disruption coming before anyone lost them before the money went out the door, before there was any threat. but we'll never know what would've happened because the obama administration tonight sees the ability to veto the law is unpopular in mandate and disenfranchise voters who voted in state elections out of opposition to this law. in addition, americans voted in 2012 as if they were not in keeping hold the thought that would expose the full cost of force congress to reopen it in the irs is still influencing the 2014 congressional races been held next week because candidates decided whether to run this year and voters will vote this year as if the gaping hole does not exist, the law commerce enacted from our popular and successful than it actually is. so had the administration followed the law come the fact 36 states exercise the toes would've led to changes in the

law and possibly changes in congress and the fact he didn't is a much more greater form of disruption and what is threatened, what could possibly happen to the individual markets in 36 states if the plaintiffs in lawsuits prevail because that also is a result of the president's decision to ignore the texas statute. finally, handing out and making subsidies available to 7 million people dependent on subsidies also makes it less likely judges one force the clear language of the law because as an attorney at the center for american progress noted, judges are much less likely to rule for the plaintiffs in these cases if it means taking subsidies. judges are human beings. they would want to do that. and what are the reasons and

mammals came out and said one of the reasons the administration and its reporters are pursuing a strategy of delaying cases is because they are hoping that effect will influence the courts decision. put another way, they hope that will prejudice the quarter, which is how the virus rule could also potentially disrupt judiciary. so no matter which side you believe, the potential for disruption grows over time. if you believe the government's narrative, then if the courts take to resolve these cases, the more potential disruption because the more people will become more dependent on the subsidies. if you believe the plaintiffs narrative, delaying the federal government would continue to tax environment spend billions of dollars congress never authorized and subsidies will make millions of people

dependent with the iris will continue to make millions of people dependent on subsidies that could disappear or as the next president to feel like making it disappear in taxes will suppress worker incomes and players at the lake of fire. to matter which side you believe here, if you want to reduce the potential disruption in the irs will for these losses, you want a quick resolution of these cases. thank you. [applause] >> okay. so we are going to go to questions here in just a minute. before we do, i want to establish doom and gloom, chaos, catastrophe on the side of the table in the event of the history. >> well, there is one caveat. i honestly believe if it carries today, then there will be as tom

said, there will be much more pressure on the near poor to actually vote. that may be enough to swing some elections in certain states. those 12, 15 states that are doing fine will continue to do fine. it would be a sad day. >> medicaid model would be operational. >> in six months. >> on the side of the table, they would negotiate. >> it would be bad, but much better than what we've got right now. >> for people. >> yes, because right now we've got a president administration that thinks it can tax and borrow and extend. they will lose the subsidies.

my response to that scenario. assuming the subsidies come at the subsidies are not authorized by statute, should they continue to get subsidy. [inaudible] >> that supports my theory that people would vote in a different way. >> i want to hear. >> you don't get to set the way back machine all the way back. >> could you guys use the mic like >> i like to ask a question. listening to the remarks which i found helpful. the concern i have and i think most of the audience know i'm an obamacare critic. i'm not in the fan club. the way you fix obamacare is

republicans need to win two elections and we need to have regular order. at a time they get to 2017, we will know where obamacare is. if we are right, that will become crystal clear and there'll be imperative to change it. the 2016 elections will be taking place at the time people see the 2017 race, which is the first time to stay stands on its own. you need to go through the congressional process. there are proposals conservatives made that the 2017 proposals in so far as and if you fix it for the political process, it will be fixed in a way you have a soft landing. in other words, they will get read of the stuff that doesn't work in change to the new way of doing things and people won't get screwed. you're just going to have blood in the streets. instead of a scoop by a moment like we all live in colorado, what will happen is the democrats say the mean-spirited

republicans and they will it mean-spirited republicans because two attorneys general are here today and i think they are republicans. they couldn't change the sought the right way, so they try to get it through the courts. the other side will be the question i want to ask michael is the other side will say wait a second. this thing was deeply flawed. we were going to do more damage if we continue with it in all 50 states and therefore we needed to bring the suit. michael, what i just heard you say is this suit is about getting obamacare. >> no, actually -- they may correct me if i'm on some i'm on come on but that's what i heard you say. >> no, it's about upholding obamacare. >> this is the way we need to change obamacare. it's bad in all 50 states. as bad as obamacare is, what we have right now is much worse.

is as obamacare. >> i don't know how to explain it. >> you are an obamacare. >> sure. it's no secret i vote this law and persuaded states and implement the law and i was doing not because i think this law is on balance harmful for patients and workers and the economy and so forth. but when the irs issued its final rule, saying that it would offer tax credits and car sharing subsidies and in effect impose the employer mandate an individual mandate where they did not authorize it to do so, besides being about obamacare and starts being about something much, much bigger, which is the rule of law and whether the president can tax environment spend without congressional

authorization. it happens to be about a health care issue, it ends so, the irony here is the people who are suing the federal government now are actually all pretty much opponents of this law. but they have more respect for obamacare than the president himself does because he think he can as they said tax environment spend money but the statute does not authorize them. >> okay, let's let the audience asks him questions. so we are going to raise hands and wait for a microphone and please announce your name and affiliation. over here. >> may be just a help you out with the vocabulary, maybe you

should distinguish between obamacare, which is whatever the obama administration implemented the aca, which is what the statute says. you could say you are staring to stop obamacare and implement the aca. having made that vocabulary suggested i get to my question. if you read the statue, which some of us have actually done, it seems pretty clear the statute says subsidies and penalties are over here and not there. the administration said we don't think that's fair so what are you do something different. if the supreme court comes and says he has implement the statue, what is to stop the administration from saying okay, the supreme court made its decision but that's not fair, so you're sober going to do in potentially remove the issue by saying all right, we are not going to implement taxes and penalties in those states, but we'll still give people subsidies and they are not often as by law and asked the supreme

court said you can't do it, but we know better and this is really what it supposed to be, so we would go ahead and do it. how do we know that is not going to happen? >> 40% approval rating on its way to 25. that is how. >> the reason the president has been able to get away with the ways he has unilaterally rewritten as law, there were a girl with the employer mandate and the waivers to the mandates of years ago. the enough for his subsidies to members of congress, defined as a small business or getting it into employees into a shop exchange. the reason his alleged to get away with these things is twofold. one, generally known and two, there's enough members of his own party, congress who will support the move and can't do anything to reign him in. as tom said, if it's approval rating is even further, the second dynamic will change.

because they're identifiable plainness, people with identifiable injuries under the irs rule, they'll be able to challenge the provision of the quarter. [inaudible] >> well, right. they lose their standing, so the only constraint there would be political. congress would have to do something in the question becomes how much will congress put up with? the question becomes how much will congress put up with from the president and so far it seems that quite a lot so i can say congress wouldn't let him get away with it, too. >> to institutional bodies raid against them rather than one would be the net effect of that move in addition to the change in public decision. you could get away with a lot of nonsense. there are boundary lines on this. nixon discovered that among others, okay? >> which raises my point, it seems to me that michael really wanted what he is trying to

argue for, but the argument needs me to the conclusion that we're all here is to impeach obama. godspeed. go ahead. i have no problem with that. what i have a problem with is the continued assertion that the only interpretation of the aca is the interpretation waged by the majority of the d.c. circuit. to me, the logic down in richmond, god love them, is pretty clear. there's two ways to look at it. either the statute is clear or it's not. if it's not clear use the chevron test in the chevron test easy to exactly where the fourth circuit ended up, which was this thing is ambiguous. when it's ambiguous, we give the executive authority to interpret the confines of the interpretation is within the confines of the ambiguity, we are done here because we are not going to re-legislate. that is the interpretation working its way through the

court. i don't know which way the supreme court will rule, but that's almost a separate question to let the obama administration is trying to implement, which may skirt the level of what you all would consider impeachable. i don't know. i'll leave that to higher minds. what i'm worried about and what i know was when congress passes law, there was no question in anybody's mind who was on the committees that wrote it, but he intended to deny the subsidies to the people of the united states. whether the feds or the states -- >> say mr. of medicaid. everyone agrees that the conditional program. >> michael, i'm trying to make a point and if you ask max baucus or anybody else on march 11th if this is an issue, they say what are you talking about? of course. what i love about the way you make this case is you are going

to basically say that presidents misinterpreting the law, which is essentially an argument about a typo. max baucus would have fixed this if i had a conference and that would've been nine. i just don't think that's the issue. the issue is you want to impeach the guy, okay, fine. let's talk about implementing health reform and subsidies maters of the united states. >> does anyone else have a question? yes, sir. >> okay, so we are four and a half hours into this and nobody has said the word massachusetts yet. and isn't the real problem that they put forth the law in massachusetts and they just thought he could pick it up and jam it down the throats of the other states. is not the real problem we have here? >> no. >> no, no. the real problem is a slight majority in congress here supported the logic of the massachusetts law. there are differences in the

laws. and a slight minority opposed it quite vehemently. the real problem is when the inability to agree in the finance committee on any kind of bipartisan nature of the conversation, those worlds split away got out of regular order and we've been in this mess ever since. that's the real problem. we have a fundamental disagreement about whether the federal government should be strong enough to create all its people access to health care. we should settle that in my opinion in the political sphere. >> which we will do. >> or that we are needed. i want to return to a point that bob made, which is bob, you adopted the government's narrative, which is we should fight the political sphere, not in the core. actually, the plaintiffs agreed they believe we have 35% in the

political sphere because the statute gives states the power to block two legs of the three megastore, the american people have rendered their judgment on the spot. the question i thought about getting my remarks with his what if the american people defeated the thought that the president implemented it anyway? that is what is happening here. the president is trying to achieve by executive fiat what he was not able to achieve through the political process. he was not able to get through congress any billick said one that gives states the power to block two legs of the three megastore. >> you be medicaid quick >> the regulatory scheme for the private insurance market, the three legs of the store at a preexisting condition permission from individual mandate and subsidies. states cannot cut the mandate i am large and the subsidies completely. and then they were not able to get states to go along with that. if they had followed the law, as

i said we would've had a much different today. it would've been a lot of defections from the slot, which is a would be revealed to be more costly and less workable than the president had been pretending it was. he's pretending he passed a bill he couldn't get through congress. as i say, trying to achieve by fiat what he could not achieve through his political process. the plaintiffs are trying to get us to have the debate we should have had years ago when there would've been any dislocation, but now there will be in the fall for that lies of the administration. >> big problem here is if we didn't know it already, politics and constitutional law don't mix. i mean, you've got legitimate constitutional law issues here at rule of law issues here. no doubt about that. the politics of this if this goes through are just devastating. there is a point when i think you have to sit back and say

what if we plan? then why? >> that's what i say. read on. >> i have to estimate the question. do you agree that this is essentially a typo, that congress did not intend to never discuss the possibility? way, because i was there and i actually agree with len, that they contemplated the idea that the subsidies would not be available to everyone? >> it was never discussed. that doesn't mean it was never contemplated that there's no evidence except for a couple things about that. the first is to say this was a drafting error. the government has never argued that in court and there's a reason because it's not credible. the tax credit eligibility rules in the statute are very clear. jonathan adler watched her in the last panel. the plans eligible for tax credit and the people all jubal for tax, the premium and the

reading area all have been through the change established by the state. nothing unclear about it. in fact, if you get a proponent of the governments position to voice an opinion on the tax credit eligibility rules, they will save those for clear. so when you have multiple uses, it's not a typo. not a drafting error. >> that is not a drafting error. as far as whether anyone discuss this or what congress' intent was, the whole idea that congress intended for the statue, the ppaca to authorize tax credits and federal changes is a fabrication. you may die. there's no evidence whatsoever. none of the statue.

so i've read every article you wrote in a lot of other people. robert pear wrote all of his and no attached on this. it never came up. the only time the only candidate would come up candidate would come up as the specific question of what would happen under the patient protection affordable karaite estate did not establish exchanges were the only time it did him up was when a former supreme court of texas justice say lloyd.com anon member of congress in a conservative state that i -- the college in texas said we don't make this senate passed. and our residents will see any benefit. there will be no benefit to the intended beneficiaries and exchanges and state and

implement technology federal exchange. they do at the administration is doing. that's a fabrication. it supports the plaintiffs. if you have any evidence to support richer same, post inaccurate statements by lovers of congress, as a member says that if you like your health plan you can keep it are not educational. they don't tell us about what congress intended in there's a reason why judges don't pay any attention to those states. >> microphone in the back please gentlemen in the red tie, please. >> charles floyd, internist from st. louis, missouri. spent a great taking great care of patients. one person at a time. built-in medical advantage health care plan all to better

enable myself to do that. it is clear to me to follow this closely and its formation that given the cornhusker kicked back in the louisiana purchase that there's no way he would have gotten all of the democratic states to come along if it weren't for the idea that it would be implemented by the states. that is what i heard as an interested citizen. it is interesting to hear you, the gentleman debate whether the thought to be settled in the courts or at the fed. we are solving the problem in the market already. it's been solved in the market are ready and i hate to give any credit because it stimulates that concierge medicine, medicare advantage, et cetera. so we will be fine and they throw this thing out. the longer we can keep you guys

in washington in check doing nothing, we can solve the problem. thank you. [applause] 's >> we had another question. >> ayotte moses, no affiliation. it looks to me that in the 16 states to the state exchanges, there's going to be very little impact. now in the other 34 states, certainly the impact will be in the supporters of obama carry things the opponents of obamacare think it will be positive and there may be more room for this sort of insurance policies that have been discontinued because of obamacare they might come up again. we may see a non-employment rolls because of the employer

mandate no longer implies an remain higher in the other 16 states. but we will see the difference between the 16 states and the 34 and whichever of them does better, there will be great political pressure on the other side to change what they are doing. so i went to the supporters of obamacare would be easier to win in order to demonstrate that obamacare. >> is a logical matter, you are correct and i do know people who support the law were exactly where you live. the difficulty is that people who support obamacare than to also be democrats by nature and democrats by nature don't like to think about those people who

drive taxicabs, cut your hair and do all those things having something taken away from them and they are quite worried frankly more tactically about response of the insurance industry if they get burned in this way. they went along, copper, what do we do now? bob's right maybe they won't lose financially in year one, but they hate hearing a new market in having the market be taken away. so we worry about the insurance industry's response to the debacle, which would drive voters to her side. so that's our dilemma. >> it is long-term the debacle will create a different system. it is the short-term. of course the state of texas will figure out. how many heirs are is her turn right whether the political

consequences to the long-term objective? if you have 8 million people lose their insurance the day after the supreme court ruling, you are going to amalek a republican dog catcher, much less a president. what happens in the medium term in the short term quite i doubt it is a good or. most people already adopted this law then they would add to the narrative, we can block the employer mandate in our state? at him like the individual mandate in individual mandate in our state of the violating the law on a massive scale? is that going to lead to a flood of democratic vote? i'm not so sure. >> over here. >> i am just coming down to how

the agencies just arrived the process where the economy process. thank you. >> i'm sorry, how individuals are instructed? >> the agencies and individuals itself, economy color. >> i think the answer is her at least my answer is that the president had been following the law and let it be known that the subsidies of the law authorized for exchanges are only available through an exchange established by the state and that the penalties that those subsidies trigger against employers under the employer mandate and individuals on the individual mandate would also disappear if

the state's establish an exchange. would have a different debate over this law for the past four years. the law would've been revealed revealed to be more costly as states refused to establish exchanges, the insurance company is talk about what it would do to the premiums. premiums would be much higher than the law would not have enjoyed a popularity rating is the president had been followed along. so by keeping the law's popularity artificially high, it wasn't high after they did that. that is what's disruptive political process.

>> leather is the please. is not okay. but to your excellent work, this is not going to be a political dilemma. and i hear you make in a straight line stay in the states are going to have to adjust to the law as they would be interpreted if this were to win. but because of political process, the republicans don't want to lose their seat would quickly save my goodness, we need to throw at a safety net to make sure that millions of people don't lose their health insurance. ..

they always do this and other cases, jan all right? and to earn the state legislatures session the governor has to call them into session. the governor has to convince them to do this which i think would be a lot easier to do in pennsylvania and ohio and new jersey and the states with medicaid because they know what

they would have to do. then he would have states like texas who would probably just be defined because that's the way they have acted so far. so what you would have had what i think you are missing here is the day this ruling came out and the headlines in the newspapers on july 1 was we have got a crisis. we have got a mess. this is terrible and the best that republicans can do would be to go into defensive mode in some of these red states are quasi-red states and fi fix it s quickly as they could because they have got this terrible political news around their neck created by all of this. that is not a positive development. that is not a wonderful thing. it's a god-awful mess and half of them are going to to fix that inhabit them are going to fi fix it. >> that congress could act and give them a different authority. they could just say.

>> is going to give them different authority? oh the congress? here's the thing. c chris may have a point here. a high-risk pool point is not controversial. >> let me say this. if you are in the house and i was in the house we would have a chance. we are not so what's going to happen is that people who wanted to kill obamacare the whole time are going to say hey we finally got a stake in the vampire's heart. we have to drive it now and kill it and the others are going to say a oh my god 600,000 covered lives i have decreed a state exchange. >> you have a bunch of wonderful speeches and they would all be looking at the 2016 presidential election and democrats would think they would have the republicans exactly where they want them. they just screwed 8 million people and they would not let them out of that box. i don't know where you think in 15 minutes in this town is going

to pick something this big and complicated when it took us 10 years. >> you can continue to get it. we'll come back to this and work on it in the next six months and >> perhaps you guys can meet over lunch and have a conversation because we are out of time and fortunately. [applause] thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] >> the people who opposed modernization should take a look

at at the itb for heather. it's the one thing everyone knows. something called the type of service layer. that's it different service really for high-bandwidth services different forms of privatization. that was designed on the internet from the beginning. people say oh that's an old artifact. when we designed the internet for ipv6 people running out of internet addresses they were not only testing the field included another deal to do another form of prioritization. if you actually look at the engineering design that would suggest that this would never intend to be privatization as engineering knowledge goes a long way. to design feature of the network in the beginning and if you talk to the papacy -- way people are using it today to deliver for example voices. we have all been frustrated. the completely ip-based voice

service to your phone is called voiceover all use prioritization. a lot of video on other things.

the 2015 c-span studentcam is about -- is underway. congress is back this week as the midterm election results are subtle for the most part. the focus will be on wrapping up work of the 113 congress.

the house returns on wednesday for work on 10 bills. also we will see the house republican conference hold their leadership elections thursday. democrats are expected to hold theirs on november 18. the senate is back wednesday also will on judicial nominations and a childcare development block here development. not for both parties will hold leadership elections this coming thursday. see the house live on c-span and the senate right here live on c-span2. during a news conference the day after his re-election to the senate last week republican leader mitch mcconnell made reference to the speech he made on the senate floor earlier this year where he talked about the workings of the senate and what he would like to see happen should republicans gain control. the speech from january is about 40 minutes. >> mr. present over the past several years those of us who are fortunate enough to serve

here have engaged in many fierce debates. some have been forced upon us by external events including a searing financial crisis while others were brought about by an unapologetically liberal president who promised dramatic change and who has worked very hard to follow through on that pledge. in some cases even in the face of legal obstacles and widespread public opposition. so change has indeed calm. despite the daily drumbeat of headlines about gridlock and dysfunction in washington, the truth is an activist president and a democratic-controlled senate have managed to check off an awful lot of items on their wish list one way or another.

and yet just as important as what they did my colleagues, is how they did it. because that has also been at the heart of so many of the fights we have had around here over the past few years. now these conflicts have been stemmed from personal grievances or contempt as some would have it. they are instead the inevitable consequence of an administration that was in such a hurry, such a hurry to impose its agenda that it neglected to persuade the public of its wisdom and then cast aside one of the greatest tools, one of the greatest tools we have in this country for

guaranteeing a durable and stable legislative consensus. and that tool is the united states senate. remember, i think we all know partisanship is not some recent innovation here, invention. american politics has always been more or less divided between two ideological camps. today that is reflected in the two major parties but it's actually has always been there. on one side are those who proudly placed their trust in government and its agents to guide our institutions and direct our lives. on the other are those of us who put our trust in the wisdom and creativity of private citizens working voluntarily with each other and through more local

mediating institutions guided by their own sense of what is rig right, what is fair and what is good. now recent polling suggests by the way that most americans fall squarely into the latter camp. people are generally confident in their local governments but lack confidence in washington. and yet despite, despite the political and ideological divides which have always existed in our country we have almost always manage to work out our differences now by humiliating the other side into submission but through simple give-and-take. it is the secret of our success. the same virtues that make any

friendship or marriage or family or business work are the ones that have always made this country work. and the place where it happens, the place where all the national conflicts and controversies that arise in this big diverse wonderful country of ours have always been resolved, always been resolved right here in this chamber, right here. now i realize it may not be immediately obvious why that is the case but the fact is every serious student of this institution from de tocqueville to our late colleague robert byrd has seen the senate as uniquely important to american

stability and to its lurching. in their view, it has made all the difference and here is why. because whether it was the fierce early battles over the shape and scope of the federal government or those that surrounded industrialization or those that preceded and followed the nation rending civil war or those surrounding the great wars of the 20th century or the expansion of a franchise or decades long cold war or the war on terror, we have always always found a way forward. sometimes haltingly, but always steadily. and the senate is the tool that has enabled us to find our footing almost every time. i mention this because as we begin a new year i think it's

appropriately -- appropriate to step back ramallah policy debates that have occupied us over the past few years and focus on another debate we have been having around here, a debate we have been having around here over the state of this institution. what have we become? it's not a debate that never caught fire with the public or with the press. but it's a debate that should be of grave importance to all of us because on some level, on some level every single one of us has to be at least a little bit uneasy about what happened here last november. they have even if you are completely at peace about what happened in november, even if

you think it was perfectly fine to violate the all-important rule that says changing the rules requires the assent of two-thirds of senators duly elected and sworn none of us should be happy with the trajectory the senate was on even before that day, even before november. or the condition that we find the senate and 225 years after it was created. i don't think anybody is comfortable with where we are. i know i'm not and i will bet even though there is nobody here at the moment, i'll bet almost none of them are either. so i would like to share a few thoughts on what i think we have lost over the last seven years and what i think can be done about it together.

now together obviously requires the involvement you would think of some people on the other side of the isle. and even though they are not here to listen they have been invited. so let me state at the outset it's not my intention to point the finger of blame at anybody though some of that is inevitable. i don't presume to have all the answers either and i'm certainly not here to claim that we are without fault. but i am certain of one thing. i'm absolutely certain of one thing, the senate can be better than it is. many of us around here have seen a better senate than we have now no matter who was in the majority. this institution can be better than it is.

i just can't believe that on some level everyone in this chamber including the folks on the other side doesn't agree. it just can't be the case that we are content with the theatr theatric -- the theatrics in the messaging wars that go on here day after day. it just can't be the case that senators who grew up reading about the great statement to me their name and their mark here over the years are now suddenly content to just stand in front of a giant poster board making some poll tested point of the month day after day after day. and then run back to our prospective corners and congratulate each other on how right we are. i just can't believe we are all happy with that on either side.

don't misunderstand me. there's a time for making a political point, even scoring a few points. i know that as well as anybody but it can't be the only thing we do here. surely we do something other than scoring political points against each other. it cheapens the service we have sworn to provide to our constituents. it cheapens the senate which is a lot bigger than any of us so hopefully we can all agree we have a problem here. now i realize both sides have their own favorite account of what caused it. we have got our talking points, they have got their talking points. we all repeat them with great repetition and we all congratulate each other for being on the right side of the debate.

look, i get that. the guys over there think republicans abuse the rules and we think they do. but as i said my goal here isn't to make converts on that front. my purpose is to suggest that the senate can do better than it has been and that we must be if we are to remain as a great nation. and i think the crucial first step of any vision that gets us there is to recognize that vigorous debate about our differences is that some sickness to be lamented. vigorous debate is not a probl problem. when did that become a problem? it's actually a sign of strength to have vigorous debates.

it's a common refrain among pundits that the fights we have around here are pointless. they are not at all pointless. every single debate we have around here is about something important. what is unhealthy is when we neglect the means that we have always used to resolve our differences. that's the real threat to this country, not more debate. when did that become a problem? and the best mechanism we have for working through our differences and arriving at a durable consensus is the united states senate. an executive order can't do it. the fiat of a nine person court can't do it. a raucous and gregarious partisan majority in the house can't do it. the only institution that can make stable and enduring laws is the one we have in which all 50

states are represented equally and where every single senator as they say in the laws that we pass. this is what the senate was designed for. it is what the senate is supposed to be about and almost always has been. just take a look at some of the most far-reaching legislation of the past century. look at the vote tallies. medicare and medicaid were both approved with the support of half the members of the minori minority. the voting rights act of 1965 past with the votes of 30 out of the 32 members of the republican minority. all but two republican senators. they weren't many of them. that was the year after the goldwater debacle.

only two senators voted against the social security act and only eight voted against the americans with disabilities act. now none of this happened by the way, none of that happened by throwing the stuff together in a backroom and dropping them on the floor with a stopwatch running. it happened through a laborious process of legislating, persuasion, coalition building. it took time and it took patient and hard work and a guarantee that every one of these laws had stability, stability. now compare that, compare that if you will to the attitude behind obamacare. when democrats couldn't convince any of us that the bill was worth supporting as written they decided to do it on their own. and pass it on a partyline vote and now we are seeing the

result. the chaos this was visited on our country is not only deeply tragic comic was my friend entirely predictable, entirely predictable. that will always be the case if you approach legislation without regard to the views of the other side. without some meaningful by an guarantee a food fight. you guarantee instability and a guarantee strife. it may very well have been the case that an obamacare of the will of the country was not passed the bill at all. that's what i would have concluded if republicans didn't get a single democratic vote for legislation of that magnitude. i would have thought maybe this isn't such a great idea but democrats plowed forward anyway. they didn't want to hear it.

and the results are clear. it's a mess, an absolute mess. the senate exist to present that because without a moderating institution like the senate today's majority passes something and tomorrow's majority reveals it. today's majority proposes something. tomorrow's majority opposes it. we see that in the house all the time. but when the senate is allowed to work the way it was designed to it arrives at a result that's acceptable to people all along the political spectrum. that my friends is the whole point. we have lost our sense for the value of that in none of us should be at ease with that because of america is to face up to the challenges we face in the

decades ahead she will make the senate, the founders and their wisdom intended, not the hollow shell of the senate we have today. not the hollow shell of the senate we have today. first one of the traditional hallmarks of the senate is a vigorous committee process. it is also one of the main things we have lost. there was a time not that long ago when chairman and ranking members had major influence and use their positions to develop national policy on everything from foreign policy to nuclear arms. these men and women in rich to the entire senate to their focus and their expertise. just as importantly they provided an important counterweight to the executive branch. they provided one more check on the white house.

the president thought something was a good idea he better make sure he ran it by the committee chairman. we have been studying it for the past two decades and at the chairmen disagree, well then they would have a serious debate and probably reach a better product as a result. the senate should be setting national priorities, not simply waiting on the white house to do it for us. and the place to start that process is in the committees. with few exceptions, that's gone. with very few exceptions, that's gone. it's a big loss to the institution but most importantly it's a big loss to the american people who expect us to lead. and here's something else we have gained from her robust committee process over the years.

committees have actually served as a school of bipartisanship. and if you think about it just makes sense. by the time the bill gets through committee you would expect it to come out in a form that was generally broadly acceptable to both sides. nobody got everything but more often than not everybody got something. and the product was stable because there was a buy-in and a sense of ownership on both sides and on the rare occasions where that has happened. recently we have seen network. the committee process today in the united states senate is a shadow of what it used to be. marginalizing and reducing the influence of every single member

of the senate on both sides of the aisle. major legislation is now routinely drafted not in committee but in the majority leaders conference room and then dropped on the floor with little or no opportunity for members to participate in the amendment process, virtually guaranteeing a fight. now there is a lot of anti-talk around here about the corrosive influence of partisanship. if you really want to do something about it, you should support a more robust committee process. that's the best way to end a permanent shirts against skins contest the senate has become. bills should go through committee and if republicans are fortunate enough, republicans are fortunate enough to gain a

majority next year that will be done. second, bills should come to the floor and be thoroughly debated. we have got an example of that going on right now. and that includes a robust amendment process. in my view there is far too much paranoia about the other side around here. what are we afraid of? both sides have taken liberties and abuse of privilege and i would bet that the dancers and to provoke even more. the answer is to let folks debate. this is the senate. let folks debate. let the senate work its will. that means bringing bills to the floor. it means having a free and open amendment process.

that's legislating. that's what we used to do here. that's exactly the way this place operated just a few years ago. the senior senator from illinois that democratic assistant majority leader likes to say or at least used to say if you don't want to fight by her stomach, firemen and we don't want to cast tough votes don't come to the senate. i guess he hasn't said that lately. when we used to being the majority are a member telling people look, the good news we are in a majority. the bad news is in order to get the bill across the floor you have to pass a lot of votes that you don't want to take. and you know we did it in people moaned and groaned about it, complain about it and the sun still came out the next day and everybody felt like we were part of the process. senator durbin was right about

that when he said it and i think it's time to allow senators on both sides to more fully participate in the legislative process. that means having a more open amendment process around here. as i said obviously requires you to from time to time cast votes he would rather not cast. but we are all grown-ups. we can take that. there is rarely ever a vote you cast around here that is fatal. and the irony of it all is that kind of process makes the place a lot less contentious. in fact it's a lot less contentious when you vote on tough issues than when you don don't. because when you're not allowed to do that everybody is angry about being denied the opportunity to do what you were sent here to do which is to rep

represent the people that elected you and to offer ideas that you think are worth considering. and maybe we just came out of senator cornyn was pointing out they were 13 amendments that people on the side of the aisle would like to offer on this bill all related to the subject and important to each senator who seriously felt there was a better way to improve the build is on the floor right now. but alas i expect that opportunity will not be allowed because one person who is allowed to give prior recognition can prevent us from getting any amendments or were still picking our amendments for his to decide which of our amendments are okay and which aren't. i remember the late ted stevens telling the story about when he

first got here and senator mansfield was still the majority leader. he tried to offer an amendment, senator stevens did and a member of the majority who is managing the bill prevented it in effect. senator mansfield came over to senator stevens, took his amendment, went back to his desk and send it to the floor for h him. sent it to the floor for him. that was the senate not too long ago. if someone isn't allowed to get a vote on something they believed in, of course they are going to retaliate. and of course they are going to retaliate but if they get a vote every once in a while -- while they don't feel the need to.

voting on amendments is good for the senate and it's good for the country. our constituents should have a greater voice in the process. since july of last year there have been four republican roll call votes. in the whole second half of 2013 members on the side of the aisle have gotten for roll call votes. stunning. but that's today's senate. so let me say this. if republicans are fortunate enough to be in the majority next year, amendments will be allowed. senators will be respected.

we will not make an attempt to wring controversy out of an institution that expects, demands, approves of great debates about the problems confronting the country. now, and refrain from as republicans have been too quick to put it lead to a better

product? of course not. all it leads to is a lot more acrimony. so look, i get it. if republicans had just won the white house and the house and had a 60-vote majority in the senate, we would be tempted to empty our outbox, too. empty our outbox, too. but you can't spend two years emptying your outbox and then complain about the backlash. if you want fewer fights give the other side a say and that brings me to one of the biggest things we have lost around here as i see it. the big problem my colleagues never bend the rules.

senators from both parties have in the past revered and defended the rules in our nation's darkest hours. the real problem, the real problem is the attitude that use the senate as an assembly line or one party's partisan legislative agenda rather than as a place to build consensus to solve national problems. we have become far too focused on making a point instead of making a difference. making a point instead of making good stable law. we have gotten too comfortable with doing everything we do here through the prism of the next election instead of the prism of duty and everyone suffers as a result. as i see at a major turning point came during the final years of the bush administration when the democratic majority held vote after vote on bills

they knew wouldn't pass. now look, i'm not saying republicans have never staged a show vote. when we were in the majority. i'm not saying i don't even enjoy a good messaging vote from time to time but you have got to wonder if that's all you are doing why you are here. it has become entirely too routine and it diminishes the senate. i don't care which party you are in. you came here to legislate, to make a difference for your constituents yet over the past several years the senate is like a campaign studio than a serious legislative body. both sides have said and done things over the last few years would probably wish we hadn't. but we can come we can improve the way we do business. we can be more constructive. we can work through our

differences. we can do things that need to be done but there will have to be major changes if we are going to get there. to me process must be restored. we need to have an open amendment process and finally let me suggest we need to learn how to put in a decent weeks work around here. a decent weeks work. most americans don't work three days a week. they would be astonished to find out that is about it around he here. how about the power of the clock to force consensus? the only way 100 senators will be truly able to have their say, the only way we will be able to work through our disputes is that we are here more.

not too long ago and a number of you will remember this, went thursday night was the main event around here, remember that? thursday night was the main event. it was a huge incentive to finish on thursday night if you wanted to leave on friday. so it was amazing how it worked. even the most eager among us with a long list of amendments that were good for the country, maybe 10 or 12, around noon on thursday it would be down to two or one by midnight on thursday and it was amazing how consent would be reached when fatigue set in. all it took was for the leader, the majority leader who is in charge of the agenda to say look you know it's important there's bipartisan support for this.

it came out of committee. we want to have an open amendment process but we want to finish this week and we can finish on thursday afternoon or thursday night or friday morni morning. we almost never got worn out around here. whatever happened to the fatigue factor to bring things to a close? amendments voluntarily go away but important ones get put off and everybody feels like they have a chance to be involved in the process no matter what side of the aisle they are on. and this is particularly effective office lamp bills that have come out of committee with bipartisan support so there's an interest actually and passing it. we now must never do that anymore, almost never. on those occasions we work late sometimes well into the morning. i know that sounds kind of

quaint for people who haven't been around here for very long but it actually worked and there's nothing wrong with staying up a little later and getting to a conclusion. i can remember the majority leader himself when he was the flip walking around late at night on thursdays with his twic card making sure he had enough votes to do whatever he wanted to do. and when he finished one of those debates, but you ended up voting for the bill or voting against the bill you didn't have the feeling that unless you chose to go away with your amendment you had been denied the opportunity to participate and to be a part of the process and actually make a difference to your constituents. that's how you reach consensus by working and talking and cooperating through give-and-take. that's the way everyone's patience has worn down not just the majority leader's patience.

everyone can agree on a result even if they don't vote for it in the end using the clock to force consensus is the greatest proof of that and if republicans are a majority next year we will use the clock. everybody gets an opportunity but we will use the clock and work harder and get results. restoring the committee process allowing for senators to speed through an open amendment process extending the workweek or just a few things the senate could and should do differently. none of that would guarantee an end to partisan rancor. there's nothing wrong with partisan debate. good for the country. none of that would cause us to change our principles or her our views about what's right and what's wrong with our country. partisanship itself is not the

problem. the real problem is in the growing lack of confidence in the senate's ability to mediate the tensions and disputes we have always had around here. there are many reasons some have lost that confidence. and ultimately both parties have to assume some of the blame. but we can't be content to leave it at that. for the good of the country we need to work together to restore this institution. america's strength and resilience is always dependent on our ability to adapt to the various challenges of our day. sometimes that has meant changing the rules on both parties think it is warranted. and when the majority leader decided a few weeks back to defy bipartisan opposition bipartisan opposition to what happened in november by changing the rules that govern this place with a simple majority each wrote

something. our response can be just to sit back and accept the demise of the senate. this body has survived mistakes and excesses before and even after some of its worst. it has found a way to spring back and to be the place where even the starkest differences in the fiercest ideological disputes are hashed out by consensus and mutual respect. indeed it's during periods of its greatest polarization that the value of the senate is most clearly seen. let me wrap it up this way. you know we are all familiar with the lyndon johnson rain around here. robert caro has given us that story in great detail and some look at lbj's well-known heavy handedness as a kind of mastery.

that's the way some look at it. personally i have always believed a leader that replaced him was a better fit for this place. evidently so did johnson's colleagues who elected mansfield upon johnson's departure with overwhelming enthusiasm. they had had it up to here with lbj. they were excited that he was gone. in fact carol reports that he tried to come to the first launch after he became vice president dems going to act as a sort of de facto majority leader even though he was now vice president. that was shall i say i'm enthusiastically received and he was almost literally thrown out of the line never to return. mansfield was as i said enthusiastically chosen to replace him.

now the chronicles of elves djs life and legacy usually leave out what i just told you. by the time they left the senate as indicated is the colleagues have had enough of him right up to here. they may have been to his will while he was here but the moment they had a chance to be delivered from his iron fisted rule they took it. with their support mike mansfield would spend the next 16 years restoring the senate to a place of greater cooperation and freedom and as we look at what the senate could be, not what it is now but what it could be mansfield's period gives us a clue. there are many well-known stories about mansfield's fairness and equanimity as leader. they all seem to come down to

one thing and that was his unbending belief that every, every single senator was equal. that was mansfield operating mode. every single senator was equal. he acted that way on a daily basis, conducted himself in that way on a daily basis. the unbending belief that every senator should be treated as equal. so look, both sides will have to work to get us back to where we should be. it's not going to happen overnight. we haven't had much practice lately. in fact we are completely out of practice at doing what i just suggested for the first steps to get us back to normal but it's a goal that i truly believe we can agree to strive toward together and it takes no rule change.

this is a behavioral problem. it doesn't require a rules change. we just need to act differently with each other, respect the committee, have an open amendment process, work a little harder. none of that requires a rules change. because restoring this institution is the only way we will ever solve the challenges we face. that is the lesson of history and the lesson of experience. and we would all be wise to heed it. mr. president i yield the floor. >> roll call niels lesniewski is joining us. republican leader mitch mcconnell talked a lot in that speech in january about what would happen if the gop took control of the senate.

with that happening in less than two months what we expect to see? >> well what we expect we are going to see is at least an attempt by senator mcconnell and the republican conference to restore some semblance of regular order to the senate floor proceedings, beginning of next year. what that means probably after some much wanted political votes and votes that are motivated by something set up and promised to republican voters, a vote on repealing the health care law for instance, is we are probably going to see the senate get into a pattern of moving regular legislation through the committee process which is almost entirely broken down and on the floor the ability of senators of both democrats and republicans to offer amendments

to the legislation that's on the floor with the goal of being able to either thursday night or friday morning advance a bill through passage rather than have these set of procedural votes that everyone knows are going to fail and failing if there were a matter of routine we have seen particularly in the last couple of years. now whether or not that works is going to be a tall order. >> the first part of that is the committee process. what would we expect to see here on c-span when we see the hearings? >> i think you're going to see two different things. when you're looking at -- hearings you are going to see more hearings in the senate that look like what you have been seeing in the house over the last several years. administration officials being called an from various departments and agencies to

essentially get raked over the coals by republican senators who are going to be chairman of these committees for the first time so you will see more critical hearings and hearings that are built around topics that are critical of the administration. but then in terms of legislation you are probably going to see more mark-ups and more consideration of bills at the committee level and when they come out of the committee, this is the big thing, and the last couple of years bills that come out of the committee and then just sort of disappear in a number of cases, what mcconnell at least is saying and what he said last week at a news conference in louisville kentucky is that if a bill comes out of the committee on a bipartisan basis someone might actually see it on the floor. >> he also mentioned open amendment process. how likely is it that mr. mcconnell will make good on that process? >> well i think he's going to

make good on it at least initially. the challenge is going to be there so much pent-up demand for consideration of amendments and for votes and that's largely with republicans but it's true with some democrats as well. and so the question will be getting to a reasonable number of amendments so that bills are actually completed on thursday evenings or friday mornings. mcconnell is talking about keeping the senate in session on fridays and that something that very seldom has happened. that will be challenge because he is going to have a number of its members who will be running for president in the next year and whether or not they are going to want to be in the capitol building at lunchtime on friday when they should be on a plane to des moines is an open question. >> the democratic majority and majority harry reid invoked what is called the so-called nuclear

option. what is that in how likely is it that it will be revoked under republican majority? >> well the nuclear option was the use of the parliamentary maneuver to effectively changed the senate's rules using a simple majority vote to get rid of the ability of a minority of senators to filibuster most nominations except those to the supreme court. this is really going to be the first tests for the republican majority in the first big decision they have to make. senator mcconnell is playing his cards somewhat close to the vest on this one on thursday we will see the republican conference habits leadership elections and they are going to talk about that within the conference so it's really tricky question. they're two different ways to look at. one is the bell has ordered been wrong and it shouldn't be on ron and there's another camp of republicans who say we are

trying to restore the order to the senate. they have to at least try to go back on that changes the democrats made. >> said to establish what senator mcconnell calls regular order what kind of by and does he need? is a certain senators are certain groups? >> i think he's going to need at least a handful and he's not going to have 60 votes within his conference. what we are going to see i think is if you can get bills assembled and have the buy-in six, eight, 10, 12 members of the democratic caucus. senator angus king and independent from main who was doing the democratic caucus was telling me last week that there's a number of bills that esrd worked on with republicans that he hopes might be able to advance come next year and that will be the big test, if you can get at least 60 senators to support a bill than it should be able to advance.

the question will be whether or not the democrats are willing to offer those votes. >> niels lesniewski with roll call, thank you. >> thank you. >> it is for everyone. it is a glorious service for the country. the call comes to every citizen. it is an unending struggle to make and keep government's representative. >> bob lafollett is probably the most important political figure in wisconsin history and one of the most important in the history of the 20th century, in the united states. he was a reforming governor. he defined what progressivism

is. he was one of the first to use the term progressive to self-identify. he was united states senator who was recognized by his peers in the 1950s as one of the five greatest senators in american history. he was an opponent of world war i, stood his ground advocating for free speech. above all bob lafollett was about the people. in an era after the civil war america changed radically from a nation of small farmers and small producers and small manufacturers and by the late 1870s, 1880s, 1890s, we had concentrations of wealth. we had growing inequality and we had concern about the influence of money in government. so he spent the later part of the 1890s giving speeches all over wisconsin.

..

>> coming up, the communicators looks at tech innovation with christopher yoo, law professor at the university of pennsylvania. then a discussion on u.s. china relations. later, look at president obama's asia pacific trip, and a preview of the meetings in brisbane, australia.