Goodlatte on Immigration: Political Capital (11/15)

Your next video will start in
  • Info

  • Comments


Nov. 15 (Bloomberg) -- This week on Political Capital, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) talks with Al Hunt about immigration reform and Eric Holder, Jeffrey Goldberg on Iran and Margaret Carlson and Megan McArdle debate statens. (Source: Bloomberg)

This week on "political capital," bob goodlatte of virginia talks immigration reform.

Obama lets people keep insurance plans.

Jeffrey goldberg on iran.

And megan mcardle and margaret carlson debate.

We begin the program with house judiciary committee chairman rob goodlatte from virginia.

Great to be here with you and your hearers.

Plenty of your colleagues introduced a bill to impeach attorney general there are colder.

Will you hold hearings on that or just deep six it --in peach attorney general eric holder?

We have had a number of issues from fast and furious in a recent scandal involving fox news and the associated press.

We did a complete study on that.

I know you do not went to keep him, but do you want him impeached?

We'll continue to conduct oversight.

If we determine there to be impeachable offenses, we will look at that.

The process of holding him in contempt and moving through the courts is where we should watch this right now.

You can disagree with a lot of his policies, management style, but no attorney general has ever been impeached.

They say this is just a kooky fringe of your party.

Rather than say to go away this is not a serious issue -- i can remember during the bush administration a number of members including the former chairman of the committee introducing articles of impeachment with regards to president george bush.

And we all agreed that it was kooky.

Fact the matter is people should be held accountable for their actions and when the actions call for impeachment, i've been involved with the impeachment of another president and judges who have been removed from office.

He will not be impeached right now, that's for sure.

You have passed four piecemeal bills on immigration.

Do you think you can get any significant bill without the democrats?

The process will have democratic support as we move forward.

This is a step-by-step approach.

You have to remember that the bill passed out of the homeland security committee was bipartisan.

Four passed out of the judiciary came right on the hills of the senate hassing there are bill.

The democrats and the committee possible at that time was to force the house to take the senate bill.

There were no votes for anything other than what the senate bill contained.

I think that attitude has changed.

It's an improvement.

We continue to work on more bills.

We want to address all three areas of immigration reform -- enforcement, legal immigration reform to help grow our economy, and finding the appropriate legal status for those not lawfully here.

They say if you do something that creates legal status for the 11 million undocumented, or many of them, with some kind of pathway to citizenship, however you frame it, they will then play ball.

Is that under consideration by bob goodlatte?

We object to a pathway to citizenship specifically the special one provided in the senate bill.

We object to what we consider to be the same mistake they did in 1986 where they gave an easy pathway to citizenship to nearly 3 million people.

You are not ruling out some pathway.

It just has to be done separately?

We're looking at an appropriate legal status.

There will be back taxes, penalties, and that type of thing, but a legal status that does not advance somebody ahead of people who have done immigration legally unlawfully for generations is more appropriate.

Our step i step approach is aimed at addressing all three of these areas but we are not there yet.

Do you think you will pass immigration bill in this commerce -- in this congress?


It could go to the floor at any time but we do feel that we need to examine that third area, the issue of legalization.

Do you think he will pass this congress?

It could.

We have to take the step-by-step approach and get enforcement in place.

That is the key issue here.

We can agree on how we would handle people who are not lawfully here, but i would not support giving them a legal status before we have the e verify, the new border security, and that.

After that?

It is unreasonable to think that we will deport millions of people from the country.

Having a legal status for them where they can live and work here, own a business, pay their taxes, travel to and from their home country would be a much better situation for our economy, our country than the current status of people not being accounted for.

The afl-cio is for the senate bill.

The chamber of commerce is for the senate bill.

Silicon valley and mcdonald's are for the senate will.

The impression given is that you are letting them influence the decisions of people like you and john boehner.

Not out all.

We believe there's a right way to do this but it does not change the fact that we need to address all three of these areas and we should do it responsibly and right.

It's more important to get it done right than i any specific timetable and that's the mistake that was made.

Let me turn to two other quick issues.

He supported the bill to crack down on some of these requests.

There are many things in the bill that i like but i am definitely supportive of the effort to reform in this area.

Very supportive of letting companies release information?

I think that's right.

Again, we have to make sure that we are both protecting the civil liberties of americans and their privacy at the same time we recognize that gathering information regarding threats to the united states, when done appropriately, needs to continue to be done.

Do you think something like that will pass the congress?

It are a well could and should.

And that would include the ability of companies to release information?

I would say that's important.

Companies who are cooperating with the government and yet have information misrepresented about them by their competitors and elsewhere need to be able to stand up and say we are doing the right thing here and we are protecting our customers, our consumers, the users of our services at the same time.

Finding a way to do that, having more transparency in the court, figuring out what to do to make sure that american citizens are not having data gathered by their government and then utilized in a way that they don't know and trust are all things that need to be looked at.

Do you think there will be a budget deal by december 12? what's disappointing is the magnitude of this problem, the amount of that debt doubling in the last five years and the threat that has to our economy is not being addressed.

It is discretionary to the congress and it has all taken hits, but not entitlement.

You don't sound like an op a miss.

I'm optimistic we will eventually get to it that there will be more severe consequences before we get there.

Chairman bob goodlatte from the great state of virginia, thanks for being with us.

Thanks, al.

Is this the beginning of the end?

Bloomberg report is next.

? welcome back.

President obama under political pressure backing off allowing those who lost their coverage to keep it for one year.

For more on what's next, white house correspondent julianna goldman and bloomberg television correspondent megan hughes.

They join me now.

Obamacare looks like it's in a tailspin.

Vermont you've heard on the hill, do you have any reason to think they look at this ready in the next two and a half weeks?

-- from what you've heard on the hill?

What is the end of november going to look like?

You have seen language from both the white house and chief technology officer todd park, who we heard from for the first time in a hearing this week, sort of hedging their bets.

We are working very hard to make that happen.

You have constantly heard the line that it will be working smoothly for the vast majority of users but they are not setting any metrics.

How many people is that?

Do they know what deep trouble they will be an assistant not work for the vast majority?

Twice there's a pretty low bar for the website to get any better.


I spoke to some people this week is they're saying, yes, finally they are realizing just how terrible it is for the president right now.

Why were they getting wrong information?

There's a whole set of questions.

Even looking at what the president said in his press conference to give vulnerable democrats the cover that they were looking for home of one, acknowledging credibility is on the line and that he will have to work or a hard to repair that over the next weeks and months.

Also saying to members of congress and their constituents -- blame me for the bad information i was putting out what i said if i liked your insurance you could keep it.

It's the reason members of congress were repeating it.

They had it from me.

Did we learn anything more about how this colossal screwup took lacey?

-- how this took place?

We're heard learning more from the cms technical officer -- we are learning more from cms technical officer henry chowao.

After that testimony, some of his internal e-mails that he sent to other staff members at cms, those e-mails were released from the committee.

You could sense the skepticism, the fear about with the contractor, cgi, was doing.

He said at one point in the e- mails that he was afraid they were going to "crash the plane at takeoff." he still gave it the go-ahead.

The president granting a one- year reprieve, doesn't that run the risk of actually making it worse and creating a parallel market?

Even though it might be smaller than obamacare.

The insurers are making that case.

For them, it's all about the broad-based that this exchange needs in order to survive.

They worry that there will be more sick people signing up because they did not get individual insurance.

The white house will counter that.

They are the cap the turnover that you see.

They do not keep these plants." -- they do not keep these plans.

There's a lot of turnover.

It may even be more than usual.

They put jeff zients in charge of making this work.

He's heading the national economic policy and i would argue that this is a lot more important job and one of the great failings here is they did not put anyone in charge.

Why not?

No offense to james sperling, the outgoing -- about the importance of this job.

It's a big question they're going to have to face.

I also knows and what people are telling me, jeff zients is still on tap to take over the first of the year.

Again, that raises the question, who is the ceo of obamacare?

Who's in charge here?

They differentiate between the website and the implementation of the law.

They realize they're going to halftime someone overseeing the website and tickets to the problem from the very beginning in 2009. the people there from the beginning, there when the law was passed left and there is an accountability gap that is still left.

In some ways, it goes to insularity.

The question roger asked the president at a press conference that he dockeducked.

Are they circling the wagons?

They thought they were not getting the right information.

Part of the problem with that is they were dismissing the information that they were getting.

This is a white house that has a pretty fractured relationship with the outside community.

When they heard from lobbyists and the so-called washington establishment and accompanying representatives and washington, d.c., they just dismissed it.

They did not want to hear bad news.

Now the message they are sending to former advisers, don't wait for the call.

Send us suggestions.

You guys are right.

Two or three weeks, if this is not working, they are in deep trouble.

Thank you.

You were terrific.

When we return, jeffrey goldberg gives us the latest from the middle east and megan mcardle and margaret carlson debate whether or not to take up immigration.

? welcome back.

We will get to megan mcardle and margaret carlson and a moment.

But first, bloomberg view columnist jeffrey goldberg is here with the latest on the iranian nuclear because she nations.

They are meeting again in geneva.

Do we expect an interim agreement?

I do expect one.

I think it's a very big deal.

This will probably be the last agreement, to tell you the truth.

I don't think the iranians are authorized to dismantle the program by the supreme leader.

I think they are authorized to put a pause on it.

That's where we are next week.

The p5 plus one have figured out where each other stands.

The french kind of came in and said it's looking like a suckers game so they toughened it up.

I think they are all on the same page.

Everyone is geared up to have this kind of six-month interim agreement and it is a very big deal.

The iaea says since her rouhani was elected they ceased some of the advancements.

It's clever.

You could argue they are not playing in this and most sophisticated way possible.

They are not playing it well.

The armenians are playing it very well.

If you are going into this negotiation and your goal is sanctions relief, which is what the iranians want, to tell them tom and not spinning the centrifuge so fast and the iaea will find out right before negotiations, that's pretty clever.

It sets the stage for them to get what they want which is a little bit of cash out of this process.

The only thing that means anything in the long-term is if they actually mothballed facilities and actually ship out uranium.

If they take enriched uranium and bring it down to 3.5%, that's what matters.

None of that is happening.

A lot of this is just noise and fostering.

Any kind of momentum for sanctions, they start to soften.

The chinese, indians, even the europeans.

The real danger the obama administration faces right now is the pressure from congress.

What they fear his congressional pressure for new sanctions will make america look like the intransigent party in these negotiations.

That's terrible.

South korea, japan, india, china will look and say the iranians want a deal but you don't want one.

Why should we play along with your sanctions?

That's the danger.

Netanyahu has been outmaneuvered.

He said he made a big mistake by not having a settlement freeze in the west bank.

What's the relationship?

It's not connected except that everything is connected.

If you are trying to convince the world that you are a rational, logical, moderate player and you are trying to stop the crazy regime from gaining hold, to seem intransigent on the issue that the issue that the world cares about more, the israeli- palestinian peace process, there are no words.

You just set in motion a process by which he's not listening to where he is thought of as extreme and irrational.

Anytime they can position themselves to look more rational than their adversaries in this, it's good for the iranians.

Susan rice, national security adviser, is conducting a mideast policy review without the secretary of state or the secretary of defense.

Is that how policy works?

It apparently is the way that foreign-policy works.

Yes, if you are sitting in the state department or the defense department and you spend your entire life devoted to the subject, you're probably wondering why you were not invited to these meetings and they are probably more poor than they would have been.

Some of the best experts on this are not at the meetings.

Let me turn to you.

John boehner says no immigration bill, no comprehensive bill.

Is that a death wish for republican?

I don't think so.

There is the famous james corriveau phase, when your opponent is drowning, throw them in annville.

That is what they are doing.

They will not do anything for democrats.

They will sit again let obama carrere -- obamacare take it down further.

So far, that's working.

They would be foolish to allow the administration to change the subject by getting everyone into a big fight about immigration.

What about republicans doing something for themselves?

The electorate has changed.

If they want to win the white house ever again, they need to see to be wanting to fix immigration.

Senator marco rubio was in on this planet one point in time.

It's not a radical plan.

Obamacare will eventually be fixed, but this problem for republicans will not be fixed.

Margaret, let me ask you about fixing things.

The american college of cardiology, important for geezers like me, have issued new guidelines for statins.

Is this a good thing?

You tell me.

It's part of what is wrong in the healthcare system.

We are all popping pills all the time instead of doctors treating a patient.

This could have been written by the drug industry.

It just widens the circumstances in which insurance companies will pay for people to take lipitor.

How about they sit you down and say stop eating all that ice cream?

What do you think?

One thing we are finding is that it's a lot harder to control cholesterol with diet stanley is to think it was.

Even with lower levels of cholesterol, intervention can help prevent heart disease and stroke.

In general, there is good science behind the recommendations.

Overall, it may push health care costs up a little bit of people take more drugs, but in the long term it's a lot more expensive to get arterial stents and have a bypass dan keep pumping lipitor.

Maybe i will start taking lipitor.

Get off the ben and jerry's while you're at it.

Thanks to all of the bloomberg view people with us.

Thank you all for watching us.

We will see them again next week.

"political capital" is a production of bloomberg television.


This text has been automatically generated. It may not be 100% accurate.


BTV Channel Finder


ZIP is required for U.S. locations

Bloomberg Television in   change