last resort, and when it is used, it must be used for a very limited purpose. but there is a time. ms. easton: syria, containing isis, and so forth -- are you in favor of american troops there? >> one of the things this administration has the own is continually present the american people with a false choice. the false choice is either we go to war or there's nothing we can do. i think syria is an example where that false choice has been offered over and over again. we could have provided more help to the rebels when there were more moderate rebels there. we could have joined together more effectively with turkey instead of fighting against what turkey wanted to do.

here again, i think a false choices being offered. sending soldiers into syria at this point would be counterproductive. at this point, we have a whole lot of allies in that region that are asking us to do that. we are not working effectively with the turkish kurdish rebels jordanians, saudis, kurds. we are not working effectively with any of our allies. to say the only thing that we can do is go off to war is not true. there is a whole set of things that we have been asked to do by people who share our interest and we are not doing them. announcer: senior editor for the weekly standard on his writing career, the gop presidential candidates, and what voters are looking for in a candidate.

>> they want somebody who looks like he's stood up for them. i am amazed by the degree to which primary voters on both sides are motivated by resentment. the sense of being put upon. those people really do not understand us. here is a guy who does not understand us and will stick it to them. that happens on both sides. in revision -- hillary clinton will give her own version of this type of thing. i don't think that was true 30 years ago. resentment has always been part of politics, obviously but the degree to which it is a most exclusively the motivating factor in truly committed republicans and democrats. announcer: sunday night at eight eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a.

host: dr. robert wah, our guest on newsmakers. he is the president of the american medical association joining us from chicago. let me introduce the reporters asking questions. noam levey covers health care policy for the los angeles times. nice to see you. melissa attias is making her first visit to newsmakers. she covers health policy for cq roll call. we talk about the expected consideration regarding the dock fix. i know your organization does not prefer that term but i am sure many c-span viewers have heard that in washington parlance. tell us what this issue is. what is this intended to deal with. dr. wah: we are talking about sustainable growth rate which has been in place for a long time. it was originally passed in 1997.

it was thought to be an effort to control the costs of the medicare program. it resulted in about 17 patches over the last 10 or 12 years. each one of those paid for the one year period, not the committed interest, like a credit card, on past things. by kicking the can down the road each year, congress accumulated interest. now, april 15, if the senate does not act, there will be a 21% cut in physician payments, which is the accumulated interest of all these years of kicking the can down the road. i want to talk about the term "doc fix." as a physician, i am biased against that, primarily because it is not doctors that need to be fixed, it is medicare that needs to be fixed. we are seeking a fix in medicare that will stabilize the program for the future. that's where we are.

the term doc fix has been picked up by journalists. whenever i get a chance, i try to correct it. it is really medicare that needs to be fixed, not doctors. host: one of the implications of the payment program is not adjusted is that fewer doctors may take medicare patients? is that correct? dr. wah: yes. if doctors are faced with a 20 -- 21% cut in their payments from the medicare program, it will be more challenging for them to continue to see medicare patients. if that happens, patients will have a hard time finding doctors that can take care of them. they may have to drive further or call more doctors offices and it will just ea more challenging just -- just a more challenging environment for patients to find the care they need. host: noam levey. noam: i think it is fair to say that the presumption is that the senate will act. i know that you hope that it will be by april 15.

the smart money is a will be later than that. can you talk further about what is in the package? what are some of the changes envisioned in the way medicare pays physicians? it is fair to say they are substantial. dr. wah: right. thanks for that question. before i go, i want to point out that this program we are talking about in eliminating the sgr not only impacts medicare patients but i have had the privilege of serving over 23 years little , under, in the u.s. navy. the tricare program that covers the service people and their family members is also impacted by the sgr. by law, the tricare program has to follow the same rules as the medicare program. we are not only talking about medicare, we are also talking tricare and military. to your specific question, yes. although the headline is about

the sgr illumination -- elimination in this bill, there is more than just the elimination in the sgr. it is in place a number of programs and policies that will offer us as physicians and the entire medicare program to take better care of the medicare and tricare patients who are our responsibility. some of the things that it does is that it harmonizes some of the many programs in the centers for medicare and medicaid, such that when we take care of her medication -- medicare patient right now, we often have to report the same information multiple times slightly differently now. by harmonizing programs, you will decrease the administrative burden on reporting. you report once and medicare can use information multiple times. it we authorize the chip program for children. though we are talking medicare and tricare patients primarily this bill will provide additional years of coverage for children under the chip program.

that is another major component of the legislation. it also does a number of things that i think will alleviate the uncertainty and therefore provide stability in the medicare program. with the current system of patches at the last minute every year, there is a high degree of uncertainty in physician offices where they do not know what their revenue will look like from medicare. it looks like it will be 21% down now, or it may be the same, or a small increase. that does not allow a physician's office to plan or innovate or make the kind of changes they would like to improve the care of their patients. melissa: you mentioned that there have been 17 short-term patches for this. last year, everyone was optimistic that there may be a permanent exit when the committees came together and

agreed on the whole -- the policy parameters that again got kicked over. when did you realize this year that it could happen? dr. wah: you bring up a good point. last year, both houses of congress, the three committees of jurisdiction, both sides of the aisle republicans and democrats, came together in a very collegial way and hammered out a policy that would lead to the elimination of the sgr improvement to the stability of the medicare program. that is a major step in any legislative process. getting that policy hammered out with a key step in progressing towards finally getting rid of this sgr problem. unfortunately, they did not pass it last year. we felt encouraged by the fact they made all that progress of coming together on the policy aspects. the window opened again this year for them to complete the journey, which is where they are now. we are pleased to see the house

passed hr2 with 392 votes, which is a spectacular achievement. 392 votes for this bill. it shows the overwhelming degree of support and providing stability in medicare for our patients, eliminating sgr, and improving care in the future. when i was at the white house talking about payment reform in -- two and half weeks ago president obama also stated he , was in favor of the legislation. he is awaiting the bill to come to his desk. he will sign it. we are very encouraged about these signs. the overwhelming passage in the house, the president announcing he is waiting for the legislation and ready to sign it . these are all positive aspects for us to be optimistic in this area. noam: i know you and many of the leaders of the house had hoped the senate would actually act 10 days ago, before they left for their easter break.

as you know, there was difficulty in getting enough senators to agree to bring the bill up quickly. one of the objections was that the legislation is not technically paid for. it adds to the deficit. a number of conservative republicans and groups had said at a time when washington ought to be focused on the debt, we should not be doing anything that adds to the deficit. i know there are efforts to overcome that opposition in the senate next week. that remains a concern for quite a number of lawmakers. what do say to those who say that this is not there, to simply load up more debt to pay doctors differently? dr. wah: i think there is a lot to the projections out there on how much this will impact the deficit or the debt. i see a lot of positive things

that will save money over time. as we keep patients healthier and provide better care and they have better outcomes in their health and a more cost efficient and cost-effective way, the overall system saves money. there is a lot in this legislation -- again, it was crafted over hard work by diligent people, to say that they want to increase cost efficiency and the care of patients that we will see in the long term. the current process with these 17 patches, we have spent $170 billion to perpetuate a problem everyone agrees we need to eliminate. that is not money best spent either, to spend money on those 17 patches. if you want to do the fiscally correct thing, we have to stop perpetuating a problem that all of us agree we do not want. we need to do it in a way that is probably going to be a compromise on all sides.

we have two, together and hammer out a policy and piece of legislation that everyone can live with and support. melissa: there are expected to be efforts among democrats to push for amendments in the senate this week. for example, if they want another four years of funding for the children's health insurance program versus the two years included in the bill now if any of these amendments are adopted and there is a possibly to vote on them, how concerned are you that it could unravel? dr. wah: we are big believers in momentum. things moving forward is always a good thing. we recognize the senate has of -- the prerogative and will exercise that to look at the legislation and proposed amendments as necessary. our main focus is we get this legislation are crossed the finish line before the april 15 deadline, when this huge cut will happen to physician

practices and impact the care of our medicare patients out there. we recognize there are a lot of processes in washington that have to be gone through, but we do not want to lose sight of the big goal, to pass this legislation by april 15. noam: i would like to talk about a particular part of this legislation that deals with how patients are cared for and how doctors do their job and what it means for patients. you alluded to this earlier. there has long been a concern of what our current system of paying physicians for every piece of work they do. the fee for service system. a lot of people think it is inefficient and creates the wrong incentives for physicians to do more and not think about the outcomes, but to think about what sorts of things they are doing for patients. can you talk a little about what is in this legislation to

address those concerns and whether or not the things in there are adequate to take medicare's system of paying doctors to the next level? to a place where the program is really catalyzing the changes that people think ought to be made in the health care system to better care for patients. dr. wah: i think of things we are talking about here are things that have been demonstrated to potentially work in improving health outcomes of our patients and decreasing the expense of the care of our patients. all this talk of payment form to me is unbalanced. i like to talk delivery reform. how do i deliver care to my patients that has the highest outcome of their health in the most cost effective and cost-efficient way? talking about payment seems out of order by recognize the two

are intertwined and have to be discussed together. some of the things we have seen that can work our our patient centered homes. more care coordination. where we focus more on the patient rather than the deceased part of the patient. see the patient as a whole. the legislation talks about supporting things like accountable care organizations. patient centered homes. more care coordination. these payment policies that will support those kind of delivery innovations will lead to better outcomes at a lower cost to the overall system. those are the things in there now that we think will be positive for our patients and the longevity and stability of the medicare program. >> we are at the halfway mark. melissa: i would like to give it to another big health care issue that is one to be on the radar.

the supreme court is expected to rule on a challenge, the subsidies under the health care law that are given to people in states that did not set up their own insurance exchanges. i'm wondering how do you think congress should be preparing for this and what kind of concerns you have, representing the physician community? dr. wah: congress needs to focus on getting this pass on april 15, first and foremost. to your longer-term question, about the need or more insurance for our patients. we knew and as doctors we see -- we knew as doctors because we see it all the time. patients to do not have -- patients who do not have insurance coverage live sicker

and die younger. we are in favor of more of our patients having insurance coverage. this summer with the supreme court decision, we want to make sure in whatever way possible, our patients have better coverage because with that they will have healthier lives and it will be less expensive to take care of them, because they will not come in at the last minute when they are very sick. they will be able to take care of themselves earlier and seek care earlier in the process. we have been upfront about that way before the discussion was as widespread as it was in washington. we have already been talking about the need for our patients to have insurance through programs -- we had a obligor relations program that was talking about the voice of the uninsured. we tried to give a voice to those people who did not have insurance. noam: the ama did back the aca though i know it was a controversial decision among your membership. as the politics of the implementation of the law has progressed, we have seen a divergent experiences among the states. some states have expanded

medicaid to provide the kind of coverage we were talking about. some have not. what is your feeling about the role that organized medicine can play in those states where there has not been medicaid expansion and where, potentially, you may have states electing not to do whatever is necessary to continue insurance subsidies provided by the aca, depending on what the supreme court does. what is your feeling about medical society in texas or louisiana or states that have strongly opposed the affordable care act, what is your feeling on organized medicine in those places? dr. wah: we, as physicians, we want to take the best possible care of our patients. we will always advocate for policies that we believe lead to the best care and health for our patients. that may very across the country in different regions and segments, but at the top line, what we are all interested in

doing is finding a way to take the best possible care of our patients. how we advocate it is centered on that principle. how do we find the best way to get the best care for our patients and keep them healthy in a cost efficient way. noam: what does that mean from a practical standpoint and some of the states i mentioned? dr. wah: it means that are going to be geographic variations on how people approach that depending on the nature of that geography or segment. one of the strengths of the country is we have a big spectrum of plurality. we do not all do exactly the same thing in exactly the same way. it is a major strength we will always cherish. the way we approach the issue may be different, but the goal is the same, to get the best possible care for our patients. but there will be different ways to approach that. we have to recognize and

support that. i think any physician would say is to advocate on their behalf to make sure they are keeping them as healthy as possible and getting them as healthy as possible in the most cost effective and cost-efficient manner. there's going to be a lot of ways to approach that. i do not have a single answer for that. i do not think there is a single way for that to happen. there are many different options avenues by which we will take that process. as long as we remember our collective goal, there is a lot of power in the unity of effort. my time in the military taught me that unity of effort can be very powerful. it is focused on the betterment and health of our patients, then we will all be better served. melissa: beyond the medicaid expansion, there is a provision that expired at the end of last year that gave primary care doctors and medicaid additional money to get them up to the medicare rates. i want to know how doctors and patients have been faring since that money has gone away?

if you see any opera unities to address that and a republican congress. -- and if you see any opportunities to address that in a republican congress? dr. wah: i think that was a thing that was successful. we continue to see benefits from that expansion in the medicaid system to come up to medicare levels. we are seeking to have that increase maintained going forward. we did see more patients getting coverage and access to care they need. that was a benefit for our patients and we wanted to continue to see that happen. we recognize more legislation would have to come road to accomplish that. in terms of the impact of that not happening after the first year, it is too early to tell. but we did see a positive impact from that happening the last couple of years. noam: to follow-up, do you get any sense that there is any more openness, particularly on the

republican side of the aisle, to providing the funding that would be necessary to continue the augmented payments to physicians caring for medicaid patients? dr. wah: it is not a completely closed matter, at this point. i do not know there is one thing i can point to, but i think it is an ongoing discussion. we want to figure out a way that the system leads to the best possible health of our patients in a way that society can support it. melissa: another issue i believe you guys weighed in on is education for medical students after they graduated medical school. i know the health energy and commerce committee put out a request for feedback on how to shrink that program. how do you guys want that to go, and with the sgr bill it is , expected to be one of the only health care bills moving through congress, if you expect any opportunities to move through on -- move forward on that front?

dr. wah: we are concerned about the fact we have rising graduate numbers out of medical schools but the place they go after they graduate is residency programs. those slots have stayed stable over the last several years. we have more people graduating going into an area with the same number of slots that have not risen. we are worried that people will graduate and not have a place to train afterwards. yes, we are supportive of expanding gme, to find a way to expand the number of gme spots. we believe that there is a societal benefit to graduate medical education. 90% of aids patients get taken care of in a graduate medical care program. $8.4 billion of charitable care gets delivered in gme programs. society benefits from these and it is important to maintain the health of those programs and

expand them because they are such a good benefit for society. host: four minutes left. noam: let me return to the sgr. i think c-span viewers may appreciate the politics of the sgr as a vehicle for advancing other health care priorities. there is some concern in washington that now that this is off the table, or may be off the table soon, i know it is good for you and your members, but it removes something that has allow -- allowed congress on a fairly regular basis to revisit health care issues that may need attention. as you look forward, past april 15 or whatever when the senate may actually act, what you see coming up as real legislative priorities for the ama in dealing with all the other health care challenges the country faces? dr. wah: this is a great opportunity for us to be free of

this ongoing discussion about the sgr only. it has taken the oxygen out of the room, as they say. it has become such a distraction that we have not been able to focus on other opportunities where we have improved care. we have heard about opportunities to use precision medicine, making it more person specific care and a more cost effective way that will be a much better outcome. we have unlimited opportunities once of the sgr problem is passed to discuss this in a meaningful way and find a way to improve the care of our patients. that is what i am interested and excited about. that's where we all want to be. we do not want to continue talking about kicking the can down the road with the sgr and having this burden hanging over physician offices. i am looking forward to the day when we don't have to talk about the sgr, when we can go back and talk about how to improve the care of citizens. i think there is rate

opportunity here and i'm excited about that. host: one quick look at your biography suggests you have been very interested in technology throughout your career. as you look at the rapid advance of technology, including not only high-tech and internet -based, but also a genome studies and the implications for health care, are we moving towards cost control or will we move to a situation with the haves and have-nots? those that can afford the high tech personalized medicines? dr. wah: a lot of question later. i believe technology will deliver better information to make better decisions and health care. patients and doctors governments, hospitals pharmaceutical companies, they will all make better decisions. the technology is bringing that information to the right time at the right place. that will be a benefit to all of us. that is something that i am very

excited about. how that sorts out in terms of distribution, i think of it information flow to the woman -- i think that the fluidity will make that more equitable for all patients to benefit and i'm excited about that. we are asking patients to contact congressman about the importance of passing this by april 15. www.fixmedicarenow.org, patients can learn more about this bill and gives them a link on how to directly contact their senators office by phone or e-mail. i hope they will take advantage of that as well. host: with that advocacy, we say thank you. dr. robert wah, our guest on "newsmakers" this week. thank you for your time. is this an easy move for the senate? melissa: i think there is a lot of pressure on the senate,

particularly with such a large bipartisan vote in the house. there are definitely politics on both sides of the aisle. as noam said, there is a push to get this bill fully paid for among conservatives. but there are some democrats who are also concerned about abortion restrictions applied to community funding in the bill. some people are trying to repeal the tax on medicare therapy services. people want amendments, but it is not yet clear whether they will have the opportunity to offer them and vote for them. host: what is the price tag? noam: about $200 billion plus, right? host: where will they cut to reach this? noam: i think there are issues involving the aca.

they may be sources of funding right? melissa: the price tag is about $141 billion of additional deficit spending. so far we have not seen any , specific proposals on how to cover the costs from conservatives. one technique that is being considered is to take out the exception in the bill which would require congress to offset those additional costs before the year or there would be a budget sequester. host: so they pass it now but say we really need to fix it. if we do not fix it by day certain, we will revisit. noam: there are the votes in the senate to pass this. the question is whether it passes by april 15, next wednesday, reducing the amount of chaos that will ensue once medicare starts putting in cuts that dr. wah talked about, or whether or not the process is more drawn out because the senate has to go through the procedural hurdles the senate has, which could kick the final

vote into the following week. i think it is fair to say that majority leader mcconnell anticipates that this will pass. there are enough votes on both sides to do it. unless they can get everyone to agree to a shorter timeframe with or without amendments, it may go past april 15. host: this is one of the things that people really wonder how it all works. if they know the ultimate outcome but they are willing to let the deadline slide and the whole machinery of medicare has to change itself, which will cost money, i am sure, why can they not get it done in time since they are adding more cost to the deficit? melissa: in this case, the package was negotiated in the house by speaker boehner and minority leader nancy pelosi. i think senators want the opportunity to make their point to have the votes, because they were largely in the backseat to negotiations. noam: this is parenthetically an

unfamiliar ways for the senate to find themselves. senators, if nothing else, want to express themselves. [laughter] host: and we have the majority leader still getting his feet wet in the role. noam: it is important for him to honor the requests of the various members. melissa and i both had a conversation with the senator from oregon yesterday, the ranking democrat on the finance committee, who has been vocal in calling for this package to include a longer reauthorization timeframe from two years to four years for chip. there was a question that those desires could be a hurdle. that senator specifically set that i want to vote on extending this to four years by an happy to vote for this package. that summarizes where many of the senators are. they want to vote on changes. i think it is unlikely those changes will pass, but everyone

will be able to express themselves. host: let me ask you about the supreme court review of the affordable care law. you asked whether or not congress is preparing for an overturning of this provision, which provide subsidies to people now getting health insurance. is there any movement in capitol hill to address this in case it is overturned? melissa: there was some op-ed when this was discussed. republicans in the house and senate put forth general ideas of what they would like to do instead. it has been pretty quiet since then. my understanding is that conversations are ongoing, but i am not sure if you will see anything before the court ruling in terms of what their ideas would be. noam: there is a proposal, a broader proposal, a full-blown alternative if you will, to the affordable care act. i must say that i agree with

melissa those discussions are , ongoing. chairman ryan of the house ways and means committee is talking about some things. it increasingly looks like what republicans may do is merely trying to extend the subsidies even if the court invalidates them, with the presumption that would give them more time to come up with an alternative. to tie it back to the sgr, we know how patches work. they tend to perpetuate. so i think that is a sign we may not actually see the chaos of that some have predicted. host: thank you for your questions. i appreciate your time. announcer: former secretary of state henry rodham clinton announced her candidacy for president today with the release of a video on youtube here it here is a look at the announcement, which is posted on the website.

♪ >> i am getting ready for a lot of things. a lot of things. we are starting to get the gardens ready. i am a legend here and my own neighborhood. we are moving. [speaking spanish] >> after five years, i am now going back to work. >> every day we are trying to get more and more ready and prepared. >> coming your way. >> right now i am applying for jobs. it is a look into what the real world will look like after college. >> i am getting married this summer. >> i am going to be in a play. i'm going to be in a fish costume.

>> i'm getting ready to retire soon. retirement means reinventing yourself in many ways. >> home renovations. >> we just want to teach our dog to >> eating the trash. >> we have high hopes for 2015 that that will happen. >> i started a new career recently. this is a fifth generation company, which means a lot to me . this country was founded on hard work and it really feels good to be a part of that. >> i'm getting ready to do something too. hillary: i am running for president to americans have thought the way back from tough economic times, but the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top. every day americans need a champion, and i want to be that champion. you can do more than just get by. you can get ahead. and stay ahead. because when families are strong, america is strong.

i am hitting the road to earn your vote. because it is your time, and i hope you will join me on this journey. ♪ announcer: there is reaction to hillary clinton's announcement today on our facebook page. betty writes the following. and doniell says the following. you can find those comments at facebook.com/c-span. here are comments from 2012 republican nominee mitt romney, john kerry, and york city mayor

bill de blasio. >> i've seen them poles and discussions across the country a feeling that hillary clinton is just not trustworthy. this'll story about her having erased all of her e-mails, even though they were subject to recall and review by congress. i think that has made people remember that with the clintons it is always something. >> secretary of state clinton did a terrific job of rebuilding alliances that had been shredded over the course of the prior years. she spent a lot of time, as you know, working on a number of different issues, including the beginning of the efforts with iran, as well as the cease-fire and other things. she will defend her own record for herself. it is not my job to do it, but i wish her well in this race and look forward to being able to still -- state whale -- well away from it. >> do you want to see if she

takes your advice on moving towards a more progressive agenda of question mark -- agenda? >> it's time to see a clear bold vision for progressive economics. >> you are not endorsing her? >> not until i see an actual vision -- i think she is a tremendous public servant. i think she is one of the most qualified people to run for this office and thoroughly vetted. announcer: more politics tomorrow, marco rubio announce his candidacy for president at an event in miami. senator rubio will become the third republican to officially enter the 2016 gop presidential race. we will have live coverage of the announcement at 5:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. former house majority leader eric cantor talked about the

challenges of long-term political decision making at harvard university. the event comes 10 months after eric cantor lost his seat in congress in a primary race to economics professor and now congressman. the boston globes political editor moderated this event. this is one hour and 10 minutes. [applause] >> good evening and welcome to the john f. kennedy junior forum at harvard university. i'm a williams, director of the institute of politics. tonight, our guest and visiting fellow is former congressman eric cantor. he currently serves as vice chair of the investment bank company. until 2014, he spent two decades in public service. first serving in the virginia house of delegates and beginning in 2001 representing virginia seventh district in the u.s.

house of representatives. in 2008, colors meant canter was elected republican whip and in 2011, a elected house majority leader of the 100 and 12 congress. -- 112 congress. known as a smart and pragmatic legislator, commerce meant canter called for a vision of conservatism. one that is founded on decency, inspiration, and a desire to let every american have a fair shot at earning the success and achieving their dreams. last january, then congress one cantor addressing congress in -- and obama administration urged both to think about the 8 million children who will be born before the next election and for their sake to provide short-term tactics that gain advantage for 2016 and focus on where they agree and what they can do to create growth and opportunity.

we are proud to welcome eric cantor back to the form. [applause] l moderator for tonight's discussion, the political editor of the boston globe. she is an authority on congressional races and elections and appears frequently as a political analyst on cnn msnbc, and fox news. sharon is a former political editor of roll call, and was a staff writer for both politico and national journal hotline most importantly, she was a fellow resident last year. welcome back. >> thank you. [applause] >> welcome to the forum, covers min. eric: great to be back. >> we are going to chat for about half an hour and then take it to questions. let's talk about your new job.

what exactly are you doing and how does it relate to being a former house majority leader? eric: what i am doing now is that i am vice chairman and managing director of a company. we are a global, independent investment bank was 17 offices around the world about 600 employees, just went public last bring. what we do is we advise ceos of public companies in terms of their strategic decision-making whether the growth, acquisition, merging with another entity, and just general decisions on how to conduct affairs. in many ways, i am in the business of giving advice, and if you look to see what i did in my prior role as majority leader, i guess one could say that i was trying to offer advice and a very friendly way and if that did not work, get serious.

>> are you talking about with the speaker or caucus? eric: i'm talking about with members in general cutting my teeth as deputy whip and whip, trying to effect a certain outcome in voting, about advice learning, helping the education process through advocacy of a cause towards a bill. it is those -- the intersection if you look at business today the one who is allocating capital are in a decision-making capacity and has to assess risks . unfortunately, more and more sectors of our economy are being affected by government action which increases the unknown, increases the risks. so i see a real merging of the two roles.

>> you spoke a little bit or alluded to the idea of short-term decision-making and deals. what are some examples that you see in government versus business today? eric: i go back and look at my career as an elected official in government. i served for about nine years in the virginia house, and then served for about 14 years in the congress. over that time, what jeremy to that service is what the kennedy school and the iop is about, which is trying to promote public service, trying to promote students who are us trying to make their way in the world to also make their way in terms of the conduct of our government and country. some very supportive -- i am

delighted to be here because i am so energized no matter what side of the philosophical spectrum or party you are in. the fact that you care enough to want to influence the outcome of the country and the future is a calling that i have spent a lot of my life pursuing. but what i saw in that time in government is -- although one who offers himself up for elected office, does so with a long-term vision in mind to affect some good. there are forces at work and our electoral system that tend to be much more short-term in nature. just the very sense of a two-year term as a member of congress tends to the something that is countering aspirations towards a long-term view or long-term goal. i think similarly that what you are seeing today is

increasingly, with the technology we have, the availability of information about the performance of a company. if you are on the board or an officer and a publicly traded organization, all of a sudden quarterly reports mean a lot. wall street is going to look at you in terms of your performance in that light. that has to have some impact on decision-making. one who is in a leadership position in a company i think it is imperative for that man or woman just as it is for one in elected office to be very definitive in his or her long-term view in order to navigate the short-term pressures that exist in the business world, as well as the political arena. again, i think that is what largely shapes what leadership is about today, the ability to maintain a strong view of the future and long-term values while at the same time having

the practical ability to do your day job and navigate the short-term pressures. >> with government specifically and congress whether some that you felt suffered from this short-term vision? eric: on both sides of the aisle. there is equal opportunity there. immigration has been something that has evaded a lot -- solutions have evaded us. we as a republican party have not had a unified position saying we want to fix this and here is how. i took the position early on that because anything comprehensive in nature in terms of the legislation, i'm sure you know this, it hasn't always worked out well in washington. there can be a lot of unintended consequences. like in so many other instances perhaps maybe we need to break it down into parts and accomplish getting across the goal line, if you will, one by

one. i, for a couple of years, felt very strongly that although we cannot come together on a copy is a fixed, that what you could do is deal with that which we agreed to, which should be those kids, the dreamers, the kids who were brought here by parents in many cases unbeknownst to that child that they were brought here, were raised in this country, did not know any other country ever as home. to me, it would make sense to give them citizenship. what else are you going to do? i felt strongly about that and wanted to go about passing legislation to that effect. had a lot of difficulty in convincing some of my colleagues on my side of the aisle that it was something that we should do. i believe the reason why that there was such resistance is because there was short-term pressure from many interest groups on the right, which said that even that dealing with the

kids, when they themselves do not commit any wrongs, did not break any law, that somehow conferring citizenship on them was amnesty. the siren of short-term vision, the incentive to respond to that , there is a lot there for folks to say i am not going to take any risks. i don't be accused of amnesty. i staying away from helping the kids. i would say on the left, there is a real commitment on the part of some on the far left to say this system of ours is rigged against us, and that means that the big bad corporations, and i say that ingest, but this is what i believe the attitude is on the left, the bad corporations, they are getting theirs while you're not getting yours. what is the bill that is purported to be that which safeguards and puts those big banks and corporations in their place? the left will say that it is.

frank, and we can't touch. frank, because that was designed to protect the little person and to put the big banks in their place. honestly, there is no perfect law or legislation. anything can be improved. there were instances where one would want to improve dodd frank to make it work better, but some on the extreme left would say we are not touching it. very analogous to what the situation on the right was with this amnesty question. those are two examples i think of short-term slogans which many in the advocacy community put out there as a line not to be crossed, but thwarting in the in what was beneficial to everybody on the immigration side to say we are a country of laws and immigrants.

we have the most successful deep, sophisticated capital markets in the world, which helps to fuel the growth in our economy. >> i want ask you one more question about immigration reform. when you lost your primary, some people in the media wrote that immigration reform was dead. what is the prognosis in your opinion? how can house republicans confront this issue and a successful and productive way? eric: i really think that one needs to take a step back and see what it is that people can agree on together, rather than complete gnashing of teeth and not get anywhere. there are short-term pressures. if you know that to be the case, that is a short-term pressure.

incrementally, what can you do ultimately to get to a solution where both sides will have to give? it goes back to the sense of the one has a long-term view, how you get to that long-term goal? how do you incrementally make progress question mark that is the key. my sense is that right now very little prospect of that happening until there is a presidential election. >> when you say incrementally, can you give an example of one of the starting points? eric: why not start with the kids? if the criticism on the right is amnesty, these kids did not break any laws. it was their parents. if you want to get to the issue they were the ones in search of a better life. they were the ones who came here or overstated visa and brought the kids in. we have a tradition of law in this country, in fact it is biblical well, we don't hold kids liable for the illegal

actions of their parents in america. you can counter the criticism on the right and at the same time, those who back with the president is trying to do, you can get one step there without getting everything. i think both sides had to give a little bit. you can't get everything on one side, and you're going to have to start making progress on the other side. >> let's talk a little bit about the president. he has been -- you have been a critic of him in the past. you had a couple of confrontations with him. for example, over the stimulus and debt limit. you'd you have any lessons from these experience is that all? secondly, do you think the president suffers from short-term vision? eric: first of all, the example of the stimulus debate is actually a pretty instructive about where things have gone since then. it has been over six years since that debate occurred.

remember what was going on at the time. this was a historic election with the nations first black president. he was extremely popular at the time with over 70% approval rating, had everything going for him. in addition, the country had just suffered a tremendous setback that all scratched the markets. this was after the mortgage crisis aig, lehman brothers, and the whole thing. the president was there to be in a position to bring the country together. right before he was sworn in, he asked then leader john boehner and i to a meeting, and he was president-elect. i recall the meeting in the lbj room in the senate hearing he came over to us and said i am really serious about learning to work with you. i want us to work together and

bring this country back so we can move forward. he indicated that we should bring him our ideas about what should be and what was reported to be coming, the stimulus bill. after the swearing-in, we all went to the white house and met in the roosevelt room. i was so bold at the time that i brought a white paper to show the president. he said bring your ideas, and i did that. the president looked at initially and said there is nothing unreasonable, nothing crazy in here, i think he said. we were very careful not to be crazy in this white paper. i know that what the assumption was that what republicans wanted , tax reform, stimulus, was not going to sell. >> it was essentially a policy memo? eric: a policy memo. the items on the white paper never made it into the stimulus proposal. for whatever reason, about what

should or should not be considered a republican position in the stimulus bill, nothing on the paper was there. in the end, the white house did not get any republican support at all, however many we were strong at the time, no republicans voted for the bill. remember that this was when the president had a 70% plus approval rating. it was every indication that we wanted to work together, that he wanted to work with us, so i think when you ask was there any education, was there a lesson learned there, i hope that the white house would say, and i believe this, if they had taken the time to engage, to interact on a personal level, i believe they could have easily gotten republican support, maybe not the majority of republicans, but they could've gotten republican support to get off on a more bipartisan basis. i would think that you would carry that through the last six years. there is something about human

interaction that tends to take the chill off, if you will, or break the ice. i would jump up and down until the white house that i don't care how that republican district would have it, if you're invited to the white house to have dinner with the president and first lady in an intimate setting, you better believe that that member of congress and spouse will be there and will want a picture with the president of the united states and his wife. that to me shows you that the power of that office unfortunate has not been used to leverage what it is that needs to get done on a policy basis. >> if you were to give the president a grade between a-f? eric: i think he is doing badly. joe biden and i, and this is to the point, i have a very good relationship with him, and i

cringe when i say that because i have to call him and tell him that i hope i did not hurt you by saying that. again, we were brought together during the debt ceiling debates and the president had asked the vice president to post a commission that lasted for about seven weeks, three times a week 2.5 hours every day, and the speaker boehner going to us at there with the vice president and his team, and there were others in the cabinet who were there, and we actually developed a relationship. it was a recognition about the political sensitivities. my wife and he and dr. joe biden have seen each other and gone out to dinner socially and those kinds of things. based on the experience, but that's what is missing, the human element, above all else at the end of the day that could force someone if they are all reasonable into solving problems risking taking steps that may not be totally what one

would want, but in the end of the day, could bring people together. >> reporters on capital hill say the president has not been the best at interacting with congress. what do you think that is, you think it is because he did not serve in congress as long as biden? eric: i am a lawyer and a real estate developer, i am not a psychoanalyst. i don't know. i think that the human element is very much missing. congress has devolved into that as well. they are on enough opportunities to interact with one another without cameras being in the way or that. in committee and subcommittee, with cameras on, you get a chance to get to know others, and