legislative branch of government in our constitution than any other branch and i have the privilege of having a front row seat to the legislative process. i think most people are not so much afraid of dying as they are never having truly lived. anyone who has a front row seat to human history can shuffle off of this coil absolutely certain that he or she has truly lived. >> and have seen it with our own eyes. you're great power on our behalf what our ancestors told us about you, how you kept them from de rescued them from trouble,

protected them from hardships, and kept this nation free. we praise you for using our lawmakers for your glory. accept our thanksgiving, as we press toward the future, eager to serve your purposes for our lives in this generation. we pray in your great name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the president pro tempore: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks the senate will be in a period of morning business until 4:30 this afternoon with senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each 39 at 4:04:30 the senate will proceed to executive session for richard f. griffin. at 5:30 there will be a cloture vote on the griffin nomination. i ask consent the time until 4:00 p.m. be for debate only. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, i welcome the presiding officer back. i hope the presiding officer had a productive week in vermont and that all my colleagues enjoyed visiting with constituents at home.

in this work period is going to be four weeks long. it is going to go by very quickly. but we have a great deal to accomplish during this four-week period. we are attempting to work things out so that we don't have to work during the holidays for a change. the last several years we've been stuck right up to thanksgiving and right through christmas on a couple of occasions. mr. president, it's obvious that senators aren't thinking these monday votes are very important. we have a lot of people not showing up for non night votes. so everyone should understand this vote tonight is a very important vote. i'm disappointed some senators aren't going to be here. but in the future the next mondays be expecting a vote or series of votes. i think we've become complacent in not worrying about monday night votes. we'll have votes that will be meaningful as this one is.

and during this next work period the only time we're going to have off will be november 11. that's the celebration for veterans day. mr. president, we're going therefore -- if we're going to finish our work in this four-week period we'll have to work. we'll work on mondays and fridays. and i hope we don't have to do weekends but we've got to get this work done. this week we are going to say goodbye to a colleague who was appointed to represent the state of new jersey after the untimely death of frank lautenberg but also welcome a new member to the united states senate, the senator-elect, cory brooker. what a remarkable young man he is. he was a student at stanford, to get into stanford you have to

be a regular order student. but also a tight end for the football team at stanford now ranked number five in the nation and there have a -- stle a great football program and cory booker everyone will find he's a very, very big fan physically. he after graduating with a degree from stanford in political science he got his master's degree in sociology from stanford. he then became a rhodes scholar and studied the united states history at oxford. he received his law degree from yale, what an outstanding academic record. stanford, a couple of degrees, rhodes scholar, oxford, yale law school, that's quite impressive and then served on the city council and men mayor for two years of newark. and a job that's been noticed all over the country.

recognized the great work he's done. during this four-week period, mr. president, we're going to do a number of things. not necessarily in this order. but we're going to consider the act known as anda, employment nondiscrimination act which would provide work against discrimination on gender identity. we tried, it failed in the house of representatives before, but we're going to take it up here again. we're going to consider a bipartisan bill to make compounding drugs safer, as we all recall there was a terrible tragedy in the northeast where a number of people died as a result of not compounding these products properly. so this bipartisan legislation will allow us to have safer compounding drugs and it will

also allow us to track prescription medicines from factry to the drugstore. we're going to consider job creation legislation, we'll build on the economic recovery and strengthen middle-class families. and we're going tyke up the defense authorization bill. which supports our 2r507s troops and ensures this nation does everything in our power to keep america safe from those who would do us harm. before we debate any of these matters we must consider can a number of vital nominations crug cl several stalled more than a year, one is to be somebody that has been wanting to work in the defense department. semithi about that. something vitally important for the pentagon and held up for a year on unrelated matter -- on unrelated matters. it's too bad. this has been held up by one republican senator. so we're going to move forward on this. we're going to do it very quickly. it's no secret the republicans

have systemically slow walked or blocked scores of president obama's judicial and executive branch nominations. pending executive nominations have waited an average of five months. democrats have broken filibusters of 66 of the president's nominations and republicans have blocked or delayed more than that with secret holds and procedural hurdles. we reached an agreement at the first of the year to consider a number of important nominations stalled for months and far too many cases for years. but obstruction has reared its ugly head. and we have a backlog now. it's time to move forward without delay. and fill those crucial posts. in the wake of a republican government shutdown, a nation's watching for a sign the senate can function efficiently and normally. it's time to show the american people how well and how quickly the senate can work when cooperation is present.

my question, mr. president, our colleagues in the house of representatives owe the american people -- they owe it to them to stop wasting time on political show votes and start legislating. mr. president, i have enough trouble over here with my schedule here. but i just have to briefly comment on the house schedule. they're going to work until noon on wednesday and then they're taking off the next ten days. from now until the first of the year, they've scheduled 18 days of working. that's enough that i'm going to say on that. our colleagues in the house owe it to the american people to move forward on legislation. on many of the most important sluice of the day republicans leaders have refused to allow the house of representatives to be heard. some are allowed to be heard but speaker boehner has a rule that democrats don't get to

participate unless he can first prove there's a majority of the majority to vote on an issue. that's not the way it used to be. we're going to have a celebration here tomorrow on the life of tom foley. i had the good fortune of serving with him in the house. he came from a real conservative district in the state of washington, he served here for many, many years. he was majority leader, he was the speaker, a fine man, and he, like the other leaders that i served with, o'neill and wright, what they tried to do, mr. president, is get 218 votes to pass a measure. they didn't try to get 218 votes from democrats. they had plenty of democrats that could have done that. but everyone was allowed to vote. that's 2 way that it should be now. and it's too bad that it isn't. what has happened over there is that the republican leadership has refused to allow the house of representatives, the whole house, to work its will.

immigration reform, mr. president, is one of the most glaring examples of not allowing the body to run like it used to. last june the senate passed a commonsense bipartisan bill to fix the broken legal separation fraition system. it would have treng strengened our borders, require undocumented people to get right with the law and put them on a pathway to citizenship. about 11 million people we're talking about. but for four months, 120 plus days, the house of representatives has failed to act on immigration legislation. if you brought up a bill, the senate bill it would pass overwhelmingly over there. even many mainstream republicans believe house republican leadership should allow a vote on the plan to amend the broken immigration system. the house has failed to take up the senate's bipartisan agriculture jobs bill, the farm bill as we call it, that cuts

the debt by $23 billion. and it supports 16 million american jobs. they've also refused to bring up something so commonsense, the presiding officer before coming here was governor of the state of virginia. i'm sure the presiding officer just like me have gone through towns and neighborhoods in those little strip malls and see all these places for lease. if we passed here in congress as we have done here in the senate the so-called workplace fairness act, it would allow these small businesses to get back and rent space, allow them to survive. i mean, think of the advantage these online retailers have. they don't have to pay 5%, 7% of what the others pay.

so it's really unfair, these brick-and-mortar places are left to the mercy of big online folks. when we brought this bill up i got a call from one of the major yob line organizations, they said we'll support your legislation if you will put a ceiling that we don't have to do anything until there's $5 million in sales. mr. president, they want $5 million in sales and pay no sales tax. pretty good deal. we passed it rear here, rightfully so, a barb bill. the house won't take this up. it's too bad. so on these and other issues it's time for reasonable republicans to raise their voice here in the senate and, of course, in the house of representatives. there have been a troubling trend over the last three years, i've been troubled to watch these so-called mainstream

republicans be marginalized by members of their own party. remember, it's not the marginal people that are being marginalized, it's mainstream republicans. even more troubling, moderate republicans have been complicit in allowing this disturbing trend to continue. it's no surprise when tea party extremists forced our economy to the brink of disaster or shut down the government for the sake of ideological stunts. we saw what happened. but we weren't surprised that the tea party did this. but i was surprised that sensible, mainstream republicans didn't speak up and speak up sooner. and that many didn't speak up at all in defense of reason and responsibility. think about that, mr. president. there's 232 republicans in the thousands. -- in the house of representatives. on a vote to open the government after 16 days of being closed, and defaulting on the debt only 85 of the 232 voted to keep the

government -- to reopen the government and keep us from defaulting on our debt. that is a scary number. so the vast majority of the republicans in the house wanted to keep the government closed and default on the debt. wow, that is something that's spooky. as th their more radical colleas drove the economy to the bripg obringit to collapse and that mt republicans did nothing and said nothing to stop it was deplorable to me. this was a manufactured crisis and many of the crisis over the last threese, i don't blame only them for holding the federal government and the full faith and credit of the united states hostage. i also blame the so-called mainstream republican colleagues who remained silent even as thee anarchists among us committed political malpractice. they knew better. they should have known better. they know the consequences of

default and they know the cost of government shutdown yet they allowed members of their own party to take the country down a dangerous road, doing irreparable harm to the country and i believe to the republican party. as a conference committee sits down to negotiate a long-term budget agreement, it sets a course for fiscal responsibility, reasonable, moderate republicans, mainstream republicans must not absent themselves from these discussions. a significant number of radical republicans have said they would rather risk default than cooperate or compromise with democrats. sensible republicans must not allow these radicals to rule the day. we, mr. president, democrats, are ready to do the difficult work of finding common ground for the good of our country. we don't expect radical tea party republicans to join us, but we do hope our mainstream republican colleagues will find their voices, reclaim their party and work with democrats to govern once again. would the chair announce the business of the day.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 4:30 p.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each and with debate only until 4:00 p.m. mr. reid: i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quoru quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: madam president? i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 53. the presiding officer: the the question is on the motion to proceed. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of defense, alan f. estevez of the district to be

principal deputy under secretary. mr. reid: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of alan f. estevez of the district of columbia for a principal deputy of under secretary of defense, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. reid: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i ask consent that the mandatory quorum under rule 22 also be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to live session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. mr. reid: aye. the presiding officer: all opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 307.

the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all in favor say aye. mr. reid: aye. the presiding officer: all opposed, nay. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i now send a cloture motion to the desk. madam president, you -- it needs to be reported. i jumped ahead of where i was supposed to be. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, office of personnel management, katherine archuleta of colorado to be director of the office. mr. reid: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of katherine archuleta of colorado to be director of the office of personnel management. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived without prejudice to anyone. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to legislative session --

madam president, i'm getting -- jumping way ahead of where i'm supposed to be. i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 242. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, thomas edgar wheeler of the district of columbia to be a member of the federal communications commission. mr. reid: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: we the undersigned senators in accordance with the

provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of thomas edgar wheeler of the district of columbia, to be a member of the federal communications commission, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. reid: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. mr. reid: aye. the presiding officer: all opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 63. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, international banks, jacob j.lew

of new york to be united states governor of the international monetary fund. mr. reid: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of jacob j.lew of new york to be united states governor of the international monetary fund, united states governor of the international bank for reconstruction and development, united states governor of the inter-american development bank and united states governor of the european bank for reconstruction and development, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the names be waived -- reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to legislative session.

the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: madam president, when we are finished, i now move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 209. the presidingthe presiding offie question is on the motion to proceed. all in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: federal housing finance agency, melvin l. watt of north carolina to be director. mr. reid: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of melvin l. watt of north carolina to be director of the federal housing finance agency, signed by 18 senators as follows. reid of nevada, johnson of south dakota, begich, leahy, coons,

heinrich, murray, sanders, shaheen, cardin, franken, brown, harkin, reed of rhode island, carper, whitehouse, nelson and schumer. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 327. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, nay. all in favor say aye. all opposed say nay. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: there is another cloture motion at the desk. i ask that it be reported.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, patricia ann millett of virginia to be united states circuit judge for the district of columbia circuit. mr. reid: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: we the undersigned senators in accordance with rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of patricia ann millett of virginia to be district judge for the united states circuit of virginia. signed by 17 senators. mr. reid: i ask the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask the mandatorytory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed say nay. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to.

mr. reid: i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presidingthe presiding offik will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the cloture vote scheduled at 5:30 p.m. be scheduled on tuesday at a time determined by me in consultation with senator mcconnell. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: madam president, just so everyone knows, we have a number of senators who aren't going to be here tonight. five that i know of. democrats and republicans. we have a lot of people went to a lot of trouble to be here for this vote. and i want everyone to know we're going to continue having votes on monday and obviously people think they're not very important, they bind wind up

not coming so they're going to end up missing important votes. i'm going to schedule more than one vote. it's just not right that we have a few people that make things very difficult for everyone. so i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: is the senate now in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent it be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask that we proceed to a period of morning business, this time for debate only until 7:00 tonight and there will be no roll call votes. i announced that earlier but

there will be no roll call votes tonight. the presiding officer: so noted.

mr. alexander: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: we're not in a quorum call. the senator is recognized. mr. alexander: thank you very much. mr. president, before the internet r.c.a. now how many records elvis sold every day. r.c.a. knew how many cars -- before the internet, ford now how many cars they were selling every day. before the internet, mcdonald's could tell you how many hamburgers it was selling every day. yet the obama administration cannot tell us how many americans have tried to sign up for obamacare, can't tell us

how many americans did sign up for obamacare, they can't tell us what level of insurance they bought, nor can they tell us in what zip code they live. they've told us that 20 million americans have visited the obamacare web site. they've got the basic information to shop but how many have tried to sign up? how many did sign up? where do they live? what kind of insurance did they buy? not only have they not told us, madam president, they've done their best to keep us from finding out. with wicki leaks and aircraft snow den -- snowden spilling our beans every day, it's the biggest secret left in washington, d.c. the national security administration could learn some lessons from secretary sebelius. see wee shouldn't have to rely on anonymous sources to get basic information about what's happening with obamacare. therefore i'm introducing legislation today to require the

administration to answer the following questions every week, how many people tried to sign up, how many people did sign up, what level of insurance did they buy, in what zip code do they live, and what are they doing to fix the problems? this is not complicated information. in the internet age, the administration ought to be able to provide this information not every week but every day. in fact, they should be able to provide it every minute. we shouldn't have to pass a law to find these things out. i would hope every senator would support this simple request that this ladies and, this legislati. it is a six-page bill. i'll put it in the congressional record today and everyone will have a chance to read it, tomorrow when everyone should have read it, i intend to ask unanimous consent to pass it. this congress has dedicated to transparency. i know we are on both sides of

the aisle. the administration has described itself as the most transparent administration in american history. so, why should we not unanimously pass legislation to ask for the most basic information about what's happening on the obamacare exchanges? health insurance companies say that in order to guarantee everyone that they have a chance to sign up for insurance before january 1, which is when the law says they must, the application has to be in by december 15. that's not very far away. and while the administration has been talking about a few weeks of a grace period before the i.r.s. will fine you for not having bought insurance as obamacare says most americans must, still, if the web site isn't fixed, millions of

americans will be required to sign up for health insurance on a web site that doesn't work and for not being able to do so, they'll be fined by the internal revenue service. madam president, there's a much bigger problem than the fine. and that is millions of americans may be without any health insurance at all after january 1 because their insurance is being canceled because of obamacare. remember when president obama said if you like your insurance, you can keep it? like a lot of things that have been said about obamacare, that's turning out not to be the case. our staff has counted the announcements by health insurance companies that are ceasing to offer policies on january 1 because they don't qualify under the obamacare law. for example, in tennessee the state provides 16,000 tennesseans who have trouble getting health insurance --

insurance, with some insurance, it's called cover ten, because it doesn't meet the exact requirements of obamacare, the state is having to cancel that insurance on january 1 and those 16,000 tennesseans won't have health insurance. other americans, tennesseans i've talked to, for example, have what we call catastrophic insurance. they have insurance that provides for the catastrophe. that kind of insurance is often not available under obamacare, not allowed by obamacare. so insurance companies offering these policies will not be offering them after january 1 and as a result, americans -- millions of americans will not be able to buy the insurance they now have. so individuals can't or won't sign up, that will mean that after january 1 many of the sickest people will go into the

exchanges and the result of that will be the prices of insurance for everyone who has insurance will be going through the roof. we are already seeing that in the insurance markets today. so the bottom line, if the web site isn't fixed, millions of americans will not only be fined by the i.r.s. for not buying insurance on a web site that doesn't work, more importantly, they'll be without health care insurance on january 1, insurance that many of them have today. now, the president has said in the last few days that the web site will be ready by november 30. but, madam president, you're supposed to have your application in by december 15 and insurance bought by january 1, two weeks for millions of americans to make their way through this maze. we tried to obtain this simple information that i've asked

for, yet repeatedly the requests which i have directed to the secretary have come back with no answer at all. no answers, no nothing. outside analysts tell us that only half of one% -- 1% of the people who logged on in the first week were able to enroll but we really don't know what's happening there. two weeks ago, i sent a letter with the house oversight chairman darrell issa to secretary sebelius asking us for information she and the president are not giving us like hamm howm theme spreem enrolled in the exchanges, what the technical problems are, how much it costs and how much it will cost to address these problems. the deadline for a response to our request has passed. chairman issa has said and i joined him in the letter that he may consider a subpoena to get that information. the american people deserve an answer to these questions.

madam president, often when the debate comes up someone will say, well, the republicans don't have any proposals of their own. i've often made those proposals, i remember on this floor of the senate many, many times i proposed the steps that we should take to change our health care system so more people could afford insurance. we went back and counted the number of times that during the health care debate, various ones of us talked about our step-by-step proposals for what we should do about health care. and there were 173 mentions of our step-by-step proposals. the basic problem with what happened with the new health care law was that we expanded, the government did -- i didn't, i didn't vote for it -- but the government, did the government expanded a health care delivery system that already costs too much. that was the wrong thing to do.

that was an historic mistake. what we should have done is to make changes step by step in a health care delivery system that would reduce the cost of health care for the largest number of americans so that more people could have afforded it. those are the steps we should have taken. we can still do that. our health care delivery system is 20% of our economy. obamacare is not our health care delivery system, obamacare are some additions to our health care delivery system. obamacare is an expansion of a health care delivery system that already costs too much. it is making some changes, such as the one we described earlier in my remarks. those changes have been described as a train wreck but we can turn the train around and head it in another direction, the direction of more competition, more choices, and lower costs for americans buying

health care insurance. how could we do that? that's a subject for a long discussion but here are a few of the ideas. make medicare solvent. the trustees have said that in ten years there won't be enough money to pay hospital bills. we are -- we have a duty to make medicare solvent. afford medicare advantage to increase more choices, put it on a more level playing field with medicare that. will provide more options. it should save some money. make medicaid more flexible. i was a governor. i said on the floor everybody who voted for obamacare ought to be sentenced to go home and serve as governor and try to implement the law. when i was governor, it was 8% of the budget. i see it's at 26% today in tennessee. soaking up money that otherwise would go for higher education or for other needed parts of state government. we should encourage workplace wellness. we had a lot of debate about that during the obamacare debate

and we've ended up with a regulation that's too restrictive. we can change that. we can allow small businesses to pool their resources and offer a larger number of premiums to a larger number of americans at prices they can afford. we can allow americans to purchase insurance across state lines. that would reduce the cost of health care, which should be our major goal. we could expand health care savings accounts. there's a bipartisan legislation before the senate that would define full-time employment for purposes of the health care la law -- this one or any one in the future -- as 40 hours instead of 30 hours. that would be a great help to american business and a bigger help to the employees who are being forced to go from 40 hours to 30 hours, employees who most need that income and who by going to 30 hours will have to go to a second part-time job in many cases and in doing so lose whatever health care benefits

might have been available to them. i don't know where the 30 hours came from. that sounds like it was made in france. made in america, part-time job ought to be 40 hours. those are just a few of the steps, madam president, that we could take to turn the train around and avoid the wreck and move us in the right direction. we'll be making those arguments over time. but for now, but for now, we need information about what's happening on the obamacare exchanges. and i intend to ask unanimous consent tomorrow to pass a simple six-page legislation that has the administration give us weekly reports about how many have tried to enroll, how many have succeeded, in what zip code do they live and what level of insurance have they -- have they purchased. congress just needs to know that. if millions of americans are going to lose insurance on january 1 before they have a way to buy it through a web site that doesn't work. states need to know it, because

as time goes on, these decisions are going to have effect on the medicaid programs that states are a partner in operating. and americans need to know it, because in many cases -- we've counted at least a million and a half cases and we expect millions more -- policies that americans now have aren't going to be available after january 1 and so these americans -- and these include people working in the congress, people who are in the congress -- these americans are going to have to make decisions before january 1 about what insurance they will have because the insurance they now have isn't going to be available under the new health care law. so, madam president, this is a six-page bill and a pretty simple idea. i mean, if r.c.a. knew how many records elvis was selling every day, if ford knew before the internet age how many cars ford was selling every day, if mcdonald's before the internet

age knew how many hamburgers it was selling every day, surely the obama administration can tell us every week how many are enrolling on obamacare's web site, how many are successfully getting their insurance, where they live and what kind of insurance they're buying. the stakes are much higher than elvis's records, than ford's cars, and than mcdonald's hamburgers. these are the stakes of health insurance that involve the lives of millions of americans and i hope that my colleagues will join me tomorrow when i ask unanimous consent to approve legislation that will require these weekly reports. madam president, i ask consent to send the legislation to the desk and that it be introduced. the presiding officer: the bill will be received and appropriately referred. mr. alexander: thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.

a senator: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. alexander: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: madam president, tomorrow will be -- are we in quorum call? the presiding officer: senator, we are in a quorum call. mr. alexander: i ask consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: madam president, tomorrow ring according to the statement by the majority leader, we'll be voting on the nomination of richard griffin for council of

the national labor relations board. i'll be voting against mr. griffin's nomination for general counsel because i'm concerned about the direction of the nlrb, a as an advocate more than an umpire. i do not believe he will improve the situation. as the senior republican on labor committee working with my friend shall the chairman, senator harkin, and with others, what i hope we can do over the next several years is look for a long-term solution for the restructuring of the national labor relations board, one that will ensure that it will operate more than an umpire than an advocate, whether the president is a democrat or a republican. the bore board has become far to politicized. this didn't start with the obama administration, but it's gotten worse with this administration,

and it's moved more and more toward the side of union advocacy with such major shiftes as ambush elections and undermining state right-to-work laws. swinging back and forth on important labor policy issues does the american working man and woman no good in this time of underemployment and unemployment. so hopefully later this fall i'll be able to join other senators in introducing legislation that will restore balance to the national labor relations board. a proposal that will retain the rights of workers and employees but reduce the swing that occurs from administration to administration based upon who's in power. what we should be striving for in the nlrb is fairness and consistency. there are exceptions, of course, but as a general proposition, i believe that a president should have an up-or-down vote on his

nominee, so i intend to vote to cloture. but, mr. griffin's nomination does not do enough for me to show the promise of moving the board from advocacy toward umpire, and therefore i do not intend to vote to confirm his nomination. i thank the president, and i thank senator harkin for his courtesy in allowing me to go first. and i yield the floor. mr. harkin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: first, i ask unanimous consent that molly ganly, katrina rogachevski be granted floor prills for the duration of today's session. sphir officer without objection. mr. harkin: you want to thank my good friend, senator alexander, for a great working relationship on our committee.

obviously we have differences of views and opinions on matters. that's the nature of legislation and in body. but we have always worked together in a very conciliatory fashion and open and working things out, and so i appreciate his approach on this and the fact that the senator is willing to give us cloture so that we can get an up-or-down vote. i understand he has certain reservations about this nominee. i understand that, but again i thank my colleague for being willing to get us to the point where we can have an up-or-down vote on mr. griffin. so, madam president, tomorrow -- we were going to vote today, but it was agreed that -- the leader came out and there was an agreement on both sides to put the vote off until tomorrow -- to consider the nomination of mr. richard gr griffin to serves

general counsel of the national labor relations board, a top prosecutor for violations of this top labor relations laws. mr. griffin is exceptionally well-qualified thor this position. i have no doubt that he'll do an outstanding job of enforcing our nation's labor laws for workers, unions, and for employers. in july we confirmed five new nlrb board members, preventing the agency from shutting down and giving it a full slate of members for the first time in a decade. with a fully functional five-member board and a new senate-confirmed general counsel, it is my hope that we can provide this important agency with some much-needed certainty, marking a new positive chapter for the nl are much b and finally putten end to the delay and obstruction a this has recently become all too familiar. every time a new nlrb nominee is appointed. now, without relitigating the

previous controversies, i think it's fair to say that over the past few years the nlrb has been the target of unnecessary political attacks and obstruction. what most concerns me about this political game playing is how it affects the everyday lives of working people across america. these attacks on the board have had real consequences for real people. working americans need and deserve a fully functioning agency to protect their rights and enforce our nation's labor laws. that's why over 75 years ago congress enacted the national nl labor relations act, guaranteeing american workers the right to form and join a union and to bargain p for a better life. for both union and nonunion workers alike, the act provides essential protections. it gives workers a voice in the workplace, allows them to join together and speak up for fair

wages and good benefits and safe working conditions. these rights ensure that the people who do the real work in this country see the benefits when our economy grows and aren't mistreated or put at risk on the job. the national labor relations board is the goredia guardian oe fundamental rights. workers themselves cannot enforce the national labor relations act. the board is the only place where workers can go if they have been treated unfairly and denied the basic protections that the law provides. thus, the board plays a fight vl role in vindicating workers' rights. in the past ten years the nlrb has secured opportunities for instatement for 22,544 employees who were unjusticely fired. it has also recovered more than $1 billion on behalf of workers whose rights were violated. i know many times people think,

well, you know, a lot of these old abuses of workers that you read about in your history books, well, that was just -- that's just history. and we've gotten over that. quite frankly -- i wish that were the truth. but the fact that in ten years, 22,544 employees were reinstated because they were unjusticely fired indicates that there's still unfair labor practices being committed by businesses today. and $1 billion? $1 billion recovered on behalf of workers just in the last ten years. that's $1 billion that unscrupulous companies took from their workers without the right to do so, and the nlrb got that money back for workers. think about that, $1 billion. now, the board doesn't just protect the rights of workers and unions. it also provides relief and

remedies to our nation's employers, our businesses. the board is an employer's only recourse in a union commences a wildcat strike, for example, or refuses to bargain in good faith during negotiations. by preventing labor disputes that could disrupt our economy, the work that the board does is vital to every worker and every business across the nation. now further, the nlrb, you have to understand, is divided into two independent sides. there's the board side which adjudicates and interprets the law. then there's the general counsel side, which investigates filed charges, prosecutes violations, and generally supervises the processing of cases. the general counsel position is important because the nlrb receives about 20,000 to 30,000 charges per year from employees,

unions, and employers, and it is the primary function of the general counsel to make sure that these charges -- each charge is thoroughly investigated and prosecuted, if it's determined to have merit. the general counsel also serves an important role that some of my colleagues may not know about. the attorneys in the general counsel's office help facilitate settlements to resolve disputes efficiently. for example, when two unions picketed wal-mart in 2012, wal-mart filed a claim with the nlrb and the agency negotiated a settlement. indeed, settlements are not the exception at nlrb but the rule, and they are encouraged. in fact, over 90% of meritorious, unfair labor practice cases are settled --

are eliminate ised by agreement, either through a board settlement or a private agreement by the two sides. now that i've discussed the importance of the nlrb and protecting rights rand the role of the general counsel -- and the role of the general counsel -- that the general counsel plays at that arks i want to turn the page and talk about mr. griffin, the nominee who is before us now to be the general counsel. and i want to again indicate why i strongly support his nomination. richard griffin has a wealth of experience as a labor lawyer. he's he is steeped in labor and employment law. he most recently served as an nlrb board member himself from january 2012 until just this past august. prior to that, mr. griffin was general counsel for the international union of operating engineers for more than 17 years.

mr. griffin actually began his legal career over 30 years ago at the nlrb as a counsel to board members. now, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have agreed that dick griffin is well-qualified to serve as general counsel. indeed, i think hess expertise in labor law is difficult to question. but some of my friends on the republican side continue to oppose his nomination because of an outstanding legal issue that has nothing to do with mr. griffin's previous public service, his background, or his ability to function in this new position. here's what this is all about: much has been made about the process by which mr. griffin was previously recess-appointed to serve as a board member. the controversy began when the d.c. -- the district of columbia circuit court issued a ruling in

a case which is called the noel canning case that diverged from the decisions of three other courts of appeals, the second circuit, the ninth circuit and the 11th circuit. and that circuit court, d.c. circuit court, questioned the validity of an appointment -- i'm so, and the -- my friends on the republican side are questioning the validity of an appointment process that's abouten if place for over 220 years. that is the decision in the noel canning case. subsequently two other appeals courts have graffecourt address. the supreme court is et to resolve the legal issue once and for all during this session of the supreme court. so again be, to sum it up, we have different circuit courts deciding differently on an appointment process that any president uses to fill recess appointments. so this litigation is still

pending, the legal question remains unresolved until the supreme court decides it, but a number of my colleagues during that period when we had different circuit courts deciding differently on this appointment issue, a number of my colleagues on the republican side called for mr. griffin to resign his position on the board, even though he'd done nothing personally wrong and he had taken an oath of office to fulfill his duties. in our, i believe that request from my republican colleagues was unreasonable p. there was clear precedent at the board for mr. griff continue to continue to serve until the final legal matter was ultimately resolved. when there was a split among the circuit court of appeals, the

nlrb has a long history of waiting until the matter is resolved by the supreme court before taking action, particularly when it involves the board's oppos board's opera. the situation that was facing the bowl after this knoll canning case is parallel to a similar circumstance face $bed y the forward wh a few years ago when the board only had two members and the d.c. circuit rules ruled in a case called the laurel lei bay case that the two-member board lacked a quorum to do business. even after the d.c. circuit's decision, the two-member board -- one republican, one democrat -- continued to hear and issue cases until the supreme court ruled on the question. not a single republican senator called on either one of those two board members to resign simply because they refused to

acquiesce to the decision of the d.c. circuit. so here's what happened. mr. griffin and his fellow recess appointee sharon block acted appropriately in following this direct precedent and continuing to serve on the board until the supreme court addressed the validity of their recess appointments. to argue that mr. griffin's decision to uphold his oath of office and follow the board's prior practice, that somehow that makes it unqualified to now serve as the board's general counsel is, quite frankly, a position i think that is not only disappointing but i think is without substance. in addition to this questionable objection, republicans also continue to claim that recent nlrb, including mr. griffin, are

unacceptable simply because they have worked on behalf of workers or unions and support our system of collective bargaining. these nominees have been accused of being biased and unfit to serve. but now i want to point out what the law actually says. keep in mind the board members as well as general counsel appointed the board, and we confirm them. they take an oath of office to uphold the law. so it's kind of interesting to note what the law actually says that they are sworn by oath to uphold. i've often quoted from the national labor relations act on this point. i will do so again here. here's what the law says, the national labor relations act. the law that board members and eventually mr. griffin, if he is confirmed -- and i believe he will be -- will take an oath of office to uphold.

here's the law. i will quote it exactly as it's written. it is declared to be the policy of the united states to eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and the designation of representatives of their own choosing for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection. end quote. those are the exact words. that's what the law says. the purpose and the policy is to

promote collective bargaining. to promote collective bargaining and freedom of association, protecting workers of their rights of self-organization, the designation of representatives of their own choosing. that's what the law says. in fact, mr. griffin takes that purpose seriously, i think makes him more qualified -- not less qualified -- to serve as general counsel. his past career is not cause for concern. most labor lawyers devote their careers either to representing workers and unions or their management. that's the nature of practicing labor and employment law. we have confirmed nlrb nominees in the past, some of whom have been union side and some have been management side. and we've done so without substantial controversy.

the fact that mr. griffin happens to come from union side practice does not make him inherently biased. for years republican and democratic presidents have appointed promanagement attorneys to fill positions at the nlrb. there is even one example where a board member came directly from an in-house position at the u.s. chamber of commerce. but i don't hear anyone on the republican side accusing those nominees of bias. i guess it's only when you represent labor unions that you're biased. not when you represent the chamber of commerce. i'd also like to point out that while i certainly haven't agreed with the politics or ideology of every past nlrb nominee, i voted to support republican nominees like harry johnson, on the board

now, not because i agreed with them, but because given their experience and their diverse background, they were qualified to serve. they were qualified. as is mr. griffin. eminently well-qualified. board members can and do separate their past work as an advocate from their work as a neutral interpreter of the act once they are confirmed. and i am absolutely sure that mr. griffin will do the same if confirmed as general counsel. i have every confidence that mr. griffin will be, in the words of one of the current board members, not prounion, not proworker, not promanagement, but proact. pronational labor relations act. or put maybe more succinctly, prolaw. prolaw enforcement. with this in mind, and for all the reasons i've just mentioned, i urge all of my colleagues, my

republican colleagues, to consider voting for mr. griffin because he deserves a strong bipartisan vote. as i stated earlier, i voted for republican members, when we had board members here earlier this year in july, if i'm not mistaken, in july of this year, democrats voted for the two republican nominees. again not because we agreed with them ideologically, maybe they were coming from, but they were qualified to serve. they were qualified to serve. and yet, when we have nominees with whom the republicans are opposed ideologically, even though they are well-qualified, republicans vote "no." think about that. when we have nominees for the national labor relations board that the republicans support, to whom we may be opposed ideologically but they are

qualified, we vote for them. democrats vote for them. when we have nominees for the national labor relations board who are well qualified but whom the republicans disagree with ideologically, they vote against them. quite a difference. well now is the time to start breaking that down. it didn't used to be this way. it never was this way in the past. if they were qualified under a republican president, we would support them. a democrat president, we would support them. we just wanted to know what were their qualifications? what were their background? were they vetted properly? no criminal activity, nothing in their background to indicate that they couldn't judiciously act openly and fairly. so i'm sorry that it's gotten to this position now where republicans feel that they've got to vote against someone for the national labor relations board simply because that person was a lawyer for a labor union.

i voted for nlrb members who were lawyers for businesses. that's fine. i have no problem with that. why do my republican colleagues have such a problem in voting for someone who is a lawyer for a labor union? labor unions are legal entities, protected by national law, the national labor relations act. so i hope, again, that my republican colleagues will look at mr. griffin for who he is, for what he is, for his background, eminently well qualified. always been fair, always been judicious, a good lawyer. yes, he represented labor unions. but in all the vetting we had in our committee on mr. griffin, we had people from the business side and others all said he represented labor unions, but he did so fairly.

he did that fairly with competence and with the ability to work out agreements with the other side. what more could you ask for? so, i'm hopeful that this vote tomorrow will mark a new beginning for the national labor relations board, that we'll have a vote on cloture, and then we'll have an up and down vote. so we have 60 votes for cloture to bring it to a vote. and then there will be up to eight hours of debate on the nominee. i don't think we need to take that long. but i am hopeful that some of my republican colleagues will vote for mr. griffin and start to break this thing down where if it's someone appointed by a democratic president republicans vote "no." if it is someone appointed by a republican president, democrats vote "no." that shouldn't be the way it should be, not the way it's been

in my lifetime here. in all my time in the senate, i served with one, two -- two republican presidents here in the senate. i'm sorry; three republican presidents here in the senate. and they made nominations to the national labor relations board. i've been on this committee since then. we always supported them, as long as they were qualified. they went through the vetting process, were qualified, it's fine. the president should have his nominees, and we vote for them. well, i'm hopeful he we'll get back to that. i hope we'll have a new era here where the agency is no longer haunted by political attacks, political games. it's time, long past time to allow the nlrb to function like the law intends and let the dedicated public servants who work there do their jobs. so, madam president, we will have this vote, i'm told, tomorrow afternoon on cloture. as i said for the benefit of senators, we'll have up to eight

hours. i don't imagine we'll take all of that. we'll have up to eight hours of debate on the nominee. and again, i hope we have a good, strong vote on both cloture and on the nomination himself -- on the nominee himself. mr. griffin, as i said, eminently well qualified. eminently well qualified. nothing in his background would ever indicate that he would be anything less than an outstanding counsel at the national labor relations board. with that, madam president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that following any leader remarks on tuesday, october 29, the republican leader or his designee be recognized to move to proceed to calendar number 223, s.j. res. 26, a joint resolution relating to the disapproval of the president's exercise of authority with regard to the debt limit. the time until 12:30 tomorrow be for debate on the motion to proceed, the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. that at 2:15 p.m., the senate proceed to vote on adoption of the motion to proceed. that if the motion is successful, then the time for debate with respect to the joint resolution be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. upon the use or yielding back of

that time, the joint resolution be read a third time and the senate proceed to vote on passage of the joint resolution. finally, that all other provisions of the statute governing consideration of this joint resolution will remain in effect. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to calendar number 165. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 165, s. 893, a bill to provide for an increase effective december 1, 2013, in the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask that we move to s. res. 275. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 275,

designating october 29, 2013, as national technological innovation day, and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: mr. president, i thank you and ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered -- the motion to -- the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table and there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i am told that there is a bill at the desk due for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 1592, a bill to provide for a delay of the individual mandate under the patient protection and affordable care act until the american health benefit exchanges are functioning properly. mr. reid: i now ask for a second reading on this matter, mr. president. but -- and that's to place the

bill on the calendar, under the provisions of rule 15, but i object to my own request. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the bill will be read for the second time on the next legislative day. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business tonight, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning, tuesday, october 29. following the prayer and the pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that following any leader remarks, the senate consider the motion to proceed to s.j. res. 26 as provided under the previous order, that the senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 to allow for our weekly caucus meetings. further, following disposition of s.j. res. 26, the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 344, the nomination of richard griffin to be general counselor for the national labor relations board with up to two minutes of debate equally divided and

controlled prior to the cloture vote on the nomination. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: so, mr. president, about 2:15 or thereabouts tomorrow, we should have two roll call votes. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask, mr. president, that the senate adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until majority leader harry reid postponed richard correct thing to general counsel of the national labor relations board due to several senators will be in town. that vote now takes on tuesday. mr. griffin is the former union lawyer served as a board member on the nlrb after being appointed to that congressional recess. senators are also preparing to begin budget negotiations with the house as part of the deal reached to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling. follow the senate live on c-span 2 at members cabell in

tuesday. >> .net domain joins us that they look at the week ahead on capitol hill. she's a staff writer for cq rollcall. what can you tell us about the budget conference meeting went to a? who was involved in one of the main issues? >> guest: the budget conference is meeting for the first time in years a bicameral, bipartisan meeting of conferees to hash out all the issues we've been looking at, before, during and in the immediate week of the end of the government shutdown. we have at the forefront house budget committee chairman paul ryan, republican from wisconsin and we have washington democrat patty murray. the issues are going to be looking at relate to whether we can come up with some hopefully big ideas, maybe a year plan if were going to be particularly ambitious look at everything

from the replacement of the sequester to do we plan for texas. how we deal with tax and -- how we drive down the deficit bill. there's all sorts of questions. house and senate democrats and republicans have different visions for how we should be moving forward with our son and budgeting will be pretty interesting to watch and see. >> on the help, what what are people saying? they have high hopes for the budget conference? >> i think everyone is being optimistic. i think the prospects for what we call a grand bargain may be somewhat elusive. bottom line is it's going to be incredibly difficult to reconcile these differences. democrat want to raise taxes on

the wealth the by other means of reducing the deficit yet republicans have said that they do not want to put your higher taxes on the table. you know, we have a blue seven house members. for republicans and three democrats from the house negotiations. we had the entire senate budget committee. each gets one vote. they have to come to an agreement by december 13th. so we're dealing with a narrow window here. >> another conference committee also wednesday. that one on the farm bill. what are the issues there? >> the issues they are, in passed a full farm till reauthorization for five years earlier this year. on some other contentious issues, it would deal with -- it would cut the supplemental

nutrition program known as food stamps by $4 billion. the house had more difficulty passing its farm bill. he had originally proposed cutting the fruit stamp program by about $20 billion, which still wasn't enough for many of the more conservative house republicans. the first attempt to pass a full farm bill reauthorization was $20 billion cut actually failed to presently on the house floor. they had to bring it back up into two sections in the house. one section deal with only five in agriculture programs. the other section dealing just with the nutrition title where we saw $40 billion cut to the food stamp program. so the house and senate are coming together with an even larger pack between sending for that program, so that's going to be something for them to reconcile.

that's going to be the big focal point we think of those negotiations. >> curious as to become the problems that health care.gov. which committees are involved in what you think we will see come out of those? >> i think we are all going to be part of this because kathlyn sebelius is, before the committee. she is of course secretary of health and human services. she is going to be testifying that they been to the enrollment , which has been having a lot of problems in terms of its functioning, in terms of getting people enrolled in insurance exchanges as part of the individual mandate that we've heard so much about. it is likely to be a partisan panel. republicans who don't like the president's health are using it for their own argument against the law and an example of how the implementation is predicted.

democrats will be interesting to watch because while they support health care a lot and don't repealed rna tests but because they have to acknowledge the legislature is not working and to be fixed and people should be held accountable so they probably want to be walking a fine line between asking the important questions, current administration and the pearl river bus. >> emma dumain with cq rollcall, thank you so much here been acting for having a good >> we represent print, t-mobile all the way down to the smallest carriers in the united states. ..

>> she stayed at the nolan house, which is where his aunt and two cousins lived. one day he was there with his cousins and his family and they brought in a cake plate that my great-grandmother, mrs. wallace, had given her a cake and mrs. nolan had cleaned the cake plate and was asking if anybody would take it back over and my grandfather moved with what my grandmother once described as

the speed of light and ran over here and bring the doorbell on the front order in the hope that my grandmother would answer the door, and she did. she invited him in and that was the beginning of their formal courtship in 1910. >> bess truman as we continue our series on first ladies live at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and c-span2 and c-span radio and c-span.org. >> tomorrow, the administrator for medicaid and medicare services testified on implementing the health care law and the problems associated with the website. she will speak before the house ways and means committee, and you can see that hearing live on tuesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. also this week, more about the issue with health secretary kathleen sebelius in front of the health commerce committee and she will speak about the ongoing problem concerning

health care.gov website and what can be done to fix it. you can see that hearing live at 9:00 a.m. eastern also on c-span3. >> next, a look at public opinion on politics and policy after the government shutdown. from "washington journal", this is one hour. >> joining us this sunday is the pollster kelly ann conway. thank you so much, we appreciate you being here with us. >> good morning. >> and we have a democratic pollster and strategist as well. i want to began with this story as house republicans basically face a court change after what they call a debacle following the 16 day government shutdown. let me begin with you.

>> yes. >> host: is there a course change within the gop? >> guest: well, slightly. now that the affordable care act is back in the crosshairs, americans are focused and there are some glitches. it is the republican party who is reminding americans that the aca -- that they saw 3.5 years ago when it was originally passed, the difficulty in trying to corral so many resources into one large government program to administer health care. the republican party should also be clear on what the suggestions should be and how they think that the health care market should work in a patient centric type of market. including setting up the exchanges. but there is no question that the shutdown could cost the republican party and i do understand the part of the goal was to bring attention to the affordable care act and the

timing is actually very fortuitous in that many americans are focused on why there are so many glitches and computer glitches and why you are accessing health care reform on the computer in a different way than we shop. so the you on amazon.com, you decide what you may or may not want and then you input your personal information, address, critical information. the affordable care act does the opposite. there's lots of private information and you can change this at the end. most americans are used to this and the republican party is regulating mess and it should also get some health care, and also education. >> host: we talked about the

gallup poll and this was also part of the weekly edition of cq weekly. let's share the two numbers. who is to blame when it came to the shutdown, and also whether the democratic or republican parties are doing an adequate job. only 26% saying that the democrats and republicans are doing that that in 50% saying that the third party is needed. so we have seen these numbers before another party has been created yet. >> guest: that's right, exactly. it will be tough for a third-party to function on the national level anytime soon, just given the infrastructure advantages that the two parties have. and also it is very tough for the moderates of both parties to go in the way of independence. and it is just about impossible for anyone to map this out, so

basically all you are doing is if you are a moderate democrat, you're taking votes away and so on the presidential level, it is hard to imagine that we will be receiving an independent candidate that is successful and couldn't be anything other than the spoiler in the near future. >> host: kellyanne conway, would you like to respond? >> guest: yes, i do. i very much agree with what stefan hankin said. seven to 10% of all the major polls show this, even if you get half of that number, in virginia, the appetite for some third-party auction comes because those candidates have incredibly high negatives for somebody who is about to be the next one. and there does seem to be this

year and there are many people who are saying that i refuse to vote for either party now and it is spot on. even at any level in regards to the presidential race and i think that it is difficult for third parties to you're not necessarily done something and if americans don't want one more thing, it is more negativity. so if i am starting a third party because i am sick of the republican party and i'm mad at them for doing something, that will necessarily be part of my platform. it is part of the third-party candidate, like the governorship of minnesota about a decade ago now. it really means that you have a critical mass of people taking a

chance on an individual that really doesn't have a structure around him. >> host: kellyanne conway and stefan hankin are joining us from new york. and as an e-mail at c-span.org, also, let's begin with kellyanne conway, you're also keeping a close eye on the virginia governor and below the polls, some say in "the washington post", putting von macdonald on the race sideline. right about now, he was supposed to be in the thick of the race to succeed this. leading rallies for his fellow republicans and kendra tonelli is the second and he is the most watched in virginia and macdonald is an outcast, and it should've put it potential legacy and instead he is nowhere

to be seen. >> guest: it is so important. especially to be out there and say vote for this guy. virginia has a very low unemployment rate compared to some in the region and frank across the country. it's not that the guy isn't out there and pushing this by a significant amount when he won the governorship. but it's that he can also be there saying that if you want four more years of economic time, we had a parade and we have had everyone from hillary clinton to governor mike huckabee and governor nikki

haley. we covered a number of folks who are honored to be looking at this end would have been looking at that as well. this was something that showed difficulty earlier this week and it's true that ken cuccinelli has suffered an extreme amount of bad luck. he was the first in the nation to sue over obamacare years ago and basically lost his voice box on until recently and he could've been out there talking about obamacare and basically saying, i told you so, look at all the glitches and problems and we should have done been more careful with something this massive this quickly. >> host: you can certainly check out senator rand paul with ken cuccinelli. at first, the reaction of the governor's race. >> i am candidate for governor,

terry mcauliffe. >> 150,000 virginians can be furloughed. >> 3600 employees. >> is supposed to campaign with ted cruz. he is seen as an architect is what is happening in the house, and that can really upset a lot of people and voters. >> for governor, who can you trust to create jobs? one of virginia's most important business pac says that their pick is ken cuccinelli, "the washington post" reports that they have found ken cuccinelli precise and serious and detail oriented. while terry mcauliffe was uninformed. no details, all [bleep]. this is a serious time in virginia deserves a serious governor.

>> i am ken cuccinelli and i sponsor this ad. >> host: we really show that those two advertisements and calculate the negative tone. >> guest: yes, i seen this before and i'm trying hard to remember when the two candidates were so unpopular with just about everyone. and i think it is interesting they basically anointed him as the candidate and there was actually a primary, i think the numbers showed that the governor of virginia, bill bowling, he would be about number four right now. what's happening with the current governor is that he is sidelined. what he could be doing out there is a very popular governor before all of these problems surfaced. so it ken cuccinelli is sort of putting his arm around him and i think that ultimately that would

have helped him. and i think that the fact that we have a libertarian candidate on the ballot as well. five and 6%, and that comes right out of the pocket of ken cuccinelli. >> host: an election is a week from tuesday. we have brian from new york city online for, the independents. brian, are you supporting a third-party? >> no, i am not. >> host: please go ahead with your question. the form is yours. >> caller: thank you. i consider myself an independent because i'm disappointed in the establishment. i am a ted cruz supporter and i might tell you that i think the remember me. my name is brian and i called in for 26 years to c-span. and after 26 years, i believe there was a woman named susan, i

had objected to reverend al sharpton is a race proper care, and suddenly i was beyond. if you ban all conservatives, you only have a little program here, so i want to make that statement. >> host: you are never man, you're not banned now. we are glad to hear from you. please continue. >> caller: thank you. i could not get through. the phone rang, but they hung up and didn't answer. >> host: but we have you on today, so please continue. >> caller: thank you very much. i hope that i can reach you in the future. kellyanne conway, i think that a lot of times the republican post is do not ask the questions, i don't think that they do. why don't you ask the republicans were all voters what you call -- that there was a

government shutdown and negotiation between both ted cruz that was smeared by the left-wing news media in between him and the tea party on the one side and then you had president obama and the administration. they were in negotiation and it is equally true. it's equally true that that negotiation and the questions would've been asked if president obama had agreed to delay obamacare with the government, would it remain open. the answer to that question is yes. so the president refuses to negotiate even though we see what a terrible mistake that was and then the republicans are blamed for shutting down the government. two sides are negotiating. and so it is not blamed for the

problem. i am signing off. >> host: thank you and the only thing we don't tolerate on air are racial slurs or derogatory comments, but otherwise, it is an open foreign, so no one is beyond. kellyanne conway, let's turn to you. >> guest: i think that a new york city man that is calling himself a ted cruz supporter as an independent candidate, calling on the independent line, that is very interesting. ted cruz certainly did a very successful tour of iowa this weekend. there are also people that have been supporters of mayor michael

bloomberg for 12 years now. i have actually always said -- president george w. bush, certainly president obama, i think the wrong question to ask is who do you blame to shut down the government so i don't think most americans but this on. they are looking for solutions and what is the best way to ensure this doesn't happen again. but although the republicans are blamed, if i'm president obama and i am a democrat, i can't look at these phone numbers and claim a huge victory that will bring a majority of the house in 2014. why is that? because they share some of the blame and i think the republicans have missed a tremendous opportunity and if that they will be blamed for the shutdown, they should have said that we only shutdown in this

way and the government, and they did not do that. yet i think that looking towards 2014, it is tough for me to see how the shutdown of the government translates into some kind of democrats in the house. but what americans do not like and many of them call themselves independents, they do not like overreach. many think they are reaching too far into radically and then they slap it back. that is what 1994 was about in 2006 and 2010 and 2014 as well. >> host: two points to share, first of all, this is a tweet from one of our viewers, i vote for whatever party can get the job done. hold spending down, none of this has happened in the last six years. i want to follow-up on your take with this comment because ted cruz was in des moines, iowa.

and he points out that no politician can spend a weekend in iowa with your political visitors, bringing along your spouse, but he do that. he is focused with the senate, and he did have this to say about the republican party and moving ahead. >> this fight is worth it. [applause] >> for one thing, it is the path to victory. they love talking about republicans and it's interesting. you have well-meaning folks.

giving advice on how the republican party can handle this. it's a little bit like taking health care advice they are not desiring the same outcome that you are desiring. and we need to unify and come together, and let me tell you that growth and freedom are principles and ideas that unify entire republic. they are principles and ideals that unify this delicate community with the liberty movement and the business community and growth and freedom bring together main street and the tea party. if we get back to our core principles, that is how you reassemble and keep strong, a

ronald reagan three-legged stool. >> host: kellyanne conway, let's all the diverse five. so where does ted cruz take this? >> let me just say this about ted cruz, i think it's really important to remember how he got where he is. he beat the establishment and there was a crowded primary for the open seat for kay bailey hutchison and he likes to tell this story that he was 2% in the first polls that were taken and he he worried about that, and then he talked about this in iowa over the weekend. then we had david dewhurst, he beat him in the runoff despite dewhurst, his establishment and

carl rosen and the rest of them throwing in $40 million at ted cruz. the point i am making is that unlike many politicians to come to washington, we beat them. unlike barack obama, to become president of the united states and the freedom to go out there, we have that kind of freedom. it is someone who is acting on principle, he's willing to take on this. but as far as senator ted cruz and many others out there, he really has a constitutional conservatism and it's hard to see how anyone from washington

will be able to have as much of a resonant message for americans than a lot of the governors out there. the chief executives at a really presiding over your over your personal liberties and your pocketbook issues and you have a bunch of governors in the midwest and in new jersey, certainly you have governors doing things like cutting taxes and setting up these health exchanges and they will have a lot more to say to the american people and i think that senator cruise is getting ahead of that. >> host: let's speak with stefan hankin, he is a graduate of the university of massachusetts. >> guest: yes, it's very interesting. i'm not sure what to make of ted cruz. he got a lot of attention and he raised a lot of money. but when you look at the numbers and the favorability for the

affordable healthcare act, it went up about five points during the shutdown and the republicans went back to something like low 30s, high 20s on capability, which is located bang. the democrats are doing a much better, but they are doing better. and we are seeing the majority of young people with a portal health care act as well. so basically the numbers are showing that it's the opposite of what the republicans were going for, although it was very good for ted cruz. now what i don't quite see is when you look at where the country is going demographically, i don't see how ted cruz has the country is going demographically, i don't see how ted cruz has an argument for how he could somehow get to the 270 electoral votes in 2016. i don't see a path for him at all. and so if we do some math, if it's clear that it doesn't add up. i'm not sure if he's running for president or if he wants to be governor of texas in four years

or six years. that is his call. >> host: let's check in with kellyanne conway quickly. you think he will run for president? >> guest: i do not know. he could. i think he has been public about the thinking, you can basically do what ronald reagan did between 1976 and 1981. you take this directly to the people, which is what senator ted cruz seems to be doing. i just want to say that i slightly disagree with how ted cruz is doing this. if you think about him in the republican party is the nominee, i could tell that that will be a big difference. whether it is senator ted cruz

and he's in his early 40s or the fact that he is hispanic. i have been sitting on panels, including with his father, rafe all, all that has given him and his family, it's an amazing story that if he did run for president, he could become a household version across the country he goes ahead for the next 10 or 20 or 30 years, that is the republican party trying to make that up in an electoral college type of way than 2016 and thereafter on the republican ticket, i do think it would awaken plenty of young people that call themselves independents and those who appreciate that story that is truly incredible.

>> host: we are here today with stefan hankin, a democratic pollster and kellyanne conway, a republican pollster. we have shown on the independent line from washington dc. >> caller: yes, my question is for kellyanne conway, and if the party goes too far to the left or right, speaking of the democrats and the republicans, the voters were then turn against him because they just went too far from the center. as far as the aca is concerned, i don't think the republicans have an alternative because the aca is a republican health care plan and it started out heritage foundation and was put forth during the clinton administration and if you think about the individual mandate, that was one of the things that

you insisted upon because he did not want any freeloaders. >> host: thank you for the call. >> guest: this is where the democrats have kind of lost the messaging. now that a democrat had put this forward, everything that is wrong with america, and i find it interesting that conservatives should be doing some victory laps as well and is basically a conservative idea and it was $20 billion offer where paul ryan's budget is. they should be running with what the big victory flag is, but it

is overshadowing everything that is going on, which i find a little bit off. >> i just want to say that republicans did not vote to shut down the government. 144 republicans voted not to reopen the government, that the government was reopened with about 80 republicans and the rest of the democrats. and the majority of the republicans voted against them and it doesn't really make sense. ..

with the affordable care act i think there were 100 amendments that were put to that fact that then pretended they were going to vote for it and then in the end they did not on purpose. also the other thing is that the republicans essentially tried to shut down the government the night of the president's first term. remember 15 republicans, top republicans met to determine how to -- his presidency and that's well-documented. the people who were there have talked about that. the other point i want to make was no i don't think we need a third party. also the gallup poll is that the same poll that said the

president was not going to win? >> host: thanks for the call. a lot there. stefan hankin we will start with you. >> guest: yes gallup got their polls wrong but they have done good work over many years. yeah i think you know certainly i think a lot of what we are hearing from callers is pointing to the dysfunctidysfuncti onal yet going on in washington right now and this is why we are seeing when it asked congress overall i think the approval level and kellyanne correct me if i'm wrong is that 10 or nine which john mccain said are now family members and friends at this point in time. we are also seeing over majority close to 60 print -- % saying they would like to vote the entire congress out including their own member of congress. this is a new phenomenon because people usually like their own member but now we are seeing the majority of folks who say get rid of them all and start over and lets you it happens. >> host: let me follow up with this headline the comments of

debbie wasserman schultz of florida democratic representative in the chair of the dnc says democrats will run on the affordable care act and we will win. >> guest: a i think we have to. this is the news of the day. this is the major piece of legislation and i think we have a winning argument at the end of the day if you do it right. now i think it's a nice thing to hear because one thing we have been arguing his democrats need to start having a positive vision of what's going on out there. we have been mainly running on how that republicans are and not sure how much lower republican numbers can go. while republicans are at somewhere around 30% approval democrats are only in the low 40s and the best high 40s. it's time for the democrats to start focusing on the equation and that is how we start winning back some seats although i agree with what kellyanne said earlier. i don't quite see a path to the

democrats taking over the house. there are 234 republicans in the house right now and 231 according to charlie cook's and capping are solid to safe republican seat so i think the democrats -- anything could happen. we have picked up a handful of seats but i don't see us getting to the 218 needed to get over. >> host: kellyanne conway how well are the memories from people with regard to the shutdown? >> guest: we didn't do tend to vote on the here and now even if we are holding a grudge as voters by the affordable care act is here now and especially i hope she follows through on her promise debbie wasserman schultz running the affordable care act and she said they have run on the affordable care act in 2010 and loss. it's why and how the other kinds reached the congress and that's incontrovertible.

in the beginning of the obama administration would they -- obamacare was the tipping point. for the first time since pollsters have been tracking at more women voted republican than democrat first time ever. and yet women favor president obama in 2008 by 13 points in 2012 by 11 points. when president obama is not on the ballot obamacare is women who are the chief health care officers up their households control two out of every three health care dollars spent in the nation they recoil and they require long before we had computer glitches and long before saturday night live was skewering the affordable care act and long before jon stewart was saying even that calculator doesn't work. every computer has had a calculator since 1972. actually it's no laughing matter. if the democrats think they are going to sell the affordable care act i think that's a huge

-- let me also comment on something that we have been talking about that stuff unmentioned. there's also in the "washington post" this incredible insight that i hadn't seen. i have been voting for 25 years and for the first time in 24 years more americans disapprove than approve of their own member in congress. that really is a remarkable number because the old song as aye i hate the whole congress that i love my member of congress. that may no longer be the case. the fact is there were so many entrenched safe districts that will be difficult to operate them notwithstanding public disapproval of their performance. >> host: ronald says the summit crater page and you can join in on the conversation at c-span w. j. and k.. tea party all the way! another perspective 2016 candidate former sec restate hillary clinton spoke at the center for in progress and spoke and we show this headline earlier from politico.

she spoke saying there needs to be what she calls a robust discussion on the balance between privacy and security with regard to report of u.s. eavesdropping on phone conversations and climbing -- including german chancellor angela merkel. i want to show an excerpt of this and come back to you stefan and ask whether cap has become the think-tank for democratic candidates in 2014 and 2016. here is a portion. >> i well remember when john and sarah wartell first came to see me about this new idea they were working on, a progressive think-tank that would stand up and fight back in a city that had a lot of think-tanks on the other side of the aisle. that would champion our values, develops smart policies based on sound research and scholarship and then would abdicate and engage in the public debate.

at the same time, we have been talking about how we could see this happen. we were brought working on the very same idea and at the end of the clinton administration i knew that if we didn't have an infrastructure in place to continue to build on what had been accomplished and to hold the line on any efforts at retrenchment we would not be doing our job. >> host: stefan let me ask you much like the heritage foundation has been part of an infrastructure for republicans is center for american progress the counterpart to the democrats and if so how so? >> guest: the center for american progress is a large urbanization and they're putting out i think a lot of thoughtful pieces. clearly from the view of the let. their other groups out there like third way that is moderate democratic think-tank putting out great ideas and we have done some work for them. it's not just a plug for a

client and i think both groups are putting out very interesting pieces. this is sort of a counter action on on the infrastructure in the republican side with heritage and aei although i find it interesting where at least in my opinion heritage they used to find was very thoughtful place. i disagreed with a lot of what came out of it but it was very thoughtful and they moved much more to a political frame and with putting jim demint in charge of things they are now in the primary so they have to change their stripes on a lot of the big thinkers whether conservative libertarian what have you had been pushed out the door. heritage has really taken on sort of a whole new look. aei at least from my viewpoint seems to be moving into a more big thinker on the republican side. we have to happen and we have third way for the democrats both putting out ideas from a slightly different angle with

the democratic coalition. >> host: kellyanne conway let me ask you former senator rick santorum who ran in 20121 in 10 primary states. the piece is called rick santorum is still out there. does he have a viable path to be considered a serious candidate in 2016? >> guest: well he is still out there. we will see what he he does in 2014 also on how many candidates want him to be next to them. is he helpful to them? i have always said that should be an affirmative criterion who should lead the party and who think they have a serious chance to be republican nominee for president. where were you when other candidates needed your help and you wouldn't necessarily be in the hospital -- i also think what senator santorum did in 2012 is a

cautionary tale for everyone in that for example he saw he had lost new hampshire and south carolina and he won iowa but found out a little too late and decided winner-take-all so there was a real battle between newt gingrich and so senator santorum left. he picked up stakes and went to states where nobody else was to win those states. i think that again is out of the 2008 barack obama playbook when he competed not these noniowa states where the clinton machine didn't have as much of a presence so he was able to take the case directly to the people. i actually think there will be more of a crowded field to social conservatives in the race in 2016 and i hope whoever runs does take an opportunity to ask does the democratic party as the extreme party on abortion. it's about time we had that conversation. that conversation was missed in virginia last year which is a shame because terry mcauliffe is head of the dnc.

its official platform is abortion no restrictions no exceptions. most americans believe there should need restrictions for selection purposes and the eighth or ninth month without the life of the mother situation. i do want to mention something about hillary clinton and center for american progress. it's astonishing to me that this is a chairman of the station of how the core democratic party has become bill clinton ascending to a leadership position and eventually eventually the presidency of the united states through the democratic leadership coalition. the acronym was dlc and that no longer exist. they were known as the moderate democratic centerleft democratic and it no longer exists. it's been replaced by the center for in progress. you have bill clinton winning as a moderate democrat and hillary clinton saying thank unless there is this progressive out right now.

i think that's going to be difficult for her if she tries to run just appealing to progressives. she will have a lot competition by andrew cuomo martin o'malley and certainly elizabeth warren. it shows you the different democratic parties in the early 90s and 2013. >> host: kellyanne conway joining us from new york and stefan hankin shinkman keeping track of comments on our face that page bailout of you weighing in on our initial question about third-party politics and there's this from bunny who said would you support a third-party? absolutely not. we ended up with cheney. i mean bush-cheney publicly financed elections is the answer get the money out. let's go to john from westhaven connecticut republican line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. my comment is that democrats passed a 2000 page bill to try to resolve our health care issues in america which is disrespect to the american citizens.

if they really cared about helping people for health insurance they would have passed a reasonable provide a solution to the problem. might question to the democratic pollster is this thing past four years ago. we are just talking about the web site. have somebody that's in charge with rules and regulations in place early enough to program and test and my question is why didn't president obama know that and have that in place four years ago? why are we talking about what should've been done four years ago? >> host: thanks for the call. >> guest: first of all there is no denying the fact that this has been a disaster of a rollout and i think kellyanne mention this earlier but i'm not an i.t. guy and i don't know the ins and outs of programming but it's a

little surprising it wasn't set up similar to when you get a mortgage and you put in your basic mortgage to get an approximate verse and its rate of what you are going to have to pay for and only when you are signing up are you giving your actual information. if you buy it you buy it up front that's your problem so the other problem is with the shutdown numbers moving in favor the democrats if this rollout had gone well that democrats would be flying high and not basically anything that democrats have gained from the shutdown when it comes to public opinion is probably taking a few checks back and we have to wait a week or so before we start seeing the numbers there. also remember that the bill passed four years ago but the state hadn't decided if they would become part of the federal plan or do their own plan. a lot of states with republican governors dragged their feet and took a long time deciding on whether or not they would be part of the federal plan or not and what we are seeing is the state plans are working well.

california and here in d.c.. i signed up my firm with no problem and it took me 15 minutes. we will say $1500 or more a month on health care which is great for small business and that's before he kind of tax breaks. i'm personally tickled pink with how it worked out but clearly what's happening on the federal level needs to be addressed in the white house clearly knows it. they had better get on top of it soon and get this thing worked out by the end of november like they said or else it's going to be along 2014. >> host: kellyanne conway pointed out the latest from the "washington post" poll and we want to put some other numbers from the screen for you to look at. when looking at the midterm elections next year would you vote to reelect your representative in 2014. 24% said yes. 66% the said they would look around and 4% said it depends. 6% had no opinion. let's go to barry from covington england. >> caller: you just quoted 66%

would look around. the one advantage of a third-party would be that it would take support from republicans and the democrats and the sitting members wouldn't feel as safe. >> host: thanks for the call. let me use your point and go to the other part of the abc poll. when asked which party do you blame for the government shutdown as we look at the numbers 29% blame the republicans, 12% blame the democrats and kellyanne conway 54% say both are responsible. >> guest: right. that's the thing. it goes to my point about 2016. the people that we didn't hear much from during the shutdown for the governors and 30 of whom are republicans. when voters in the states go to

elect the chief executive of their state where most of the action that affects them as is occurring they by and large vote for republican governors. that is causation and not coincidence. i think there is an excitement in washington where a majority are saying all of them are blame for not getting to the negotiating table early enough can cost in a plan to begin with acting like you didn't manner and look their worst drawn visual and it does that would persist whether it's the world war ii veterans trying to get to their memorial and we have other examples. i think those will be more persistent in the american consciousness then taking the government shutdown and having it be a huge issue in 2014. i think what will persist clearly is the affordable care act. the head of the dnc has said as much and she and i hope it will be but also we are going to get back to the storm created before

the government shutdown which is president obama is elected as a second term president and finding himself in a little bit of a pickle over syria and certainly over the nsa and the irs targeting and others. those won't go away anytime soon especially angela merkel perhaps the most powerful woman in the world. herself saying this is a compromise between german and u.s. relations and if in fact it's true that this government has been eavesdropping on her calls. we don't know its true right now but is president obama is seen as just another politician or diminishing our profile in the world that would go against frankly what has been his ranch distinction along. >> host: stefan hankin i wanted to follow up on what kellyanne was saying. this is from brett.

moderate republicans may defect to the democrats have challenged by the tea party in primaries and i put -- >> guest: i agree with the caveat and this is what i talked about earlier that the democrats and a positive vision of what they stand for. if you look at the republican party broadly he sort of tend to have three groups and you have your evangelicals. you have your tea party and your moderate or establishment republicans and i'm generalizing obviously but certainly they're not going to be winning the tea party votes so they will be your more moderate establishment republicans. they need to have a place to land in and if they don't feel comfortable with voting for democrats in 2014 really all the negativity towards the tea party that's out there with a lot of democratic voters and voters in general their favorability is at 30% where the republican party is right now, it doesn't do much good. i would really like to see the

democratdemocrat s doing a lot more reaching out to the business community from the standpoint of not just look up at the tea party is for you but this template if we want to work with you and start creating jobs and we are going to be much friendlier to your needs. where's karting to give you budges the go out 10 years and not just months or you can make plans for future hiring in things like that. until that democrats make a safe landing spot i don't see a large amount of republicans coming over to make a difference in 2014. >> host: one point from john on our facebook page. some people are confusing the tea party for a third-party. the tea party he says is a faction of the gop that has been taken over by social conservatives and neocons. a third-party for example would be socially liberal fiscally conservative like the libertarian party. kellyanne conway you brought up a couple of times what's happening across the river in new jersey at governors race by all of counts showing governor

chris christie in the lead according to the polls but getting some flack for the possibility of running for president by his democratic challenger. here's the latest on the air. >> he said it couldn't be done. new jersey was too broken to partisan but then they never had chris christie. working with the parties he made tough decisions. for balance budgets no new taxes for anyone wasteful spending cut, a cap on property taxes. the best job of in decades. the most education funding ever. when tragedy struck he was there every step of the way. chris christie, the governor. >> i'm barber blue nile. the only one running for governor. chris christie has his sights set on the republicrepublic an presidential primary. that's why he defunded planned parenthood opposes abortion rights vetoed marriage and stands with the gun lobby on background checks with 400,000 new jerseyans out of work and poverty rate at a 50 year high

christie raise taxes on the working poor but won't ask millionaires to pay another dime he wants to be president. i want to be your governor. >> host: stefan hankin we will begin with you a quick summary of the race in these ads. >> guest: i would a shock to see anything other than christie winning handily in the mid-50's and in a couple of weeks. he's incredibly popular and for a blue state he clearly on a local level has been doing nicely of making people of both parties comfortable with him. as is ed points out he has a solid record to be running on and you know this isn't the first time the governor has been hit on the fact that they might be thinking about running for president. we have 50 governors and 35 have had those thoughts and the other few just do it at home when they talk to their wives or others. so it's interesting.

what happens in 2016 if he does run, as kellyanne said if we want people running on the strong social conservative side if christie tries to do a little bit of blood romney did that does it better by saying look, i can keep getting those moderate establishment republicans then i will win every state with 30% of the vote but i won't try to come far right conservative just to appease people who will not vote for me in the primaries. that would position himself well for the general election also i still think the math is very difficult for any republican running going forward unless the republicans can change the way the demographics are trending in this country which doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon. >> host: kellyanne conway you brought up snl and the presidents health care law last night on saturday night live. kathleen sebelius the hhs

secretary of the testifying this week on capitol hill was characterized in this skit. >> and now a message from the department of health and human services. >> hello there. i am kathleen sebelius secretary of health under president obama. now a lot of folks have been talking about our our new health care enrollment web site and how it's been crashing and freezing and shutting down and stalling and not working and breaking and. tonight i have a number of friendly tips to help you do with those technical problems. for example have you tried restarting your computer? sometimes it helps to turn the computer off and then turn it back on. we don't know why, it just does. if our web site still isn't loading properly we are probably just overloaded with traffic, millions of americans are visiting health terror --

healthcare.gov which is great news. unfortunately the site was only designed to handle six users at a time. so if you are in a rush, consider using our web site with simpler fonts and graphics. or if a regular english site isn't working try signing up in a different language like say icelandic. and then choose one of four simple plans. now that's fun. and if the site keeps freezing we have provided links to other helpful web sites such as kayak.com. where you can purchase airline tickets to canada and buy cheaper prescription drugs. >> host: kellyanne conway you

talked about that earlier. your reaction? >> guest: president obama has lost late night comedians and late-night talk-show host in "the daily show" all of these places who have been very comfortable and welcoming him over the years and it tells you that folks across the spectrum are very concerned and obviously the word again astonished by the complete failure. i'm so appreciative appreciative of my honest democratic colleague stephan saying the disaster of the rollout of obamacare. it's no laughing matter. it's the same young people 18 to 35-year-olds who "usa today" says is 2.7 million of them would need to enroll in obamacare for it to work to compensate for the chronic and older folks who made be in the system. if those are the same people watching the characterization of obamacare and kathleen sebelius in this way then why in the

world with a buy that product or that service? we need a quick note on new jersey. the governor will have my vote again. he's going bennett rate governor for new jersey and i don't see any problem with adding the run is heading now. it's a very positive ad. any candidate who can and his or her campaign on a positive note i would point out like i said earlier this whole nonsense in arbor 79's add where she talks about abortion and gun lobby. if you took this together and added them up in new jersey you don't get to 15% of the top priorities in new jersey. i'm so tired when -- a similar ad saying doug will protect a woman's right to choose. i'm sure that's important to some folks but the polls always show that women like men care most about the economy jobs in obamacare and health care and certainly education. can we stop insulting women in thinking all they can do is vote on the so-called women's issues?

in 25 years in politics i have never heard the word men's issues, not once ever. >> guest: on a lot of things i agree with what kellyanne is saying. if you are ending on a negative note you are probably going to be the one who is winning and i would be shocked to see anything other than 55 or 56% for christie. >> host: stefan hankin and kellyanne conway joining us from new york. to both of you thank you very much for being with us. >> when my grandfather visited independence which is 26 miles from where he lived at the time and grandview in 1910 he often stayed across the street at the nolan house which is where his aunt in and his two cousins lived. one afternoon he was over there with his cousins with the family and his aunt brought in a cake plate that my great-grandmother

madge wallace -- madge gates wallace had given her a cake and mrs. noland had cleaned the cake plate and was asking if anybody would take it back over. my grandfather moved with what my mother once described as something approaching the speed of light and grab the cake plate and ran over here and rang the bell on the front door in the hope of course of my grandmother would answer the door and she did. she invited him in and that's the beginning of their formal courtship in 1910.

a host of this week on "the communicators" we are joined by steven berry the president and ceo of the competitive carriers association. mr. berry welcome. we are also joined by paul barbagallo of limburg bna serves as their managing editor. thanks for coming along to map. mr. berry to start with the competitive carriers association how to describe it to friends? >> guest: i describe it as everyone other than the two largest wireless carriers. there were over 100 wireless carriers in the united states and we represent from sprint to t-mobile down to the smallest carriers in the united states and there may not be the normal