support for fundraising, for political purposes, and for support of candidates. there's no question that someone must have oversight. dollars are appropriated to pay for this office. the ranking member spoke of a constitutional crisis. ladies and gentlemen, there was no constitutional crisis, we ask for oversight pursuant to our specific committee's's possibilities -- committees' responsibilities which we were denied, and now inherit immunity is before us today. failing to comply with congressional subpoena is a serious matter.

i expect mr. simas to face the consequences i unnecessarily not coming. this will be an issue for him should he ever think a position requiring senate confirmation or to run for elected office. not only does the administration feel it is above the law and claiming inherent immunity, but arrogantly believes that it should be held to a lesser standard than the bush administration. last night i wrote to the right house counsel -- white house counsel, and offered him an extraordinary combination. after he complained yesterday that our request for mr. simas's public testimony differed from

the ocean ministrations deposition, i offered him the option for committing to a transcribed interview rather than appearing here today. they do not accept the offer, nor recant their claim of inherent community. the white house argues that senior officials who salaries who paid for by taxpayers are immune from testifying before congress if the president deems it so. the district court of the district of columbia ruled in its decision a legal decision on legal counsel claiming immunity. the opinion merely states the use of the executive branch. the authority does not outweigh that of the courts, and it does not outweigh history of two centuries plus of this branch questioning every nickel, every

dime spent on behalf of the taxpayers. the olc opinion does not cite any case law in support of its position that residential advisors are immune. the opinion expressly acknowledges and is not based on precedent. the white house thinks it is immune from congressional oversight, can it be any wonder that if we allow that, the american people will not just lose trust in this president, but in the body we sit in? i'm going to read to you a quote.

the white house must stop stonewalling and start being accountable to congress and the american people. no one, including the president, is above the law. with your indulgence, i will read it again. the white house must stop stonewalling the start being accountable to congress and the american people. no one, including the president, is above the law. the person who said that is senator harry reid, the majority leader of the senate. he was referring to the bush administrations unwillingness to make white house officials available for congressional testimony. the administrations extreme claims to be immune from the oversight process are at arms

with our constitutional principles on which this country was founded. i am confident the federal courts will agree. that statement was made by then judiciary chairman john conyers, and he was right. the white house democrats -- sorry, the senate democrats follow the lawsuit in which they ultimately prevailed. they were unequivocally in support of white house officials testifying before congress. here is a quote from nancy pelosi. here's a quote from then speaker of the house nancy pelosi. i filing this lawsuit, house members -- in order to prevent the exercise of lawmaking

responsibility. this action is completely nonpartisan. again, historically democrats and republicans alike have scrutinized the white house political office. president obama close the office in january 2011, in anticipation of a critical report by the office of special counsel released just days later. both democrats and republicans condemned -- commended this decision. when president obama decided to reopen the office in january of this year after three years of operating without the office, the committee have some questions. and rightfully so, the ranking

, and i quote, skeptical about the office reopening given the office's history. skepticism e-shared has since turned into an effort that appears to be at odds with our oversight. the white house, too, is going to great strides to criticize this oversight, rather than simply cooperating. in a recent letter the white house called the committee's fforts to rush to subpoena and exceptionally aggressive. it is six months since the opening and nearly that long since we began inquiring. despite the committee's proactively seeking cooperation for months, the white house continues to obstruct this investigation.

culminating in mr. simas' defiance of a congressional subpoena and failure to appear here today. this is the second opportunity today to give mr. simas the ability to come and explain the operations. and as i said earlier, i offered an alternative in response to their request that there not be a public hearing. the president has called maintaining democrat control of the senate his top priority, that's his prerogatevb. but using a taxpayer-funded office and personnel to achieve that goal skirts the line in the hatch act. this is not an investigation of the president's activities or his goals. in -- this is simply oversight. while the white house has made

assurances the new structure is in compliance with the hatch act, no one from the office has answered bake questions or even provided documentation. the office of special counsel has not been able to evaluate anything but publicly available correspondence. couple that with serious hatch act violations by the cabinet secretaries and it becomes obvious that there are serious and legitimate concerns. what is the white house afraid of? why wouldn't you be afraid of changes made to be compliant with the goals of the hatch act? i expect the committee will reject president obama's 0 cert agses that the -- assertions at the white house did not extend this to democrats when they were in the majority. the president's decision to ignore a lawful subpoena is a clear attempt to impede what we

believe to be our clear responsibility. my colleagues in the minority can express the pn that they do not think oversight of this administration is legitimate. but if they express the again that they believe oversight is legitimate, can there be anything more basic than the committee charged with overseeing the hatch act asking the questions, how do we revent violations of the hatch act under this administration not only at the level of the president and first lady, but at the level of cabinet officers. no chairman of either party would do different or less than i am doing here today or he or she would be slinging from their responsibilities, their pledge and their oath. i believe strongly that today's vote is not a vote of contempt.

it is not a vote of anything more than a rejection of inherent immunity because that stands before us today as the reason mr. simas was not here, the reason that mr. simas has not agreed or at least begun the process of agreeing to alternative means. inherent immunity from oversight is the question before us today. thank you, i will hold the record open till the end of the day so that all members may submit written statements and other comments. does any member wish to speak on the resolution? does any member wish to offer an amendment? mr. tierney? you are recognized for five minutes. strike the last word. >> mr. chairman, i would like to speak because i think that people don't necessarily disagree with the notion that absolute immunity upped all -- under all circumstances is something that the white house is entitled to. i think we draw some dis

tinctions between what happened in the bush administration and what is happening here right now. oversight, that can be dup and was in the process of being done, as i understand it. the difference is there is no stance here that the president or anybody in the office of outreach had violated the hatch act or engaged in inappropriate activity. the office of special counsel was clear in the letter. "o.s.c. has not received any allegations from anyone that o. s.c. has violations the hatch act." and they went on to send over detailed letters of how the committee operates. i understand the committee sent over a whole gaggle of people

over there to the white house to question the people for 75 minutes. as i understand it, they asked all their questions, got answers and then left and then after that more were written. the situation during the bush administration was completely different. that was an investigation. that wasn't just oversight. that was a total investigation because there had been allegations that were serious about the forced resignations of seven united states attorneys. in that instance, the white house counsel, harriet meyers, was out of office by the time she was asked to testify. here you have not? who is in office and advising the president. i quote the d.c. court -- congress, more oh is acting pursuant to a legitimate use of its investigative thomplet notwithstanding its best efforts the committee has been unable to uncover the underlying causes of the forced

resignations. there is no evidence that the committee is merely seeking to harass ms. meyers by asking her to testify. that's the court's language, not mine. so there is no allegation of inappropriate or illegal conduct in the situation before us today. we haven't exhausted all the other avenues of getting the information. the court talked about there being an ongoing process and how things are generally worked out and that the parties in myers had reached a self-imposed, self-declared impasse. we haven't reached that. so i think the issue here re involves around whether or not there is an impasse. there's not. allegations of wrong doing? there is not. there is no ongoing investigation on that basis. i think we want a pretty -- won a pretty important victory as a

congress in the meyers case to say that in all situations a white house is not swiletted to absolute immunity. but then the court had some very specific language about when it's appropriate to move forward. we're not there yet. if we want to press, we risk losing some ground or at the very least tying us up in litigation for a long time that doesn't serve the american people. we could continue with dialogue and at the same time move on to other business as well instead of being tied up in litigation unnecessarily. that's why i think this is premature, notwithstanding the issues of unilateral subpoena and all that that are intended here. i just think in this particular situation we're way ahead of ourselves and we ought to just back down and have that period of prolonged discussion that the court states and then if we

can't reach resolution, we'll talk about it again. but as i understand it, all the questions were exhausted at the first meeting. subsequent questions materialized and they were answered and i suspect if other questions arise they can be handled without roe -- resorting to a subpoena. >> i just wanted to make one other dissing teenktion. in -- disteektion -- disteeksing. in the meyers case there was also a referral to the office of special counsel. here there is no referral. for those of you who were not here earlier today, i asked the chairman, and i quote, you are saying to your knowledge mr. simas has done nothing wrong and his office has done nothing wrong? the chairman responded saying, we are accusing neither the president nor this four-person

office of any wrongdoing. end of quoment thank you, i yield back. >> gentleman from utah. >> i thank the chairman and i thank you for bringing this up. it's important that congress stand up for itself. where is this newfound immunity from having to come to congress because you're an advisor to the president? the white house hasn't claimed any executive privilege. they're not claiming that. where are the bounds of this any -- newfound immunity? can they just simply say that you can never come up here because, well, i did nothing wrong? is that the standard? i mean that's what i hear. as my colleague trey gowdy and jim jordan like to point out here, can we any questions of this person? can we talk about good news? f can we talk about

association. the others, secretary kerry, they come here all the time on a routine basis. the secretary of foreign affairs comes up on a regular basis. i also find it interesting that this person's title is director of political strategy and outreach. what does that mean? it's a new office. what is outreach? can anybody answer that question? what is outreach? we're funding it with taxpayer dollars. if we're going to do proper oversight, it's not just following some headline because there is some scandal and a whistleblower. we should be doing regular oversight of a whole host of agencies eep when things are going well. this is how we do innings -- things. i think it's interesting that the - there is no --

argument is there is no legitimate reason to talk to them. of course there is. that's what makes the united states the most unique country on the face of the planet. we are self-critical. we do take a good hard look under the head. if there is executive privilege for the president, then claim that. we'll be respectful of that. there is no reason we isn't -- can't have a dialogue and discussion. i find it interesting that the white house sends over five attorneys, but when we want to have a discussion in the light of day, remember, this was going to be the most transparent president in the hit of our nation, when we want to do that in the light of day they say no, no, no, we're not going to do that. we're just going to let the staff do that. isn't this something fundamentally wrong with that? there is. and gowdy has pointed out, the

same standard no matter who is in the white house. i suspect there say host of things that are wrong. let's come up with the standard no matter who is in the white house. but i can't live with the idea that they are, quote unquote, immune from coming to testimony -- testify before congress. they're not saying they plead the fifth or claiming executive privilege. they're just imuvene from showing up. -- immune from showing up. that's a very dangerous precedent and one i can't allow to happen. >> will the gentleman yield? i want to thank the gentleman. the ranking member appropriately noted something i said earlier today in a colquoy and i think it's important that we remind everybody of what he said because we agree on that. there is no predicate of some

criminal act here. this is about inherent oversight. but there are questions and there is a history. there are acts that have happened during this president's tenure which violated the hatch act by individuals and there's a history under previous presidents. during the months of march, april, may, june, and now most of july that we have been seeking answers, the president has gotten into air force one time and time again and raised millions of dollars. this office of political affairs has coordinated those trips much the american people undoubtedly have written to to their congressmen, to newspapers and have written to the office of special counsel concerned about the use of air force one for the president and other aircraft for the first

lady, use of aircraft for the vice president any time they go and do either official trips and add a political event or they simply go out on a political event. we believe strongly that that history is well established. we're not objecting to it, but we have an oversight responsibility and i'd ask you all to remember that that's the question before us today. i thank the gentleman for yielding the the next in line holding his hand up is mr. lynch. >> thank you, gentlemen. i thank the chairman for yielding. i do think recourse to the law is probably a good starting point on this and we do have a very strong, well-plowed area of the law called prior restraint, and under the doctrine of prior restraint which is very firm within our

constitutional fabric, the law does not abide prior restraint. and what we're doing here is you are saying that this advisor to the president has engaged in no illegal, there's no allegation of illegal conduct here on the part of the president's advisor. we're not saying that. we just want to haul him in here. we just want to haul him in here, put a subpoena on him, have him sit here and answer questions under oath. ok? so in its normal balance the law would look at the balance of interests. one interest is the ability of the president to have some advisors to receive counsel. your interest is in finding out basically get

inside that counsel and to find out what they're thinking, with no allegation of anything, any wrongdoing. you are trying to cut off and have a chilling effect on that communication between a presidential advisor and the president, with no allegation of wrongdoing whatsoever. that's what you are trying to do here, and my belief is that's approximate bad for any president. only this president but every previous president. if they can't talk to their advisor without congress with no allegation of wrongdoning, hauling their advisor before them with a subpoena or otherwise and demanding answers on that relationship, that communication between the president and his advisor, that's very bad for our government. that's very, very bad for the executive branch. i think it's bad for the american people as well. >> will the gentleman yield? >> briefly. >> i appreciate it.

if there is executive privilege direct with the president they just need to claim it. >> no, no. the president should not in every single case have to fight to be able to talk to their advisors. reclaiming my time. there is recourse for the gentleman. there is he -- recourse for the chairman. you have the courts, you have the hatch act, you have legislation. we are lawmakers. we could change the law. we could bring charges. your problem with those recourses is you're saying, you're stipulating that this man has done nothing wrong, so you don't have a way in. your problem is he hasn't done anything wrong and you've admitted it. that's why you're having a problem getting answers because there's no, there's no, there's no complaint of wrongdoing here. >> will the gentleman -- >> this is just -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> p right now. let me finish my thought.

so under the normal procedures is we don't bring charges till there is some wrongdoing. we don't prosecute under the plaw until there is wrongdoing. you want to skip that par. you don't want to wait till he does wrongdoing. you don't want to think something up. i mean, you know, creative minds can come up with some allegation at some point of some wrongdoing somewhere to drag the gentleman down, but we haven't even bothered with that. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i will. go ahead. >> do you believe that the only people we should call before the oversight committee are those that have been accused of wrongdoing? >> no. no. i think there should be an allegation -- something, believe me. take a look around at this government --? will the gentleman yield -- for a quick, quick question? >> no. let me respond to your last question first.

this body, this oversight committee as plenty of work to do. our injured is when -- jurisdiction is when something bad happens or something is going wrong with the u.s. government, we have to oversee that. there is plenty on our plate. we have a target-rich environment. with all the things going on in the world today and we're subpoenaing folks who haven't done anything wrong? all i'm saying is our priorities are misplaced and you are impinging on a basic prerecognize tive that the president has to get counsel from his advisors. it is a prior restraint. i yield. >> the gentleman's time has expired. i think the gentleman from utah wants 30 of your seconds? no, he doesn't. the gentleman is recognized. >> well, i just heard the commentary and i respect the gentleman's opinion from massachusetts, but first of

all, all you have to do is look at the history of this much the white house political office was closed in january of 2011. it was closed just days before a scathing report about abuse and misuse of that office occurred. now look at the history. it opened, what, january, just a few -- was it japan of this year, the beginning of this year, 2014? said ain, shakespeare something is rotten in denmark. well, something smells awfully fishney washington. i don't know where my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were this week but the president of the united states, and in fact even the most liberal media, as a went to bed last night i saw the president's air force one

landing. they broke in on one of the stations eau -- as he arrived. he had just finished a three-day whirlwind on air force one, a very valuable federal asset. he's had a tour around the united states running his fishing nets for political purposes. is that running for -- he's not running for office. he can't do that. i think the constitution prohibits that but he's taking the white house and its assets which is obvious to anyone on the planet and using them for political purposes to the extent which again even the liberal media is having heartburn the >> will the gentleman yield? >> no. i won't yield because again, this committee has the right to investigate this matter, how these assets are being used. this office is now opened, reopened and we've seen a use

of this office unparalleled in the history of administrations. yes, proosh, president reagan, president clinton, they all used federal assets for political purposes but this office has reopened and again we've -- it's like this, the president of the united states is spending so much of his time on political amatters, using federal assets for that purpose, in an unprecedented manner. again we've, i get the schedule, almost every schedule i get from the president -- don't you members get it, too? he used it for some little -- some excuse for one little thing. new york. two political events in colorado, california, texas. just talking about the last few weeks. so yes, we have a right and obligation as the chief investigative body in the house of representatives to see what's going on with this

reopened political office using assets and taxpayer money. is there abuse? we don't know. that's our purpose. does this individual have immunity or does he have some executive privilege? there's no way. this is a political office. he's not advising him on policy in the middle east, not advising him on federal policy to congress. this is a political office using assets of the taxpayers and this committee has every right and obligation to investigate what is going on. i'm pleased to yield back the balance of my time. or yield it to you. >> i think the gentleman from florida makes an exceptionally good point. this is a political office. it's not as if he's advising the president on substantive policy matters. the other thing i would like to highlight is, we don't know what we don't know. and a review of the doubts may

yield nothing, it may yield something. it may yield more questions. we've been given zero documents. if somebody is going to go out there and make the case that no, we shouldn't even look at the basic documents, that's quite a new standard. again i would ask those on the other side of the aisle who want to defend the president at all costs, what is the outreach? outreach doesn't sound like private communication with the president. the office of political strategy and outreach, what does that mean? they're using taxpayer dollars to do it and i think we have a legitimate reason to look at it. there may be nothing there but if you're going to be the most transparent presidency in the hit of the united states, then do it in the light of day. >> thank you. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from the district of columbia is next in

seniority. >> mr. chairman, this scussion is perplexing inasmuch as it involves members of congress where some of the root principles of what is basically at stake here seems to be misunited. the gentleman from utah said we don't know what we don't know. we're talking about an advisor to the president. when you say you don't know what you don't know, you are really talking the classic language of a fishing expedition. we don't know what we don't know but if we fish around we sure are bound to find -- >> would the gentlelady yield? >> i haven't finished my point, mr. chairman. >> but a degree with the gentlelady that we don't know what we don't know. before the gemlady came in we were very clear this started

off as something with a history -- >> reclaiming my time, mr. chairman because i want to make a formal fundamental point. this is, to be sure, not about executive privilege. it's not about the kind of lpga we throw around in this committee. it's about something far more fundamental and that is the separation of powers itself. my republican colleagues are about to file suit against the president of the united states based on this notion of separation of powers. they want separation of powers observed when it comes to the congress, but when the , that's essentially what he's saying, under a constitutional separation of powers government i do not have to send my immediate advisors to speak with you.

and the analogies that have gone back and forth on the other side as if this were an vesks an investigation shows that there is the president's immediate advisor is not an agency, and this is not a matter of policy. this is a fishing expedition, and yet the president has come to allow the committee to understand the fundamentals of the office. you want to understand why we set up this office? they have been over here time and again. when you call mr. simas, you are calling the advisor of the president himself.

you need a predicate for a subpoena. you need more than a fishing expedition. you do not have a right to know everything in a separation of powers government, my friend. that is the difference between a parliamentary government and a separation of powers government. this is an immediate advisor to the president. if you want separation of powers respected so deeply that you are about to file suit against the president, it seems to me that at the very least you ought to

be willing to continue in this process until you have exhausted all other remedies still available to you to find out as much as you can about this office before doing a showcase fishing expedition subpoena designed clearly more to get the attention of the press than to get the attention of the president. i yield -- >> will the gentlelady yield? >> i yield to the ranking member. >> i want to thank the gentlelady. one thing i want to add, so the public will be clear, the office of special counsel has reviewed various communications. both sides have been given information showing that the report from back in 2008, an investigation by the waxman

committee, and then a more recent report by the office of special counsel, all of that has been given to folks in this office, and they are adhering to that, and the office of special counsel has said that. and i think that they have bent over backwards trying to accommodate, as you said, and i think there is clearly a question of separation of powers. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. >> i thank the gentleman. i thank the gentlelady. i am informed there are two more people who seek recognition, perhaps sharing that time on your side. is that correct? i would like to try to just organize -- >> if the chair will give us six minutes display, we will do that. >> if is fine with the ranking member, i ask unanimous consent that we split six minutes per side to bring this to conclusion -- if that is acceptable. >> that is acceptable. >> the gentleman is recognized. and be kind to your friend next to you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, the original title of this hearing hardly confirms the assertion that we are just trying to get at the truth, that we recognize there is nothing on towards that has happened, but something might happen, and so preemptively we need to pursue this matter.

that is a thin read legally, a really thin read, and i have no confidence it would be upheld in the courts. in sharp contrast to the previous administration, which was described -- their office of political affairs was described as the political boiler room. this one, according to carolyn lerner, she found no violations of the hatch act. and by the way, what is ironic is, in the advertisement of the title of this hearing, the majority staff got the title wrong. they cited the white house office of political affairs. that is the title of the bush administration office.

it is not the title of the current administration's office. maybe that was a freudian slip, although if they want to go active the bush administration to examine in great oversight detail, knowing their commitment to oversight, about the many, many violations that occurred in that administration, unlike this admission, which is been found clean, by the office of special counsel, they will have full democratic support. this is a sad day because i think i would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, especially those with legal training, i think they're going to do damage to our institution. we are going to get greater capability in legitimate

oversight and in legitimate assertion of the rights of the executive branch, because we are abusing that we have no foundation for this action. we are going to take it because you get the votes. but should we take it is a different matter. i now yield to my friend from california. >> i thank my good friend and colleague, and i will make sure i have some time left over for my good friend, mr. lynch. i will be very brief. this is a patently political action. and i agree with my colleague when he says that we are placing this institution in great harm, and doing great damage to it. as my colleague ms. norton said, this is a fishing expedition. we are talking about an office

with $1 million of taxpayer funds. that is it. $1 million. if they are so concerned they are making sure that they are using this money for precisely the right purposes, then call in the general accounting office which is available to us night and day and have them go and audit the office. 2 1/2 months ago i sent to the chairman of this committee a letter asking him to start an investigation, hold a hearing on health management associates, which has already ripped off the taxpayers of this country by $600 million in medicare and medicaid fraud. are we doing anything to look at something as important as that issue? oh, no, we want to investigate the president's $1 million political office to see if the funds are being used for political or governmental purpose. this is a mockery, and i stand

with my colleagues objecting to it. i go back. >> i now yield the balance of my time to mr. lynch. >> i thank the gentlelady for yielding. a number of times i've heard the assertion that we do not know what we did not know, but we do know what we do know, and the republican staff at the white house and asked a whole lot of questions that you just asked. they asked, what are the functions of this office? you say you do not know. your staff went over there, and they got the answers, and the white house explained that the new office is set up for two primary functions. one is to obtain information to help form the president's policy agenda and make sure that his visits are being effective, and then to send political invitations on behalf of parties

to determine whether invitation should be accepted. before when this happened, all different officers of the white house would get invitations, which led to potential violations of the hatch act. so they are concentrated in this one office. if you take the time, your staff did a very good job. they asked some very pointed questions of the white house when they went over there, and the white house, in fairness to them, did answer those questions, and all without a subpoena and without a public show and all without it interfering with the right of the president's counsel to advise him. i think the white house has been very cooperative in this respect, and the fact you cannot find anything wrong is no reason to offer a subpoena. i yield back. >> mr. goudy will control the last six.

>> i want to thank my colleagues. i've learned a lot this morning. i've learned that you can have a firmly-rooted right to assert -- on begalf of the entity that is neither named nor contemplated by the institution. i was previously not a rerun of that. what i would like us to lead with today is some consistent on what the standard is. i want to understand, because i honestly think there is a hunger in this country for any group to apply the same standards, the same rules, regardless of politics. recess appointments should not depend on which jersey the president has on. i think we can all agree on that. so too the power to summon someone for the people's house should not depend on which party

is in power, and what i have heard from colleagues on the other side of the aisle this morning cannot possibly be the standard. the standard cannot simply be that you have to have done something wrong. we do not have the power to investigate criminal conduct. you all know that. remind us of that all the time. we do not have the time to investigate or prosecute criminal wrongdoing. that is another branch. so that cannot possibly be the standard. can we summon someone before congress to discuss good news? what if they have done a good job? can we send him a summons? can we invite them to come share with us the progress and the success they have? not under your standard. can we invite someone to come discuss how to take their department from good to great? you're doing a good job, you're doing a great job? can we summon them before the people's house? not according to your standard. can we invite them to discuss appropriations?

can we summon them to discuss policy? not according to your standard. your standard is you have to have done something wrong or you have to have broken the law, and you all know that cannot be right. you got really bright lawyers over there. you know that we have no power to investigate criminal wrongdoing. so how can that possibly be the standard? what is the standard going forward after today? when can this branch, when can the people's house summon people to come? can we discuss policy? appropriations? good news? can we bring them to say you are doing a great job, or is it only when it verges on criminal wrongdoing where you can see that we have the power? this is what is most vexing for me, and this is what i really want, i really want some of

their reasonable folks on this side to think about. are you willing to concede that this branch has less power to summon, or the judicial branch does not only have the power to summon people on an allegation of wrongdoing. the executive branch does not only have the power to summon people. some of you who have done criminal work, you can send a grand jury subpoena to someone who is totally innocent. they just happen to have facts that you are interested in. a circuit court judge, a district court judge can serve in a civil case a subpoena someone. there's no allegation of criminal wrongdoing. you all know that. many of you have practiced that. so why are you telling us that we have less power than the other two branches under the constitution? what is the standard going forward after today?

can somebody explain to me, because we all believe in bright lives, but i may live long enough to see a republican president. so what is the standard going to be? what is the standard going to be? i will tell you what i would like to do. >> will the gentleman -- >> i will. but i do want someone to tell me if there is a republican president, are you willing to apply the same standard, are we willing to apply the same standard? the country wants to know as well and say at the end of this debate, is this a standard we can live with regardless of who is in power? can you only bring witnesses? i am not talking about

testimony. that is executive privilege. that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. it is the power to summon someone before the people's house. is the new standard only if you have done something wrong and only if we have a hint of criminal impropriety? if that is the new standard, then let's live with it going forward. i just think you are giving short shrift to the people's house. the reality that we cannot bring someone here to talk about good things a are doing or policy improvements, that we cannot bring the secretary of agriculture before committee of congress to discuss something that is wrong and not criminal -- really, you need to think about what we are doing today and whether or not you are in the short term shortening your own constitutional prerogative, because honestly, after all the morning's worth of debate, i cannot tell you what the standard is going forward. i cannot do it. with that, i will your back. >> i ask unanimous consent the gentleman have an additional 30 seconds. without objection, so ordered. >> i would be delighted to you

-- yield to my friend from massachusetts. >> thank you, and we wish you a long and healthy life during which no republican president serves. [laughter] thank you for yielding. this is all in the context of the hatch act investigation. i think we went off the line on that basis. under your theory that we would be able to subpoena the chief of staff, that is not where we want to go on this. the standard set forth by the courts in the meiers case, it is about bringing in an authority

and first exhausting -- of getting the information you're seeking or just oversight in some other way. if the standard for a limited legitimate investigation that you have to have an impasse and have an investigation where you cannot get the answers any other work, is something we require a lot more on that basis, and there has been no showing of the white house not cooperating. >> all time having expired, i move that the committee on oversight and government reform approve the resolution, rejecting the claim that david simas is immune from being compelled to testify before this congress on matters relating to his official duties. the question is on approving the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. any say no? >> no. >> the ayes have it. >> aye. aye. aye. aye. aye.

aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. no. no. no. no. no. no.

no. no. >> i would like to associate myself with the words of ranking member, and i vote no. >> no. >> absolutely not. >> no. no. no. no. >> all members voted? the clerk -- >> on that vote, 19 ayes, 14 nos. >> the resolution, rejecting the claim that david simas is immune to being compelled to testify

before congress on matters relating to his official duties is approved, and we stand adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> a conversation with president obama's senior adviser dan pfeiffer. live at 7:00 a.m., your calls and comments on "washington journal." senior adviser to president obama dan pfeiffer says he would not discount the possibility of republicans pursuing the impeachment of the president if he takes executive action on immigration reform. pfeiffer made those remarks at a christian science monitor

event. he also discussed sanctions against russia, unaccompanied immigrant children, and the 2014 in 2016 elections. the bureau chief is the moderator of the one-hour event. ok. here we go. the christian for science monitor, thanks for coming. the assistanty is to the president and the senior advisor. he was here exactly a year ago. he is a wilmington, delaware native andy george towne university grad who by age 24 was already operating on the national stage as a spokesman for al gore's presidential campaign. he also worked for senators tim johnson, tom daschle before joining barack obama's presidential campaign. before taking on his current

role, he was deputy communications director and later communications director for president obama. so much for biography. now onto the exciting matters of process. we are on the record here. please, no filing of any kind while the breakfast is underway to give us time to listen to what the guest actually says. there is no embargo when the session ends. you help you kurds that we willss selfie urge, send photos as soon as the breakfast ends. question,ike to ask a we send me a subtle, nonthreatening signal. will happily call on one and all during the time we have available. let me offer our guest the opportunity to make some opening comments. and we will move to questions. thanks again for doing this, dan. >> thanks for having me. the onlyhis is tweeting free zone and all of washington.

let me start with a few opening remarks. began .14, the president declared it the year of action. forgoal here was -- to look ways to work with congress. it had become pretty clear by the end of 2013 that congress was pretty broken because the republican majority was in the thrall of the right wing. thee were going to advance progressive agenda it was -- it would be through executive action. pollution, toon ,upport minimum wage increase things in the area around skills and education. leading up to at the end of the summer and executive action on dealing with a broken immigration system. because one, this is how you govern during a time

of divided congress. tocan't expect republicans step across the line. congress has become so gridlocked. whene dealing at a time there is tremendous frustration with a lack of action in washington. we want to make sure that the american people know that the president will act. we expected that we would get a reaction from republicans. there, as we went out you hear cries of imperial presidency, etc. we did not presume they would sue the president, but in some ways that is a validation of the idea that the executive actions we have taken are far from the small ball that accused it of being, but instead have forced the republicans to take in nearly unprecedented step of suing the president. that is going to come to fruition in the next week as a

house will vote next week to authorize that lawsuit. aat is not going to cause loss of wind in our sails. said, at the end of the summer, as the president promised because of congress is lack of action in immigration reform, he will do what he can within his power. i suspect i will generate a reactionrly aggressive from the republicans, perhaps one that exceeds any other executive action. that pathoceed with this summer, pushing on executive actions, because we think we're making a very real difference in setting up the contrast with the least productive republican congress in history. with that, let me take your questions. let me ask you first about

republicans and compassion. the top republicans are staking out positions to appeal to a more compassionate approach. rand paul is making a speech today on improving education and reforming the criminal justice system. yesterday, house budget chair ryan talked about steps to reduce poverty. a couple of those echoed proposals the president made to increase tax credits for the working poor and to lower the eligibility age. what do you make of the ryan proposal and the more general shift in republican approach. will it have any effect in your view? >> is good the republicans are engaging in a conversation about the working poor and trying to republicans adamantly

refused to talk about that in the last election. there are potential areas for compromise in both ryan's proposal in which he proposes measures supported by the president. paul ryan has proposed endorsing some of the criminal justice reforms the president has talked about. >> my boss just called, i have been laid off. >> in his conversation will be very useful for you. the challenge here is, the ryan proposals are still in the context of a budget that chooses balance a budget on the backs of the poor and those who need assistance.

we need a fundamental shift in republican thinking. we can look for compromise if they choose to join the conversation on a different level. i don't think rhetoric is going to get -- i think you can say this basket of issues and at the same time support national cuts to medicaid and food stamps and turning medicare into vouchers. that will supersede your rhetoric. there's a fundamental recognition in the republican party, at least among some, that these top-down economic support for those at the very top of corporations is a hallmark of the republicans and the romney particular, is a loser. >> there was criticism to the

president's response to the shooting down of the malaysian airliner terror time magazine is running a cover this week entitled in russia, crime without punishment. is not particular positive, talking about the president being detached, but there were even critics within with three senate committee chairs sending him a letter asking him to impose broad sanctions and seeking swift action. my question is, how would you assess the president's record so far dealing with the threats posed by routine yet -- by president putin? >> i think the first part of -- we live in a very polarized, pollard -- partisan time. everything a president does will be criticized by the other side. actual minutes from the around the malaysian

andiner when john mccain lindsey graham are out criticizing the president for it. -- there are people who criticize a present -- the president for getting up in the morning. if there is a different approach, i suspect that charles krauthammer and others will be ing us for that. i think it is important to recognize that there is this mythology, certainly among the right, where you have republicans reading president putin's talking points as if this were some sort of brilliant strategy. it is certainly clear that everything that russia has done is not understrength. the ukraine has been in orbit for a long time, choosing to side with the west over russia and thenmaking --

russia responding in a way that damaged their economy, isolated them further in the world. you see growing pressure on because of the economic hit they have taken because of sanctions. i think it is important to recognize that way we approach this is that sanctions work best when the world is united. we are working in concert with the europeans. not workinges means at the speed of the new cycle that cable news response. you can have good press coverage but not have the substantive impact. that is a challenge of foreign affairs in this partisan, hyperactive political mediation. these are competent issues that take complicated nuanced issues that take time. those strategies don't always dovetail with the demand for immediate response.

the second part of your question, the question we ask ourselves in any of the situations where there is a world event in the president is out on the road, is does -- is a substantive reason he needs to come back? -- if such a reason exists, he will come back. many of you pack your bags and go on a trip that is been canceled for reasons -- most notably around the government shutdown and possible default that is happily couple of times. we asked the question, that was clearly not the case last week. i think it is important that the american people expect the president to be able to do more than one thing at once. if we -- if canceling a trip and flying back here and sitting in the white house during the exact same thing we would've been doing from the road, maybe

tactically smart in getting good press coverage, but strategically stupid because the next time you don't come back, "why did youll be not come back that time? " in terms of public approval stop canwhat kind of you put to them at all? see a drop in public approval as reflection of the presidents performance or by extension your own? -- i put muchk less stock in public polling than i do in private polling that i see. that was born out in the 2012 election for the difference there. --hink that if you look at the long arc of it, the president's approval rating has

traveled in a fairly narrow band of about 4-5 points. there've been a couple of peaks right after the first election, right after the second election, after the bin laden rate, but generally we have been in the same spot. i think our approval rating is in the average of polls. there is one point -- it is one point off what was in 2010. we have been higher and a little bit lower. there is no question that everyone in washington, the president included, took a hit of thehe combination debate over syria, the and thent shutdown, the healthcare.gov problems. we had worked our way back to up, about a point in my through the first half of this year and what we have had -- the challenge we have had over the itt several months is that is a continuous cascade of events around the world.

become problematic in terms of public opinion is that they serve as a blocker to message. ,f you turn on the news american people are incredibly focused on the economy. they turn on the news and what iraq, more ukraine, ukraine, and a whole host of other things. that is not a criticism of coverage. those are all legitimate issues, but it makes it very hard to get our message out. i think we have based some project -- some progress on taking a step back. as we get into the fall and there is a sharper contrast between the presidents approval -- that would be helpful. i think it is worth noting that over the course of the last many years, there has been every

institution has suffered in public polling. it has a lot to do with people's overall mentality. frustration with washington, the congressional republicans would kill for our numbers. that gives you a sense of where we are. >> anita? to margaret.go i'm sorry, my fault, out of order. >> i want to get back to the year of action where you all put out this six-month or midway review of this year. i went through and looked at some of those. i wrote a story about it last .eek, about some of them for example my brothers keeper had been on the twice. some were granted you had artie been offering two groups. were private sector things that businesses are not even doing, even though you all supported. get as i just wanted to

response to the opposite, which is that some of them are small. can you respond to that? the second part of the question is, i try to get a response from the white house and i didn't. it was declined. know that person was, but. . . .. what is the point of not responding to that when the media is pushing? >> imitate the first part. , if you look are at the array of executive actions over the course of this year, there are a lot that are very large and some that are smaller. you have some home runs and some triples and doubles and singles over the course of the year. if they were small ball, the republicans would not be suing

is over them. i think there is no question that around the minimum wage, around equal pay, around lgbt nondiscrimination which the president signed last week, certainly what we're done around connect ed and technology in schools and the greenhouse gas regulation, these are all pieces of very big business. in each of those areas, the president has done more than the last several congresses combined. if you're looking for progress on the sort of things that american people are interested in, the only place that is happening right now is in the white house because of a dash of republican obstruction. i don't know why some and didn't respond to you, that is not our strategies. y. we're dealing with an array of things it anyone time. that may have fallen through the cracks. about theto talk

child immigration problem and the solutions you're looking at. us on interesting story today about a potential plan for all i wanted toch is -- talk about both in connection with a series action. what is the kind of executive action you can use to push immigration policy? are you guys looking at just doing stuff and saying go ahead and sue us anyway? does honduras seem like a different case? broadly, children have always been broken off as a different piece of immigration. , theream act, the military trend now across central america is forcing them to take a different posture. i was wondering how that would come out.

>> on the first part of your question, there are some things the -- in the ope" the new york times. is rejectingm legal claims. that will be what guides how we handle this. in terms of executive action, i think what is interesting about what is happened at the border is this got tremendous attention, as it should. that has raised awareness in the research i've seen, tremendous awareness of immigration is an issue and increase the urgency that our people feel and fixing it. i think that gives us broad

permission to take what executive action we can to help fix a broken immigration system, because they're frustrated that congress will not act. taking executive action along the lines of what the president was talking about in the rose garden a few weeks ago would allow us to redirect resources to the border to deal with it very that is particularly important because a house republicans have decided that they're going to head home for the month of august without the president supplemental request, which is exhibit 1000 in the case of the broken republican congress. what we do in case on all ofs, the test these things is are we on solid legal footing. the president insists that that analysis is done before we take any executive action. now, i don't think that is going to stop the republicans from necessarily suing us, so we do what we think we should, not what we think drives the republicans.

>> should we expect more executive actions on immigration specifically and just to clarify on the honduras, the story was right, it's not locked down, but they broadly described what he is considering, right? >> i'm not going to get into details of things that may or may not be floating around out there. if there are, others will make announcements on that. >> so yes? [laughter] >> so what i just said. obviously the president has said he wants to take executive action, what he can do within his authority as soon as possible. he is waiting for, he tasked the attorney general and the security of homeland security to come back at the end of the summer. that will be a very important step substantively. a pretty important step as you look at the arc of the presidency and what happens when

he takes that action. >> susan. >> dan, you have this very rare perspective because you have been there from day one at the white house. you and valerie, anyone else in the senior rankings? >> we are the only ones left. >> i wonder if you can talk about how the second term is different from the first term in terms of both how the president can operate in washington and how he can operate around the world, is the second term different than the first term? >> i think, yes, it is different. part of the difference is just the president has been here longer. we have all been here longer. that gives us additional perspective. there are things that would have caused us to set our hair on fire in the first term that we now know are fleeting things. we can separate the noise and we talked about this earlier, when secretary gates' book came out in the first term, there would have been 1,000 meetings and we would have spent all night having all of these tgs. now you recognize that these

books flush through the system pretty quickly. i don't thipeople do too much sweating over that. the one thing i can say for myself personally in this is that probably every day from the midterms in 2010 until electi on night in 2012, there was some part of the day where i thought about the possibility of losing and not having that -- i woke up the morning after feeling lighter and not having that thought in your head is different. the other thing i would say about this is you, in all of these cases, you do what you think is substantively right. the re-election serves as a strategic felter as you think about things. you think every decision, particularly in this environment, even if this is a completely right thing, you got to be away that karl rove or the koch brothers can buy ads distorting what you just did.

then you think about the long game. i spend more time in the second term thinking about how is barack obama going to feel about this decision 10 years, 15 years, 20 years from now when he hanging out in the presidential library. there is a little more thing about the long-term aspects of each individual decision and the short-term politics are incredibly important, the substance is incredibly important, you build a longer perspective. >> sarah. >> going back to the executive action, many of the executive actions is -- >> can you be a little louder, the aged among us. >> sorry. so many of the executive actions the president will keep

democratic authorities, lbgt action, immigration, equal pay, i was wondering how much of the politics of 2014 influenced the decisions he brought us? >> i'm not going to say that politics plays no role in the decision-making process. as you weigh equities in any individual decision, i think this is not unique to this white house or any white house or any politician around the world, politics are inequity. a lot of times, a lot of times to my chagrin that the other equities will beat out politics and you'll do things that may have consequences in the elections, but it's the right thing to do, so you have to do it. we have to think about it. i wouldn't tell you we don't. at the end of the day, he is not going to do something he disagrees with substantively because it's good politics. we took a lot of heat in the first term because they were bad

politics at the time, bailing out the auto industry, helping president bush pass the tarp before we were even sworn in office. anyone with half a political sense would know that would be really bad for us. you can make an argument, taking on health care, one of the most divisive issues wasn't good politics. we weigh those issues and sometimes we decide the politics, the bad politics is worth doing because it's the right thing to do. >> let me do a time check here. we're halfway through. we're coming to lauren, reed, paul, susan, sam, alex, david, alexis, francine, lynn, and todd. >> the basic message here is give shorter answers? >> no, if you play your cards right, you don't get to face a question --

>> when it's hot. >> when does sam come up? >> lauren. [laughter] >> i wanted to ask, in terms of the executive action on immigration that we might have at the end of the summer, do you expect the president will be weighing the children who are coming across the border now or do you expect it will be wider action that affects families or others? >> i don't want to -- we haven't gotten the report back from the attorney general and second johnson, so i don't want to get too far ahead of it. we have two separate issues, separate but related issues. one is we have a specific challenge at one portion of the border in the rio grande valley and we have to deal with that and that requires sending additional resources, both redirecting resources and asking for new resources from congress, so we're dealing with that. secondly, we have to deal with -- you know we were talking about executive action around immigration long before we had

the specific challenge to the border. obviously what is happening at the border is part of the backdrop for the decision for the thinking behind this decision will make, i think it will probably increase the angry reaction from republicans. you already have senator cruz threats saying that he will not allow there to be a vote on the immigration bill unless we agree to deport all of the dreamers who have received deferred action under the president's executive action in 2012. i think that speaks to both the tremendous cross currents in the republican party on immigration reform where you have people like john mccain and lindsey graham, others in the republican house who have been very open about immigration reform and a nativist tendency that has been very damaging to the republican party politically.

we talk about the lawsuit and then you have sarah palin out there talking about impeachment. i saw a poll today that had a huge portion of the republican party base saying they support impeaching the president. a lot of people in this town laugh that off. i think it is, i would not discount that possibility. i think that speaker boehner by going down the path of this lawsuit has opened the door to republicans possibly considering impeachment at some point in the future. i think that the president acting on immigration reform will certainly up the likelihood that they would contemplate impeachment at some point. >> they really came down and i

think we heard a little bit about what you guys plan to do with the college issue with the nonprofits. i'm curious how the administration plans to act if you do executively to fill the coverage gap for the female employees of for profit corporations who were immediately affected, i think there were a few thousand and up to millions could be. what do you plan to do about that? >> i think the first best solution here is congressional action. we supported the legislation in the senate that was voted down in the last couple of weeks here. we are going to keep pushing for that. i don't want to preview anything here yet, but we're looking at what our options are. like i said, congressional action is first best if unlikely in this environment but we'll keep pushing for that because that's the best way to do this. >> do you have any sort of time frame as when you might announce? >> we're working as quickly as possible. i don't have a date as to when

the announcement. people are analyzing the situation and see what there is to do. >> reed. >> dan, how long do you expect to stay in the white house and have you told the president when you expect to leave? >> no, only because i don't know the answer to that question. i'm there as long as certainly -- as long as he wants me to stay. i say this. i'm there as long as he wants me to stay with one caveat which is i think my practice has been at the end -- as susan pointed out, i have been there for a very long time, which you can all judge whether that's a question of endurance or stubbornness. at the end of every year to take a look and see whether i still have the fire in me, whether i still feel the -- i think during any given day, if you can go

spend a day in the white house and not feel the excitement and thrill and opportunity of that job and the place where you are and the history and opportunity to do so much good for people, then that's the time to leave. i don't suspect that that is coming any time soon, but i think i'll always look and see how i feel about it. i have no plans to go, but someone asked me at one of these events whether i would definitely be there on the day power is handed over to the next president. i think that would also be a particularly presumptuous statement today. we'll see. we haven't made a decision or told the president, unless you have heard something different? >> no, i haven't. [laughter]

>> if i can ask a follow-up on the impeachment thing. do you think that would be good for the president to be impeached by the republicans? >> no, i don't think so. impeachment is a very serious thing that has been bandied about by the recent republican vice presidential nominee in a very unserious way. no one has even made, has any allegation of anything that would be in six universes from what is generally considered in that space. no, i think that we take it very seriously. i don't think it would be a good thing. i am, you know, but i think it would be foolish to discount the possibility that the republicans would consider going down that path at some time in the future. >> \[inaudible]

if this has been the spanish and the i.r.a., you wouldn't have supported it and tolerated it. shouldn't you have gotten angry about this earlier, would that have made a difference? >> the president has addressed this, the secretary kerry has addressed this? -- we have made clear about the casualties on each side. secretary kerry is helping them come to a cease-fire. he is going to keep working very hard on that. he is still in egypt right now working on that. we'll see what we can do there. i think that more than anything else is the most important step right now. >> other allies may be treating the circumstance and how israel

has been allowed to carry on killing so many kids? >> i think as we said, israel has a right to defend itself. i'll let you judge if there is a different standard. >> let me ask this first, as i was watching the images on wednesday of the dutch morning ceremonies and the hearses and the caskets come streaming down the street, i remember the white house put out a statement that it would stand shoulder to shoulder with the dutch people in light of the malaysian crash and takedown. i wonder if there was an opportunity or discussion between the dutch leaders and the white house about whether the president could go to that memorial service. it seems like that would be a literal standing shoulder to shoulder with them, and also project a message to europe about where we stand in terms of russia right now. i'm wondering, first of all, i

want to see if there is a discussion on that and wondering how much the political capital the president would lobby europe for more sanctions, sanctions with russia. >> i'm not aware of any discussion like that. the president spoke to the prime minister a number of times. it wasn't a discussion we had in the white house. second, you know, i don't know if it's a question of political capital. i think the president has pushed europe very hard. he spoke about this in an interview he did yesterday about how hopefully the malaysian -- that the tragedy that has helped with malaysian airlines would serve as a wake-up call for some of the european nations to step up here. he will continue pushing them because it's the right thing to do. like i said earlier, the best way for sanctions to work is when everyone is united on this. i don't think he views this as an expenditure of political capital, more the right thing to

do to get to a good public policy solution. >> sam. >> senator bernie sanders the other day talking about the relationships with the republicans, he made the point that or he made a criticism, i should say, that the president took too long to essentially recognize that congressional republicans were not good negotiating partners. it led me to recall after the 2012 elections, they did predict that it would be broken. is the senator right in his criticism and if not, why not? >> well, i think first to the question, no one, certainly not the president when he said that

believed that all partisan divisions would go away and we would live in a world of kumbaya. we would pass large pieces of bipartisan legislation. the question was would we be able to make some progress. in some cases, the fever did break on revenue. we were able to get republicans for the first time in decades to agree to raise taxes on the wealthy and protect taxes on the middle class. we would all like there to be less, to have the republican party that was less extreme and it was the hope that the election would have that effect. it did not. it even may have had the opposite effect. that remains a challenge. i think that as someone who was there for all of the discussions in the 2011 and 2012 after the republicans took over is the president is willing to listen to the other side and see if they can come to an agreement. he certainly spent a lot of time with speaker boehner and others to try to get that done. that was the right thing to do.

he never had any misconceptions about the challenges of the republicans passing anything, the weakness of speaker boehner's position when he had a tea party that would refuse, they thought that defaulting on the national debt for the first time would be a good idea with a deputy who may not have been the most loyal deputy in mr. cantor. so we understand that. we also had a situation that had to be dealt with. there was no path to, at the time to dealing with the debt limit than having to work with republicans. so we had to do that. now i think over the course of time, there is no doubt that the more you deal with them, the more you know and the more you refine your approach. i think in the showdowns we have

had to have with them over the years, the president has a pretty good record. he stared them down on the payroll tax cut, the shutdown, the fiscal cliff and has achieved pretty broad public policy gains without having to give up very much, which is a pretty impressive thing in the course of divided government in a very partisan time. >> alex. >> as you know, the president's agenda, the democrat agenda has stalled in the senate. the republicans are still very angry about the filibuster reform. that has poisoned the well with the gridlock. the president is getting nominees through. was it worth it and how hard did the administration encourage that move? >> i think it would -- it's not exactly like republicans in the senate, the democrats passed a whole heck of a lot of legislation before the change in the rules. i don't think there -- i think that's a little bit of excuse making on their part. i think that the ability to get our nominees through, especially

our judicial nominees, has been tremendous benefit. we basically, none controversial nominees being held up for 200 days for no reason prior to this and i think -- we have been able to make tremendous progress in reshaping the judiciary especially in the last year or so since that. changes have been made getting four judges appointed to the d.c. court of appeals. they said we would never get one for the rest of our presidency, that's huge progress. we were very supportive of senator reid's effort to do it. >> given how dysfunctional it has become, do you think the president would like to see further rules reform no bills can get past any of the -- >> the problem is not the rules. the problem is that you have a republican minority who decided six years ago that they were going to block everything the president wanted to do. that is where they filibuster

everything. that is a fundamental problem there. i don't think it's a wise thing for one branch to suggest a bunch of changes on how the other branch does that. we have been in close contact with senator reid throughout, over all of the years, but as he has contemplated the changes in the past. if a desire comes up again, i'm sure we will be talking to him about it. >> mr. lauter. >> you mentioned earlier about the problem of foreign crisis and blocking the message. i wonder whether that, whether that tends to be pushing towards going bigger on immigration later as one of the equities that this is an issue that the public is focused on where the president can come through and say i'm doing something and then he'll get more attention if it is big rather than small

. >> the president's goal is to do this in a way that is most impactful consistent with his authority. that will be how the filter by which he makes his decision on this. like i said, we're still waiting for the attorney general and secretary johnson are still undertaking the process here. i think that this executive action will be very significant in not just its public policy, but in terms of the politics of immigration reform going forward. now you have, you have a world where you have senator cruz demanding that we deport all of the dreamers, you can imagine what the reaction to this will

be and the represent party has a choice after that, which is are they going to double -- are they going to go back and try to pass comprehensive immigration reform which the president will rip up whatever executive action he does the day they pass that or are they going to set themselves up for the next 2 1/2 years here to be arguing that, to elect the republican in order to deport all of these people. that will be a really interesting question about how to handle that. so they would have -- >> the one you're going to do that you haven't announced yet? got it. >> well, what i said, the substance, in terms of the politics of immigration reform will have a significant impact. >> at the end of the summer. >> yes. >> in one block? [laughter] >> as you look at keeping your political hat on, as you look at the landscape of the house and senate races, how can you examine them and think about how they might affect the presidential race? what do you think in the races now that hits you in terms of the larger race to come? >> i think just one note on the 2014 election is you wouldn't

know this from reading the coverage, but as someone who has spent a lot of time looking at the data and talking to the people in the race and the president has been out with the fundraising committees recently, it has strengthened in the last few weeks here somewhat significantly. it's a tough territory. we have a lot of work to do. you would think reading the news that they got it worse. a lot of people including us believe it's gotten stronger where democratic incumbents have strengthened their hands in alaska, arkansas, north carolina. now tough states, a lot of work to do. i think what is interesting about these races for the long term is probably just because of where the senate races are per se, they're not happening, with a couple of exceptions, happening in states that will be determined by a presidential election under most scenarios.

where people should pay attention is the governors races. it's always helpful but not determinative to have the governor of your party in charge of a big battleground state. you have better political, nuts and bolts political in that state and the like. it has impact on democratic governors, makes it hard for republicans to undertake some of these very onerous positions to cut down on voting rights. and then long-term in the governor races have to do with censuses and redirecting. in losing the 2010 governors races like we did was very impactful.

democrats going forward have to be as focused as republicans are on those races for that very reason and because where washington is so, having so much trouble passing anything, a lot of the public policy stuff is happening at the state level, looking at the 13 states plus district of columbia that passed minimum wage since the president called for raising the minimum wage in state of union. look at a.c.a. and medicaid expansion, it makes a big difference on who controls the statehouse there. it needs to be a focus for us. >> are you projecting, predicting that democrats will hold these? >> i don't think anyone would tell you that it is easy, but i believe they will hold the senate. i think we have better candidates and the republicans made somewhat of a fundamental error in deciding that their best candidates in a lot of these states were members of the tremendously unpopular republican congressional house majority. it's tough. it requires a lot of work. we got good candidates and we expect the president to help them. >> what are the prospects of changing the 2008 law bringing

any details in congress onboard with that? is the president going to come out and reiterate his favor of adjusting that law the way speaker boehner, but also henry has asked him to do? >> well, i was sort of mystified, but i guess not surprised by speaker boehner demanding that, raising questions. the president wrote him a letter three weeks ago specifically asking, saying that we wanted changes in the law. we sent that request up when we sent up the other request, however many weeks ago that was. we believe that. we're working with, we're talking to members on the hill about the best way to go about doing it. i think we can't do is hold up resources over this issue if we can't come to a resolution. we need the resources.

changes in authority without resources, nothing to solve our problem. we need the resources and we need them sooner rather than later which is why i pointed out it's disappointing and frustrating and the republicans have decided to hang up the closed for business sign so early before august and just declare they're not going to act. we're going to keep working, as we said many times, and our, we said yesterday from the white house that we continue support or changes in the law, we're going to work with congress to make sure they're done in a way that dematerials illegal migration, protects legitimate claims. >> why separate the two when it could be done? >> well, you're going to have theoretically a version that passes the senate and a version that passes the house. you have to reconcile with them. a lot of proposals is one where we disagree with the way in

which they do it. it has to be done in a way that meets the test we just laid out. we don't believe the current proposal does that. >> dan, you mentioned, you brought up the presidential library. don't be alarmed. >> good thing the security people are not here. [laughter] >> looking at the proposals that are there, mrs. obama [indiscernible] can you describe a little bit of what he is doing? >> a vast majority of this is being handled outside the white house. >> this is something that the president and first lady lady, this is obviously important to them. people who are very close to

them, involved in this process, i do not know if the resident has look at the bids or not. if he is not coming you will of the appropriate time. >> the perfect time is coming up now and >> i have not asked him, so i do not know the answer. >> what about giving the museum to dallas? put your politics hat on again. i am wondering, as uss the 26th

team field with republicans, do you see -- who do you see is the most formidable and the most beatable? >> the caveat i would give here is a stage of the game, if we judge the 2016 elections in 2014, it would be like deciding who would win the 2016 super bowl based on the 20 14th and a fell season. two of the smartest political reporters around in june on six wrote a book called the way to win. do not hold me accountable for anything i'm about to say. i think senator cruz is a particularly interesting candidate for democrats. he is deeply out of step with the country on a wide array of issues. i have to admit i was rooting a little bit for the convention to be invalid because i thought to be interesting if he ran to austin how he would handle the nominates the of another person -- nominating of another person. i think one of the most intriguing candidates is senator paul. i think he has a message -- he is the only republican president equated a message that is not --

pardon is potentially appealing to younger americans. every other republican is just yet romney when it comes to younger americans. they come from a different era. the libertarian bent of senator paul, he bears -- there is a germ of something there.

whether he can pull it off, i do not know. he has said some things that could be problematic in the larger electorate. i will be an interesting one. >> would you rather run against cruise or rick perry? >> that is like would you rather have ice cream or cake? >> i'm going to speak to the -- i'm going to stick with the 2016 theme. in recent months and had to just pull themselves on foreign policy -- discipline themselves

on foreign policy, and did not say anything about a second term with gaza, ukraine and iraq. have you talked to the president? >> i have a different interpretation of this than i think you do. i think up until the moment when secretary clinton decides she's going to run or not and beyond that, there will be a massive amount of attention to try to divine meaning and everything -- in everything she says. it would've been an awkward sentence construction to go out of her way when talking about her own experience in the first term to then associate herself with a second term. she has been very supportive of the president on issues like the efforts in iran around the broader foreign-policy.

i do not think they will all agree 100% on every decision that was made before or since. she was incredibly loyal to this president, he is area -- she is very appreciative of it. all of us who work with are very appreciative of it. i suspect that there will be a lot of criminology into every word she says for a long time. but i'm not concerned about that. >> is it going to hurt the president if she starts to [indiscernible]. >> i do not think so. in a long list of concerns that i have in my life, political and otherwise, this is pretty low in my list.

i do not think she's trying to distance herself, i think she would say she is. decisions that were made when she was secretary of state into the things that we have done now, it is a fairly natural thing. what is notable is given the very highly charged primary campaign the two ran against each other, only six years ago, it is notable how close the relationship is, how close they have been on core issues and their loyalty to each other. >> thank you for doing this. we appreciate it very much. [laughter] thank you. are you having a good time? did you do anything fun? >> i had dinner with [indiscernible]. >> how fun. >> here's a look at her primetime schedule on this he's

been better -- on our c-span networks. coming up, another chance to see dan pfeiffer talking about the agenda. on c-span two, virginia congressman scott russell discusses relations with russia.

on "washington journal." >> if you are in government, you

are dealing with the daily tyranny of the inbox. you are focused on the crisis of the day. i represent the secretary of defense on the deputies committee. a that is the senior-level group that works on developing options for the president. there is a lot of crisis management focus. is not tryingity to second-guess the policymaker of the issues of the day. it you help to make sure that they look over the horizon to see issues they might confront five years from now. how do they think more strategically? this is sunday night at 8:00

eastern on c-span. mark jacobson of the truman national security project ,iscuss foreign policy including u.s. and russia relations. a roll call staff writer talks about anti-defense missile systems on u.s. airplanes. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: john kerry is in paris meeting with foreign ministers.

ap --re discussing we willre in gaza discuss that and other foreign-policy challenges for the obama administration starting at 7:45 a.m. arizona's execution process is underway. it took him about two hours to die from lethal injection. there was a