lot of oil by piping and trade. it will move one way or the other. this is one argument nobody makes but i find it troubling we keep sticking our finger in the eye of our best ally in canada. >> i totally agree. >> they have been with us on everything. i don't even think it is a close call even the state department pretty much said as much. but the president i think i said if he doesn't move on and keystone he is bound to lose the senate because colorado arkansas louisiana montana and idaho all those states were impacted on keystone and he lost every one of those states. i think congress will pass it or have some leverage with the president.

it is another to have it to what they want or need sometimes you very legislation and that is part of the process. export quickly makes economic sense. congress has looked at it a little bit senator murkowski is in favor of it deny suspects the votes would be there in the house and senate so that is the biggest shock waves and it has more than most people can see they are permeating through the middle eastern countries. it is very significant but people need to realize that america to some extent

because of the fracking revolution and oil production is on the verge for the first time since the early '70s. many of you will remember the oil lines in 71 and 73 going from $8 at the $40 was enormous of negative repercussions on the u.s. economy. opec had us by the throat we ended up importing more now is less and less we will be totally independent of imports if you include canada and mexico so that is exciting with the leverage that opec had over us is disappearing and russia's currency opportunities is being crushed right now.

and frankly because u.s. exploration in it is remarkable to give advantages to have lower natural gas prices than the rest of the world for some time. to. >> said oil shock had a huge damage jaime impact on the economy and also the american psyche. and we're on the verge of wiping away that legacy. should reopen the debate for questions? >> when the microphone comes to you, identify yourself and whatever affiliation you care to disclose. >> i am retired.

it seems to me not that long ago d.c. was about congressional earmarks to micromanage spending now the continuing resolution that was just past is over a thousand pages with provisions that have nothing to do with spending that we have not learned about yet. but it seems congress has not given up its powers. if people are unhappy it is some part of the process to complain about. >> i want to say he makes several valid points but the good news is it will change. instead of having one bill bill, you never had one senator to offer any amendment you now have 12 appropriation bills for i remember the old days, of

the senate is not pretty it would work on the bill all week then do amendments all through thursday then say we will go home when we pass the bills already got the amendments but harry reid and i did this as the whip and passed most of the appropriation bills from 2004 back who has the list and by racers tonight they start falling off and 1:00 betty says he never go home. the people had a chance to offer amendments and have exposure you could expose it if it did not make sense so that amendment process is healthy and educational and

time-consuming for people to see here is the bill that funds every little park and everything in the country to manage millions of acres. that is part of governing and to have that bill on the floor for a few days is part of the process so instead of passing it at midnight that is this deep the committees and members in the american people will be debated now they can go online to data copy andy mill their member it is a much more open process. >> the continuing resolution is not complaining about process but a continuing

resolution simply continues what was done though last year but then has things that are thrown in. the appropriating committees , the budget committee, if you went back to last september a continuing resolution the appropriators have no idea what was in it. they had bought seen the bill. the only thing that is known is it must pass. the results was a leadership was highly amenable to a particular year marks so things get thrown into it to an appropriations but actually that is a deliberative process process, collective choice.

as don nichols says take lots of votes the continuing resolution is just one. i am exaggerating a little bit so you understand it is done in the majority leader's office, a tightly controlled, usually a game of chicken with the executive branch and the whole government of united states absent the independently financed agencies and it has a lot of things thrown at it so it is very different. sometimes it is not pretty but it is done at a smaller scale with more participation. the people have worked their way up to the committee structure are participating rather than you are a republican or a democrat unless we can make tweets to

help with what you care about. >> with that continuing resolution is you did not pass your appropriation bills by the rules by the end of september. so you failed. if there are 12 it is more digestible the 1.$1 trillion is a lot to swallow that is a lot to get your hands on. zero whole lot of the solutions new york to legislative problems is returned to regular order to follow the law and do the budget. they are supposed to introduce the budgets no later than february 1st day and have been dates every year. congress is supposed to pass by april 15.

[laughter] i actually passed one on-time. the last time that happened 2003. it is not easy. >> that budget is in the museum of congressional history on display. [laughter] but that sets the parameters that both houses pass it then that tells the programs here is how much money you have then they allocate then everybody can markups the bill. that is regular order. i know all the principal players say we will do that. with the new democrats say we want the senate to work and i say regular order many are very frustrated some even feel it cost them the control of the senate because they could not separate themselves from the president because their

voting record was 98% in line with the president and was not popular so they had appropriations they could say i did not support that medical device tax the wanted to make sure you could keep your health care plan that disappears when the bill was enacted. if they had a chance to vote they could give themselves protection to pass a better bill and not be so beat up during election time. because the president was saying during the senators he was out now lamp dash -- knocked out campaigning so i always tell people don't be afraid to vote it is a healthy process your opponents will always have plenty of ammunition.

most votes you could run of good advertisement on any issue if they are good but that should be okay. >> senator, you hit on two things. i am on the board of the advisers for american immigration reform so i will get to the immigration question by not speaking for the organization. you mentioned robert byrd and the other is how the process works through regular order. he was a great defender as the senate institution and

was not afraid to stand up to is gay executive even of his own party. and at the end when he passed away this seemed there was nobody left in the senate willing or able to do that. senator levin stood up to harry reid with a filibuster but he was the only one. wide you believe that a return to regular order so lee will on tuesday damage that it appears the senate has done to itself to weaken itself through the president? is it even possible for the congress to restore the

historic balanced given the way the senate has caved in to the president almost protecting the president at the expense at the power of the senate? >> excellent question. and i think it can be restored senate rules are very important and i hope we go back to the 60 vote majority but just to give you an example that is a humongous transfer of power to the executive branch to go from 6251. harry rigo of those nominations but if you're

president in ultraliberal left to a point somebody on the organized labor payroll that you could not get him to republican senate it has to get more mainstream. if you have to put it in somebody radical because you can get the people in. and whoever won the election and should begin great latitude for if you have this administration to put in the activist the 60 vote threshold would have stopped that.

did you mentioned robert byrd rebuilds testified with the rules committee against changing the threshold those that were in the senate the we have to change these rules. and it makes the senate be more och bipartisan. very seldom does either side have 60. in to fill that means you have to reach out to the other party. it makes the nominees not so much on the fringe.

and in regular order would do all the difference. this election would do that. the part of the question is congress has said. but to the house his bluff and has done regular order is not tried to impose that we don't have regular order but with a really big bills democratic leadership took the bill away from the finance committee. that is what they did on obamacare. max baucus had up by a partisan bill and said we

have 60 we don't need and the republicans in basically rewrote the bill with no amendments no republican voted for it to hot if it is amended and you win you are invested. but if i cannot offer an amendment but for reelection in this year never offered an amendment on the floor of the senate? wow. it was in the hundreds. so i cannot imagine being in

the senate it is a real. but they will have more votes so if it will be a big change. a you see positive things come out of bed. to have that camaraderie in the work that is well beyond partisanship and that has not happened. and i hope and pray it does. it is a great place to serve and to work.

but then is better days. >> sadly be halftime for one more question. >> starting with the 18th 32 and then you spent the last our attacking obama. what happened to the other 75 years he was not in office? and then to change radically

and roosevelt was elected four times. and max baucus that i had lunch with served six terms in the senate. or perhaps two terms in the house. thank you very much. >> i personally to have three branches of government only the executive branch as limitations. so we limit the president to true terms. -- two terms if we limit the other branches but also the judicial branch i don't think eight years which is the limitation but you have

to do it the way the executive branch was limited. and with future colleagues not to do unilaterally. bid usually the ones who go out into years sometime as the conservative some go to congress to redistribute your wealth and they can stay there a long time. if it is constitutional it will apply to everybody then you can have fallen at -- have a limit. >> gone of first the

emphasis of my talk was on congressional delegation. over the years the presidents have then aggressive where they did not have statutory power. with was not right before or right after pearl harbor it was clear war was coming and he said i want congress to pass authority for national production and price controls. and sova repository of the american people i will do it on behalf of the people when

they no longer need the powers i will give it back. it was amazing. is a you can find examples the major impetus is congressional delegation is the creation of one after another that is far beyond the new deal. things have changed recently.

the president obama has been more exorbitant with his unilateral claims of what he has cared about especially obamacare and the appointments of immigration. although i think the obamacare decisions are the most amazing and some examples i gave managing a the bankruptcy to say this is how we will allocate the assets with the tax in versions i have never seen anything like that before. >> i have my political views but institutionally i think it is too soon if the obama administration is a blip or

a trent. i think it is a blip. 2007 through today. >> i would break it up obviously with fdr with the wartime scenario but i started when reagan started. but the republicans were pretty assertive of presidential authority but not so on domestic. i also think clinton had a much greater respect for congress for cry went to the white house of lot when both print book -- bushes where president. all lots. all lots. i mean a lot. more often in any of those terms as part of the leadership in which mcconnell has been the last six years.

i probably went to more in one year than he went to the last six. he has only been invited three or four times in six years i used to go like every week. there was much greater dialogue and respect for the institution from president clinton and both bushes and ronald reagan. reagan and cheney were very assertive on international authority. so a little different but the one thing chris manchin to read at the very end of president bush's term was near the crisis. i remember being there and i was never one to have the government or the fed or the

treasury secretary but i was sorry to if the bank could cash the checks. the bank across the street. it was a scary time so anyway that was 2009 after i already retired but i do remember being frightened about that it did no secretary paulsen said i wanted this authority. congress did derided but he had a lot of authority. that was a scary time. nasdaq went for 5,000 down at 1,000. there was a lot of things happening in a very short period of time and people were worried of a financial collapse we had not seen in our lifetime.

its was scary. >> we will have to wrap it up. thank you to the panel for a fascinating discussion in. [applause] and with the coming of the new congress is in jail jury not just to pass new legislation but to restore some of the powers and i hope people have a chance to review it and see it on c-span to realize we have a road map to go forward. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] . .

up next the panel discussion on feminism in the united states from the 1920s to today featuring the co-authors of the recently published book the "feminism unfinished"."