sit back and be cynical. but as you heard him say so many times on the campaign trail, he is going to choose hope. he is hoping they will choose hope as well. even in the aftermath of a disappointing outcome. you know, even as i've been talking to my staff today, the other observation that i have made is that i've heard people

often say that adversity builds character. i'm not sure that's true. i think adversity reveals character. and i think we have seen the kind of character that secretary clinton and senator kaine and president obama are made of. and their example serves as an inspiration to me about the kind of character that i hope even in this difficult time i can show. and i know i'm not the only staffer here at the white house who feels that way. kevin? >> can i ask you about garland now that there won't be the lame duck that i think many people predicted? what happens to his potential nomination? has the president reached out to him at all? >> i don't know that president obama has had an opportunity to speak with chief judge garland today. the truth is, our view of this situation has not changed. it's deeply discouraging how unfairly he has been treated by

republicans in the united states senate who abdicated third basic responsibility to give him a hearing and a timely vote. so we'll have to see what happens moving forward. but i can tell you that the intensity of the case that we will make in support of a candidate that has more experience on the federal bench than any other supreme court nominee in history, in support of a candidate that even republicans acknowledge is somebody with a brilliant legal mind and somebody who represents the kind of consensus nominee that republicans claimed they were hoping that president obama would appoint. so, you know, the outcome of this election certainly doesn't change the case that we will make about the necessity of the congress, considering his nomination, even though he has been waiting more than 200 days now. >> let me ask you about the outcome of the election. i know it has been less than 24

hours. as a guy who lives in missouri, school in texas, worked in florida, you have been around parts of the country that obviously the trump message resonated with the majority of the voters. what happened last night as best can you tell? did you have to practice saying president-elect trump? did you practice that? >> you may be able to tell it doesn't come naturally. >> no, it does not. >> but it's what the job requires. it's what our democracy requires. it's what the american people expect. so i undertook the necessary preparation to try to deliver it as smoothly as i possibly could. in terms of the -- and with the -- as much respect as i possibly could. look, in terms of the results across the country, it's really hard to say. >> you've been in those places. you understand what the missouri voters like. you know what the texas voters like.

you know what the floridian is really like. i'm just trying to figure out -- again, granted, breavity of tim won't give us a full picture. do you know why that message seemed to resonate with them at all? >> let me give you one example of a race that i followed closely in missouri, in my home state of missouri. a fellow kansas cityian ran for the united states senate. he was a democratic candidate. he had won state wide in the state of missouri previously when he served as secretary of state. he was widely praised for running a smart, tough campaign. and he was dogged. tireless. going door to door and making a case to people that, frankly, he anticipated and a lot of people anticipated would get the

support of a lot of missouri voters who weren't traditionally democratic voters. and the thing that's hard to square about this election is i think the easy thing to say would be that donald trump performed so well in missouri because voters in missouri were pretty unhappy with what's going on in washington, d.c. they are dissatisfied with the dysfunction. they're not seeing the kind of results from their elected representatives in washington, d.c. that they would like to see and they are sending a message by choosing somebody like president trump to enter the white house and shake things up and make some changes. but at the same time, a majority of missouri voters supported senator blount, who is somebody who is the -- spent a lot of time in washington and spent time representing the people of missouri in the united states

house of representatives and has done the same thing in the united states senate. so that would be -- it would appear that there's a bit of a mixed message there. and i think part of the optimism around mr. candor's campaign was around the idea that he could benefit from the same kind of anti-incumbent energy that was obviously propelling mr. trump's campaign. but that's not the way it turned out. it turned out that people apparently -- look carefully at the results. it certainly looks like you got a situation where people were motivated by their party identification and the party identification of the candidates more so than they were this sort of outsider anti-establishment energy. so i think that's what's -- i think in some ways that is a pretty