You are on page 1of 12

Matt Wagner, Chair, U.S.

Public Affairs
Good morning everyone and welcome to the latest instalment of our 2016 Washington Trust Forum
series, or as we like to call it, “WTF 2016”. For those of you who've joined our previous calls throughout
the election, welcome back. For folks who are joining us for the first time, welcome to Edelman.
Today, we're going to explore what the Trump administration means for the 2017 policy agenda, how the
115th Congress will work with the new President, and what this will mean for business. To help us
explore these questions, we're joined by two of our senior counsellors: Senator Saxby Chambliss from
Georgia, who served three terms from 2002 to 2015; and Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, who
served from 1992 to 2011. Mr. Chambliss served on the Intelligence, Armed Service and Agriculture
committees, while Senator Dorgan served on the Energy and Commerce committees.
I know we have a lot of clients in the room and on the phone who are interested in these topics, and we
encourage people to ask questions of our panel. We're also joined by CBS News Correspondent
Julianna Goldman, who has been covering Congress, presidential campaigns and the White House for
the last 12 years. We’re really glad that Julianna can join us here today. We'll have Julianna guide
discussion with the Senators for about 20 to 25 minutes, focusing on questions that we've been hearing
from clients and that are on our minds, and then we will open the floor for questions.
If people on the phone want to ask questions, you can push *1 to get placed in the queue and Ashley, our
operator, will help us get to them. We are also recording this event and will have a transcript available for
people following the call. With that, I'll turn it over to Julianna to start.

Julianna Goldman, CBS News Correspondent
Thanks very much. Thanks for having us. Senators, just painting a map, a big picture here.
When you look at the next six months, what do you see as the top priorities of President-elect
Trump and his administration? And obviously, right off the bat, we're going to have a Supreme
Court battle. How does that shape the landscape?

Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
Well, I think the Supreme Court battle will begin very quickly. My guess is that the President-elect will
want to send the name to the Senate. He's already described a number of different names during the
campaign. When that happens, it just takes a lot of air out of the room, because that is a big, big
discussion. I mean, the nomination that has existed for the last eight or nine months, there's been some
bad feelings because there was never even a hearing.
This Supreme Court nomination is going to hit the Senate and it's going to cause a lot of consternation, a
lot of discussion. Then, I think, quickly, they move even behind that, they move on an infrastructure bill. I
think they're going to try very hard to do some tax reform. They're going to want to try to repeal the
Affordable Care Act, but you can't repeal that quickly. I think they're going to try to do something that
says, “We've done something that moves towards repeal, but we're going to attempt to delay the
consequences of it, probably, for two or three years.”

Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
I think this is particularly going to be an interesting initial 100 days, or 180 days, however you want to look
at it, for the administration. I can't remember, Byron goes back a little further than I do, but I can't ever
remember a Supreme Court nominee hanging in the breeze like this one is and he's exactly right. Once
you have a Supreme Court nominee, even though you're not on Judiciary, everybody's going to be
focused on it, everybody in the Senate is going to be focused on the Supreme Court nominee.
Here at the same time, you've got all these cabinet appointments that have got to go through the hearing
process and they're going to have to be confirmed. Well, it looks like he hadn't named anybody that is
super-controversial yet. As we all know, there is usually one that has a harder time than the rest of them
do. So, there's going to be a lot of energy in the Senate and I have seen this in talking to my former
colleagues over the last couple of weeks, that there's a lot of excitement, there's a lot of enthusiasm,
there's a lot of opportunity and hope.
I think the incoming President has a lot of juice right now, if he takes advantage of it in the right way.
There are certain issues that Chuck Schumer is just as interested in as Mitch McConnell, whether it's
infrastructure, or the healthcare issue, or tax reform, which has been very much at the forefront of
conversation on both sides. There are just a number of issues out there that are going to be in play. But
gosh, trying to get through a Supreme Court nominee and confirmation of all these cabinet appointees, I
think that's going to dominate, certainly, for six months and the timeframe of getting his cabinet in place is
going to be delayed, just because of the Supreme Court situation.

Julianna Goldman
When you look at areas where the Democrats have a big incentive to work with Republicans, as
you would say: infrastructure, healthcare, what else?

Senator Saxby Chambliss
Well, tax reform. There may be differences of opinion as to how you get to the end of the day. There are
going to have to be – "compromise" has gotten to be a four-letter word in this town, but they're going to
have to be compromises. If we're going to get real, meaningful legislation on any of those issues, but
certainly, those are going to be at the forefront.

Julianna Goldman
How concerned are you that the Supreme Court battle and the confirmation risk could poison the
well on those other issues? Or can they really separate them?

Senator Byron Dorgan
Well, they will try to separate them. I think the Supreme Court battle is going to be very hard. I mean,
because that fellow sat out there, the nominee, the President's nominee sat out there for many, many,
many months without a hearing. In fact, in many cases he didn't get a meeting with senators. As Saxby
knows, there's a process for Supreme Court nominations.
The president sends the nominee name down to the Senate, and then they call your office. Would you
like to meet with the nominee? The answer is always yes. And so, the nominees go around from office
to office. They are given what is called a minder by the White House. The minder is the person that
accompanies that person and manages the nomination. That process plays out and then, generally they
go to a hearing and then from the hearing it's voted on the Commission. That's going to take a while.
We just know, you just have to know, given what's happened the last eight or nine months, that this is
going to be a difficult situation. But there's so much else to do for our country. We desperately need tax

2

reform. We just do. It's hard to do. As a young man, in 1986, I was in the House Ways and Means
Committee when they last did a major tax reform, and it was successful. But it was hard to do.
Infrastructure, how much does it cost, how are you going to pay for it? Those are the two questions.
Both political parties would want to do this, but what's the cost, where do you get the money? As I said,
healthcare reform is also going to be difficult. And in the middle of all this, we have a President-elect and
I assume a President who, when he takes office, has the ability to tweet and he may tweet tomorrow
morning that we're going to colonize Pluto by July.
Who knows, because in the last two or three days, he has commanded the front page of the paper with
his tweets. So, he's going to make news and he's going to chart, at least a part of what's being discussed
across this country with his tweets. I don't know. But it is really interesting to watch the show.

Julianna Goldman
I want to get back to the tweets, and without knowing what company he's singled out today at,
what industries do you think have the most to lose or gain in the next six months? Can we draw
any connections between that, and who the President-elect has picked for his cabinet?

Senator Saxby Chambliss
I think, clearly, international companies that have headquarters or have major presences in the United
States are going to be beneficiaries. You just look at what he did with Carrier. I mean, that's not an
isolated situation, but I would have to say, without knowing what was discussed in that room, that the
major issue was, “Look, we're going to give you a tax environment in the United States that is very
competitive with everybody else, in your case, Mexico.”
But there's a commitment that there is going to be tax reform. I think from an international business
standpoint, those companies, I think, are going to be treated very favorably with this Administration.
Secondly, it's just natural that if you have a big infrastructure bill – and Byron is exactly right. How are
you going to pay for tax reform? How are you going to pay for an infrastructure bill? There's only so
much money and bringing overseas profits back to the United States, is that going to be used with one,
both, whatever?
But assuming that you get an infrastructure bill, then the Caterpillars of the world are going to do well. I
think there is the opportunity, again, to utilize that juice that he has, if he does it in the right way. We both
know Chuck Schumer well. Chuck is a dealmaker. If Chuck shakes hands with you, you can take it to
the bank. I think the opportunity for a better relationship among the leadership, which there will be with
McConnell and Chuck, than what we've had, bodes well for the business community here.

Senator Byron Dorgan
I think companies that make things, companies that build things, produce things here in the United States,
as Saxby has indicated, are going to be in favor. If you watch Caterpillar stock in recent days, and other
companies – If we pass a significant infrastructure bill, there will be very large companies that employ a
lot of people that will do well.
This infrastructure issue – I have a friend that, he always likes to say that “we are warmed by the fires we
didn't start and we drink from wells we didn't dig and drive on roads we didn't build.” We're living on our
parents' and grandparents' infrastructure. Just driving around this country. We need to reinvest and
rebuild America's infrastructure. Both political parties have a stake in wanting to do it. I have some hope
that there will be some agreements between the two parties to do that and that will be good for the
country.

3

Senator Saxby Chambliss
One other thing too, Julianna. Defense companies, defense contractors and companies, they're going to
have to do well. We're not spending enough on defense. And there's a big push now to, if not somehow
get rid of, but to realign the sequestration which is killing the Pentagon. I voted against it because I
thought it was a bad road to travel down and sure enough, it's really hamstringing them down at the
Pentagon.
One of the first things that he's going to have to do as President is to develop a strategy for Syria, Iraq
and Afghanistan. If you ask anybody today, from the Pentagon all the way to the Hill, what's our strategy
in either one of those theatres, you don't get the same answer. I don't think you get THE answer,
because we don't have a strategy. It's got to be developed, and something's got to happen. All that is
going to involve more spending in the defense community.

Julianna Goldman
What you think the appetite for that is?

Senator Byron Dorgan
Well, there will be a pushback on that, because there are a good number of people in Congress who do
want to increase defense spending, who do want to take the Department of Defense outside of the harm
that comes from sequestration. But there are many, many others in Congress who are just as concerned
on the domestic discretionary side. That was a bargain that was made. One might not like it or might like
it, but that's the basis.
And so, when someone says, “Let's take Defense out of sequestration, and we'll leave non-defense
discretionary in harm's way with sequestration”, that is going to be very hard to get down into Congress.
But let me make one other point. This President elect, President Trump, President-elect Trump has won
because he was the agent of change, in my judgement. He represented change and people wanted
change.
The change, in significant ways, was less regulation. Now there's going to be tension there as well, but
it's probably productive tension, that will force a different look at all these regulations. But we need some
– if he, for example, says “We're going to get rid of Dodd-Frank.” We're not going to get rid of DoddFrank. Not in the shadow of what happened in 2008. It may well be that some things can be changed
and altered in a constructive way. But there is going to be some, I think, creative tension on these issues,
on how do you reform the tax code, how do you address regulations in a more productive way?

Julianna Goldman
Looking at the path for the Affordable Care Act, repealing, then a delayed repeal while they figure
out what to do—how should the healthcare industry be thinking about the next six months, year
or two years, given that?

Senator Byron Dorgan
Well, the industry's a little concerned. They are concerned because certainty is really important to any
business and now we have uncertainty. We know that the new Administration is going to try to repeal the
Affordable Care Act. It is very hard to repeal, and portions of it may well be kept.
The President has said, pre-existing conditions, he said [staying on your parents plan through] age 26,
maybe ending lifetime limits in the Affordable Care Act. It's really hard to do those things unless you have
mandated coverage, a broad mandated coverage which allows you to do some of the things that

4

everybody says they like. So it's going to be changed some, but until it's changed, there's going to be
some uncertainty.
I think if you are an insurance company, or a hospital, you kind of live with that uncertainty and try to
navigate through it as best as you can. And so, I think it's going to take a number of years to accomplish
what they want to accomplish. But I think that early on, we'll want to find some way to have 55 votes to
repeal the Affordable Care Act. They'll try to find some way to have a symbolic vote, to say, “Okay, we've
done this, but now we delay implementation for a number of years.”

Senator Saxby Chambliss
I have to agree with everything Byron has said there. This is going to be hard. There is a popular
sentiment in the country that we need to repeal Obamacare and I agree that major changes need to be
made, because it's not working. It's not just impacting people who are not signing up for Obamacare
because they say it's too expensive, or own it and the premiums are skyrocketing.
But people - like I was talking to my daughter just in the last several days, they just have an individual
policy, she and her husband. All of a sudden, their premiums have already doubled over the last five
years and now they're projected to double again. Every aspect of the health insurance world is struggling
with this albatross around their neck. Byron's exactly right. You probably here are not going to be able to
repeal, go back to scratch, start over. I don't see how that works. But, I do think major changes have to
be made.
I'm really curious about the appointment of Tom Price. I know Tom well. Honestly, he's from my
delegation and I'm somewhat biased there. But he's a bright guy and at least he knows healthcare from
the ground up. I think a mistake was made in developing Obamacare from the top down, versus listening
to the guys that have stethoscopes around their necks and the nurses who are walking the halls. That's
where you got to get your answers from. I think Tom has the ability to do that.
We'll take what's good out of Obamacare and build on it, but it is going to be really, really hard. Don't
expect it to get done in reconciliation this year. They may pass something in reconciliation, but I suspect
it's going to be somewhere down the road before the end result is achieved.

Senator Byron Dorgan
Just one more thought. Watch two things. Watch the 20 million people who are now covered under the
Affordable Care Act, what happens to them. You can't – there isn't any way to do something that says
those 20 million people will now no longer be covered. The second thing to watch is Medicare expansion
and the millions and millions of people that are affected, in a positive way, by Medicaid expansion. Watch
both of those, because those are going to be the really difficult speed bumps on the road to repeal.

Julianna Goldman
You talked about the President-elect's penchant for tweeting. What do you make about – last
week it was Carrier, yesterday the day started with Boeing and ended with Softbank. With this
trend sending Boeing stock down, what can we make of the President-elect seeming to pick
winners and losers, and does that create a climate of uncertainty for business?

Senator Saxby Chambliss
First of all, I think the President-elect's staff was probably going nuts again this morning. But, look, this
guy, he ran an unconventional campaign. As Byron said, he ran against Washington. Both of us, I dare
say, when we went home the day after we got elected, people are saying, “Oh, my God, you guys have
got to get to them, you've got to do this, you've got to do that.” And they always complain about
Washington, but they like you.

5

Here, they had a chance to complain about Washington and vote for somebody who is anti-Washington.
So he's going to continue to operate in an unconventional manner. I really don't think he's picking
winners and losers. I think the situation with Carrier, as I said, we don't know exactly what went on there,
but about all he can say is, “Look, I'm going to be President on January 20th. And I'm going to begin
immediately to make changes in tax reform and regulatory reform and health care reform”, all of which are
going to make America a more receptive place for the business community.
And I think that's all he can do now, then, he will single out Carrier because of the fact that they made
their announcement earlier in the year, I believe, about leaving the country. But I think that's more
symbolic than what he's talking about as a more general approach to a friendlier business atmosphere.

Senator Byron Dorgan
I think he's super-promotional. I mean, he's just really promotional. Some of it's psychology pumped up
with helium, some of it is real. I don't know. Look, I didn't vote for Donald Trump, but I want Donald
Trump to succeed. We only have one president and once the election's over, we're all traveling on this
same spaceship called Earth, in this same spot, called the United States. I want him to succeed.
I think ultimately, business is going to be unsettled, again, because of uncertainty. But once we move
past this issue, what does he mean by regulatory reform, what kind of tax changes, and so on? Can we
get an infrastructure bill? Some of this will settle down. I really think they probably can never get his
phone away. I think he understands that he can control, by his own decision in the morning or the
evening, he can control what's in the next day's newspaper by what he tweets.
I think he finds that very powerful. He's got 27 million people. But more than that, it will go from his
telephone tweet to the front page in the morning. That's a pretty big deal. So, I don't think he will ever
forgo that ability to communicate in such a powerful way.

Julianna Goldman
Remember when it was such a big deal that President Obama wanted a Blackberry? Looking
specifically at Carrier, obviously this was an initial victory for President-elect Trump after he had
promised a crackdown on companies that ship jobs overseas. What can he really do, though,
going forward? When it comes to tariffs, for example, don’t you need Congressional approval?

Senator Byron Dorgan
Well, he has some ability on emergency tariffs, but I don't think he can consider it an emergency if
somebody wants to move their plant. But I've written a book about this, ‘Take This Job and Ship It’. It
has a lot of my feelings about how do you deal with the question of moving jobs overseas, searching for
somewhere to get production done at $0.50 an hour, and then sell the product back in the United States?
That's what Donald Trump is talking about.
He doesn't want somebody deciding that “I'm going to produce a garage door opener, but I'm going to
produce it in China so I can sell it in Peoria.” If you're going to sell something in our marketplace, there's
got to be some admission price to the marketplace. Donald Trump is moving in that direction. His own
caucus in the House and the Senate, the Republican caucus, will have some heart palpitations about
that.
They ought to work through it to try to figure out what he's doing but I think his message falls pretty
comfortably on the shoulders of most Americans saying, “We really would like somebody to stand up for
jobs here at home, to the extent we can, but we don't want to upset the apple cart on our trading
relationships around the world either”. So, let's do it and do it the smart way.

6

Senator Saxby Chambliss
On the issue of trade, I think there's going to come a point in his Administration, it would be early on, that
there's going to have to be some sort of epiphany on the part of the powers that be because our economy
is based on trade. We lead the world on the issue of trade, whether its imports or exports, so something
like TPP, something like NAFTA, he personally has heartburn over it. They need to fix that heartburn
quickly, and let's move on.
The Chinese are sitting there chomping at the bit with their negotiation right now, with some of the
countries that are involved in the TPP. No trade agreement is ever perfect for everybody, but I happen to
be a supporter of TPP in a big way, because I know and understand the impact of it in my state. It's
extremely positive. This needs to be a top priority now. We've already said, you've got the Supreme
Court, you've got the Cabinet positions, you've got all these other issues on his plate, but if he really
wants to jump-start the economy, he needs to get TPP done, changed, whatever.
He needs to get the situation with NAFTA solved in his mind. If it needs to be changed, change it, and
let's move on here. We can't fool around with our two largest trading partners and think that our economy
is going to benefit from it. Canada and Mexico are integrally important to the economy of the United
States and our trade needs to grow, not be restricted in any way. So, the issue of trade, again, needs to
be at the very forefront here.

Julianna Goldman
His pick for Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross, has stated he wants to see an increase in US
exports. How does that rhetoric match up with the President-elect and what changes might that
portent for the export-import mix?

Senator Byron Dorgan
Well, first of all, all of us should want increased export opportunity, because that relates to production in
the United States and jobs here. I think too many markets have been, if not closed, at least restricted to
us. By the way, that includes China. I agree with Chambliss that I would hope the President would say,
“Look, I'm for trade and plenty of it, but the trade agreements need to be fair and where there is some
unfairness, let's change it.”
If you're a businessman sitting in this room today and you want to go to China and you want to start a
business in China as an American, you're not very likely to be able to own 51% of your business in China.
The Chinese will say “You can own 49%, but were going to control.” The fact is, there's lots of unfairness
and I think the President saying, let's deal with some of them. That's fine. It's just that we don't want to
upset the apple cart, because trade is an important part of this country's economy.

Senator Saxby Chambliss
Also, it goes to the issue of fairness in the marketplace. We need to be treated as fairly as we treat other
folks. We all understand that. Again, that's one of those “easier said than done” things. But, also, when
you're talking about fairness, the issue of export-import comes up invariably, but because there are other
countries that do what some folks in our country are objecting to right now.
It's not going to work in everybody's advantage to have the EX-IM bank. But as long as France is building
Airbuses and they're taking advantage of what's happening there, relative to the marketplace, I don't see
how we're going to continue to be competitive if all the tools aren't in the toolbox.

7

Senator Byron Dorgan
Let me just make one more point about trade. Most of our trade has that started with the Second World
War through the next 25 or 35 or 45 years has been concessional trade. We’ve said to other countries,
“we’re going to help get back on your feet.” And those trade agreements are run through the State
Department, and it becomes a thick layer of foreign-policy, and less a layer of economic competition.
Now we face really shrewd, tough economic competitors and we need more shrewd, tough economic
conditions negotiated with those competitors that are fair to American producers.

Julianna Goldman
How should foreign governments and international companies be thinking about some of the
other international agreements that have been jump-started by the current Administration,
whether it's Cuba, or whether it's climate agreements?

Senator Byron Dorgan
I just wrote a piece that was published about the Cuba normalization this week. I've strongly supported
that. I'm not a big fan of believing we should punish American citizens because we're upset with the
Cuban government. That's what we've been doing, restricting the right to travel for American citizens and
other things. I hope he will continue normalization was Cuba. I think it's in the right direction.
It is constructive engagement through trade and travel, just as we do with communist China and a
communist country called Vietnam. That would be the smartest way to address it. I think ultimately, well,
he talked on the campaign trail, the President-elect, about withdrawing from the Paris treaty. My guess is
he probably will not do that. I think he's raising some questions and so on, but I think ultimately, this
country should remain an important partner of that treaty and I don't think ultimately he'll decide to
withdraw. But we'll see.

Senator Saxby Chambliss
I think that issue is going to be an interesting issue, because historically, conservatives get apoplectic
over the words "climate change." Certainly, we all agree we want clean air, we want clean water for our
children and grandchildren and from a policy standpoint, you have the opportunity to engage and make a
difference on that. But, you've got to always remember sound science needs to dictate the extent to
which you go and I think that's where the real argument is going to come in the long term, for particularly,
policymakers. We're going to be following closely with what the scientific community really is saying.

Julianna Goldman
Great. I have many more questions, but we're going to open it up to the audience.

Client Question #1
Good morning, Senators. Between the tweets, there's been quite a bit of discussion about North
Korea's capabilities, and possibly having a missile that could land in Seattle in 10 years. It's
obviously a bipartisan concern. Is that accurate, and what is the conversation, the strategy, for
dealing with such a threat?

Senator Byron Dorgan
I serve on the US-China Economic Security Commission and we spend a lot of time on these issues.
China has to play a very important role in trying to deal with Kim, with North Korea. I mean, North Korea
is a serious threat. It has nuclear weapons. It is developing, quickly, a delivery system for those
weapons. I would hope that the president of China sees North Korea not just as an embarrassment –

8

and the leader of North Korea clearly is a rogue embarrassment out there – but as a clear and present
danger to stability in the region.
China will say to you that, “Our most important priority is stability in our region.” Well, the greatest
evidence of instability in the region is the leader of North Korea and his bellicose behavior, threatening
nuclear war and so on. We really need to cooperate with China, and a much more aggressive stance.
China is worried about what they might or might not do with North Korea that would provoke millions of
North Koreans to run across the border and cause instability.
I'll tell you what. The instability that is caused by this rogue nation with the potential to deliver nuclear
weapons, not just to the United States, but also to every part of China, that's a very serious instability and
we need China's cooperation in a significant way.

Senator Saxby Chambliss
I'm on several boards, advisory boards, in the intelligence community. And I've kept my top-secret
clearance. So, if I specifically answer your question, I'd have to kill everybody in here [laughter]. We're
not going to go there. But, seriously, there's no question to what we know that North Korea has a goal of
developing a missile that will ultimately reach the United States and they're going to continue to work on
that.
Whether it's 10 years, 20 years or whatever, it's kind of immaterial in the big picture, because you just
can't afford for that to happen and have that stability that Byron is talking about. Now, you talk about the
economy of any country in an unstable world, just look at the Middle East. We all know how unstable the
Middle East has been over the last number of decades here. Unemployment rates are well into double
digits and every single country, their economy continues to struggle.
So, in the Asia-Pacific part of the world, if there is instability that results from a capability that North Korea
has, then it’s going to give everybody a problem up there, not just North Korea itself, which doesn't have
much of an economy. The Chinese can’t afford it, obviously, the South Koreans can’t afford for it to
happen. My guess is that this Administration is going to have to take this issue head-on and make - at
least have some transparent answer to what we know is going to be an ultimate capability of Kim JongUn, who is going to be there a long, long time. This guy, he's not 40 years old yet. He's going to be there
a long time and he's going to continue down this path.

Julianna Goldman
Just a follow up. Given that, is now the best time to be reaching out to Taiwan and angering the
Chinese?

Senator Saxby Chambliss
I don't see what was wrong with the phone call. I mean, a leader, a democratically elected leader of a
country calls and says, “Congratulations.” They're our friend. We have a signed treaty that says “if China
invades you, we're going to send our men and women in uniform into harm's way to protect you.” Why
would you not have a conversation? The Chinese don’t like it. But that's going to be a very minor
complaint in the overall scheme of what China is going to be complaining about with this President-elect, I
suspect.

Senator Byron Dorgan
My own view is that I wish very much that the President-elect and the incoming designees will be meeting
with the current State Department to talk with them about this Rubik's Cube called foreign policy – what
we've done, why we've done it, what are the impacts. I think the failure to that suggests that they think it's

9

unimportant. I think it's very important, especially with the Chinese. The Chinese – it's a whole different
story with China history, and thousands of years and lots of patience.
I just wish that – I think that phone call was probably a mistake and probably shouldn't have been done.
But much more than that, I wish they would consult with the infrastructure at State that says, at least,
“Here's where we've been, here is what our aspirations are. You can take or leave some of it, but at least
you'll have an accurate understanding about what it is.” Because frankly, it’s very - international relations
are very complicated and have a long history.

Client Question #2
My question goes back to the new Democratic leadership with Senator Schumer and the ability of
the Congress really, to operate. Senator Reid had used the 60-vote filibuster as a means of
blocking even the consideration of legislation passed by the House. There's a great deal of
pressure about, perhaps doing away with the 60-vote requirement so that the Senate would be
able to consider more of the issues. If Senator Schumer is a dealmaker, and his word is good in
going to contrast the behavior of Senator Reid, how do you see that dynamic developing?
Because that is going to be very critical to all of the legislation that the House may pass and what
occurs in the Senate.

Senator Saxby Chambliss
I think it would be a mistake to eliminate the 60-vote filibuster requirement. Republicans don't have a
patent on all good ideas, Democrats don't have a patent on it. The House is designed in such a way that
if you got 218 votes, you do anything. But, on the Senate side you have minority rights and those
minority rights need to be protected.
What I always found was, whether I was in the majority of the minority, that when legislation went from the
House, or come from the House to the Senate, sometimes you get emotional on an issue. And that
legislation needs tweaking to take the emotion out and do the right thing. With the 60-vote requirement,
you're always going to be able to do that, whether Republicans or Democrats are in control.
We're going to have, assuming it’s a 52-vote majority, it may be 50, 51, but whatever. That's pretty close.
You're going to have to find 8 Democrats, who are going to want something. Usually, you come up with
better legislation when you find that both parties have significant input in whatever the final legislation is.
For the most part, they are able ultimately get that through the House and I think Chuck's going to be able
to do it better, just because his personal relationship with Mitch is going to be so much better than Mitch
has.

Client Question #3
You talked a bit about healthcare and the potential for cooperation between the two parties. What
are the specific areas that you think Democrats and Republicans in Congress can potentially
come to agreement on the matter?

Senator Byron Dorgan
Well, we're already seen the President-elect say, "I think I support [extending conditions related to] preexisting conditions. I support keeping kids on their parents' insurance to age 26.” I assume he probably
will also say, “I support the provision that ends lifetime limits.” A lot of you think you had health insurance,
or if at least you had health insurance, you were insured. Not true, not if there's a limit on it and in many
cases, there's a limit you don't know about. I think there's some of those things that will be points of
agreement.

10

But as I said, you can only do pre-existing conditions and a couple of other things. If you have broad
participation and that was in the Affordable Care Act, it was mandated. Saxby used the Obamacare
language and I always used the Affordable Care Act. I voted for that, by the way. And it won by one
vote, so you can blame me or credit me. But it's interesting. It polls very differently. The Affordable Care
Act polls higher than Obamacare, right? If you ask the same person the same question, one polls higher
than the other.
I think they will try very hard to find some things that can represent agreement. But again, I suggest it's
very hard to do what is popular and what a lot of people want to do, unless you're also willing to do what's
necessary and say, “You all have a responsibility to be insured.” So you have to mandate it, or some
other device that has everybody in the pool.

Senator Saxby Chambliss
When I said it's going to really be hard, that's what I expect. I mean, sure, you want to cover pre-existing
conditions. I didn't vote for it, Obamacare. But I like that idea of covering pre-existing conditions. But
that's expensive, super expensive. Somebody's got to pay for it. There are particular diseases that are
expensive to treat, but if you're going to cover those people, as we all want to do, somebody's got to pay
for it.
You've got to – what he's got to do, and Dr. Price has got to do, is develop a true, market-oriented plan
that incentivizes those people who are not participating today to participate. That's going to be hard. Not
impossible, but it's going to be hard.

Client Question #4
I wanted to ask if the Senators could comment on immigration reform, the Executive Orders,
which are very important to our people out there. Also, some of the regulations from the FDA and
EPA, whether it's Waters of the World or the Food Safety Modernization Act. Just any comments
you have on that. Thank you.

Senator Saxby Chambliss
Byron and I worked very closely on the issue of immigration and particularly the H2A program, as we're
approaching farm bill time again. This issue of immigration in rural America, particularly in your part of the
world, is going to be front and center again. It's an issue that, because he comes into office with that juice
I alluded to earlier, I hope he takes on early. It's a big task and with all the other things we've talked
about, throwing immigration on the mix, particularly because it's such an emotional issue, is not going to
be easy to do.
But you don't have to do comprehensive immigration reform. You can do simple things, like the H2A
program reforms. You can address the issue of those people that are here. That's not a tweak, that's a
major deal. But I think there is some consensus around the fact that those folks need to be dealt with and
there needs to be some kind of way to give legal status without giving a pathway to citizenship. Any
number of other ideas that are floating around out there that could be dealt with that would have a
positive impact on your industry particularly. But on the issue of immigration overall – I'll leave the FDA
and the water question to him.

Senator Byron Dorgan
But on immigration, I think everybody believes you need to have more security at the border. There's no
question about that. But, in many ways, things have changed with respect to immigration, because of the
threat of terrorists coming to our country. We do need more aggressive vetting, we do need more
security on the border to protect our country. But by the same token we also need temporary workers.

11

We need an immigration system that works, that allows people in that should come in. I think it's also the
case that immigration reform is one of those issues that you can fit on a bumper sticker, but you just can't
write legislation very easily. It's hard to get done, because there's nothing easy about doing it. Are we
really going to round-up six, eight, 10, 11 million people and boot them out of the country, some of who
have been here 20 years? The answer is no, of course we're not going to do that.
We need to sift through all of the language and understand, with respect to terrorism, there's a new
urgency with respect to security and then try to think through, how do you create a path to citizenship for
those who been here a long, long time? Including some of them who have served in our military, and we
really want to continue to have here as neighbors.

Matt Wagner
Thank you, everyone, for joining us. I'd like to thank Senators Chambliss and Dorgan for their remarks,
and Julianna for her insightful questions. We will make a transcript and a video of this call available for
folks to check out. We also encourage you to follow us on Edelman.com, and on @EdelmanDC on
Twitter, as we continue our WTF campaign. Thanks, everybody.

12