effective in uncovering them. >> thank you i'm going to come back to some of those points. we'll have a fruitful discussion about those partnerships. but i want to make sure we bring terry into. the the conversation. . you sit in a slightly different position at the attorney general's office. i was hoping you could talk about how you think about these enforcement questions, and especially talk about the idea and use of criminal enforcement and how that differs from civil, what enables to do and its effectiveness. >> so thank you. i have the perfective of having been in the new york state department of labor and now in the attorney general's office as the labor bureau chief. and based on that experience in the attorney general's office, we still do a lot of civil enforcement and that's still the bulk of our investigatory and our case work, but we have increased our criminal enforcement of the labor laws

over the past several years in the administration of attorney general eric sniderman. during this administration, we have had 22 cases that we brought criminal charges in, including two cases announced just this morning. and they are in a wide range of industries. prevailing wage contractors, tortilla factory, home health agencies, it's been a pretty broad range of different types of employers. and having been in this field for awhile, i feel strongly about the importance of criminal enforcement because i think that it sends a very, very strong message about the seriousness of these laws and the importance of compliance and it is a very powerful deterrent. i think criminal prosecution is just qualityively different. it's a very different experience to be arrested than to be sued. and even without a jail sentence, i think that the

aspect of public pressure and public shaming is very powerful, particularly for employers who have been -- the cases that we have handled are really outliars in terms of the extent of the violations, but they do not think of themselves as criminals, they think of themselves as business people. in general for the enforcement to work, there has to be some reasonable chance that people will get caught and it has to be really, really bad if they do. the criminal enforcement addresses that second aspect. >> rises to the level of criminal? >> in new york state, failure to pay wages is a misdemeanor. it's a felony in new york to have six or more employees who are not covered by workers comp insurance or to file a false document, meaning if workers are not reporting on tax forms. and so that is what gives us the jurisdiction to bring these cases in different states, the

laws will be different. one challenge generally, i think, that people trying to bring these cases to law enforcement will phase is that a lot of prosecutors are not that interested in misdemeanors and will focus on is there a felony and the false filing aspect of the tax violation can bring you into that felony territory. that issue of what cases can you bring and what are the laws is different from what the criteria are. we have been trying to reserve because it's a very powerful hammer and a powerful thing. we have been try iing to -- wite had a case involving a cleaning contractor who u.s. department of labor had gone out, did an excellent investigation with a bilingual investigator, did a great case, got a settlement to pay the money back and the employer paid the money to workers and then demanded kickbacks and kept violating the

law in the exact same way. in a case like that, our perspective is why would you do another civil enforcement against that employer because strong and effective civil enforcement has already happened and this is an employer who criminal prosecution is the only thing to bring change practices. we brought criminal cases where there's fraud where there's two sets of books. often there are false payroll records, we brought criminal cases when there's nonpayment of wages in construction cases. no one can possibly argue they didn't know they had to pay people any money for their work. so we have tried to bring them in egregious situations. what's been interesting is there's no real quantityive analysis of this and i'd love to see it. i'd love someone to write a

dissertation on it, but there's no quantitative analysis but we have anecdotal evidence that it has a powerful deterrent effect, and just to give one example, we had an arrest of a very small employer in a small town in westchester county that we thought we did it for a variety of reasons. it's a town that has a lot of immigrants, the violations were severe, but it was not a big actor in the industry. and that arrest ended up prompting a call to us from the state restaurant association asking to meet with us and we're going to be doing some work with them on education because that one arrest somehow managed to circulate through everyone's e-mail chains and lists and it really got people very concerned about complying with the law, even though it was a very limited case. >> one of the things that has

comments is the idea of targeting. and we want to have a discussion of how you could start with this but then i'd like everyone else to sort of jump in because we talked about secretary perez, the number of enforcement agents at best. they have gotten back to a little bit above where they were 20 years ago. the workforce expanded and problems have gotten worse. even if you have -- never be able to go into the workplace. so you can expand where julie started us and talk about that some of the practices and ways of doing this. >> you're exactly right.

my agency oversees statutes covering 125 million workers in 7.3 million workplaces. so having enough investigators is essential, but if you think about your problems trying to get into all those workplaces and you can get stuck playing the old game of whack a mole of going where you find the problem, maybe providing restitution of workers for their wages, but the problem is just going to keep recurring if you don't think in a deeper way about the problem. we have, particularly over the v last five years, really changed the way we allocate our investigators and then where we send them to. historically my agency was

complaints. more than 75% of our investigations historically were initiated by complaints. now we have to respond to complaints, they are absolutely essential, but if you're driven solely by them, you run into a big problem. it's not where the biggest problems are, and in particular our whole strategy on priorities has been looking at two factors. number one saying what do we know from statistical evidence this report using, where the prevalence of the larger violations are by what we know from the statistical evidence, but we overlay that with the second dimension, and that is who is likely to complain. our laws i think this is true at the state and federal level, there's a piece that says workers have the right to come forward and complain. the problem is workers particularly the most vulnerable workers often in our economy don't step forward and they are

intimidated from stepping forward, whether it's about immigration status, knowledge of rights, or just this simple fact that the threat of retaliation is very real and very scary for a lot of workers. and this story that secretary perez highlighted is a story about how hard it is to be that person that steps forward. so we have used that intersection of the prevalence of problems and look at industries where there is a low likelihood of complaining to focus our resources and we have used that to annually figure out what are the industries we're going to focus on. so both going away and then shifting our investigation resources towards active investigations. so we're almost up to 50% of our investigations now are triggered by what we call directive investigations. these are strategic investigations. so that's number one. number two, we're trying to pick our targets better. and one of the things i'm very

proud of in terms of what my agency has attained in the last five years, when we go to a directive investigation. the number of times we hit and this is sort of comparable to the statistic that julie cited, we're hitting the employers where we're finding problems more and more. in fact, we have about the same hit rate of finding the problems are complaint in our directive investigation. we tried to become more sophisticated in understanding which industries and which employers are the problems. and then the final piece i will just highlight is then we think about this structure. we try to say, well, how do we not just cause -- how do we not just get back wages for those workers, but how do we cause stmic change to the way these businesses are operating. how do we put pressure on the business organizations to really change behavior. so what we really want to do is not measure our success by the amount of back wages as

important as they are, that we collect, but it's really that we are improving compliance levels. and so we're trying a lot of different things. i'm focusing -- we're focusing on enforcement that's got to be married with an outreach approach at the same time. all focused on looking at our biggest problems and raising compliance levels ultimately in a network of business. s where we know there's some really fundamental issues out there. >> something to add on? >> i think it's one of the challenges -- and our refusal to apply the law is one that they do not believe they are going to get caught. two, that if they are caught, they believe the costs are going to be minimal and the consequences are very small. so the targeting get. s at number one.

the second one has to do with, there are laws in the books. and to the extent that they haven't been enforced effectively or there's been a selective enforcement of certain things or there was agreement to let employers know before they came in, which happened in california in the past. we want employers to know, we want employees to know that those days are over. we're trying to take all of the penalties that the law already provides, which in california are really quite powerful. many of our penalties are based on per worker, per violation. and making sure that it is costly when you break the law. to build on terry's points, i started a criminal investigation unit. it's made up of peace officers basically sworn cops who investigate criminal violations of the labor code. it's another way of making it costly. we have made arrests and worked

with district attorneys to prosecute those cases. but i agree with what david said which is yi we can't fine people into compliance. we have to change the incentive structure and it's about looking at the structures that we are working in. often times the direct employer target is not the true decision maker about who is going to operate in that industry. it's not the one who granted the contract in the first place. it's not the one -- this whole idea of using labor contractors has resulted in this downward pressure on erg including wages. so one of the issues for prioritization and targeting is to understand the industry structure and go. after those decision makers who are hiring the middle men who are exploiting the workers. >> thanks. in these comments, this idea of partnerships. especially with businesses, but

partnerships with cross government, et cetera. i want to bring all of you in. i want to bring back andy. you mentioned in your comments the employer's association in this. if you could talk more generally about how you see the employer's role in the ens forcement and how you want to be dealt with from the enforcers. what do you think is the right way they should be interacting with you? >> i think there needs to be a lot of education that needs to happen for employers. a lot of this stuff is really i mean, done because people believe it's just the way it's supposed to be done. even paying employees cash, even shaving off hours, that's like almost becomes industry standards. and they talk to each other and don't think of it as being breaking the law. they think of it this is just

the standard. and when we're talking about, for example, i have been involved in minimum wage for quite some time talking about changing the structure of minimum wage. one of the issues that often comes up is if the minimum wage is such, you're going to build your business around that. if the minimum wage is higher, you're going to build your business around that. and when we start with the idea that minimum wage, your pricing points, your design, e everything is built around that minimum wage. we need to change the foundational structures upon which we build our business around. the restaurant industry is notorious for looking at everybody else and doing best pr practices. limited variable costs that can

be controlled. one of them is labor. one of your highest requests. and if you can shave off a few percentage points there, keep the prices of your food as low as possible because you're in a competitive disadvantage sometimes, that's the best way to go about doing it. so a lot of it has to do with educating employers. that's why we start ed this organization called raise. to try to understand the industry to survive in the long-term in a competitive environment we have to all raise the standards that we work by. because otherwise what are our other options to come and work here? that's okay, but that's not the predominant number of people you want working in the industry is people that can't work in any other industry. that doesn't make sense. we'll never be able to grow the

industry in a professional and sustainable way. >> and from the enforcement side, how do you think about the partnerships with business, but also across government? you want to start? >>. we have done a lot of partnerships over the past several years with business and with agencies of government agencies. for example, we had a few cases involving violations by moving companies, by large new york city moving companies. after those cases were resolved, we sent letters to all the movers registered in new york state, reached out to the trade negotiations and have been working with them doing education to moving companies throughout the state about their obligations under the labor law. so that was a good example of an employer association partnership that we have had that was very, very practical and very hands on explaining to employers what they have to do to comply with the law. in terms of working with agencies, we have a wonderful

partnership with the department of labor. we have had an innovative partnership with a new york city agency that new york city taxi and limousine commission, which regulates the taxi industry. taxi drivers are not employees, they are independent contractors. . so when we wanted to do something to protect their workplace rights, we couldn't rely upon the usual labor and employment laws. but there were some rules of the taxi and limousine commission that protected workers rights to their earnings. so we have partnered with them and it's been wonderful because our tools are really complimentary. they have such in-depth knowledge of the industry and we have the ability to sort of step back and do cases from a very broad perspective and we have managed to conclude a couple of cases very successfully, recovering over $1 million from two of the larger taxi fleets in new york city, which given that there really hadn't been very

much enforcement in this area in the past really, i think, has had significant effect in that industry. so that's an example of us working closely with a city agency but also trying to find ways of protecting the rights of workers who don't fit into that traditional employee classification. >> so first of all, i just want to pick up on a point that andy made that is so important. and that is the norms that are created in business organizations and then the adjustments around that. so i always find it interesting that in some of the debates about minimum wage there's always this assumption that if we pay the minimum wage, you recalculate the costs at the highest level and say i'm going to have to raise prices or lower profit as if business doesn't adjust. that point is so important. in my former life, i used to teach mb. as. when you teach, you're always teaching them about how do you

respond to changes in prices? you do lots of different things. you adjust and think about how do i deliver what i'm trying to do given this. that's why i think the work our agencies do is so fundamentally important because it sets norms of behavior. it says this is acceptable. i think what the three of us in our agencies really struggling against is really decades of erosion of the basic labor standards and what's acceptable and what should be the accepted practice. and so when you're going about enforcing the law in wages, i think of it we're doing something bigger than that. we're saying this is acceptable behavior and then you let firms adjust to what that new norm is. and that's why, i mean, the secretary in his work more broadly at the labor department level and certainly our work in wage an hour, there's a lot about wage to employers. . we want to work with employers

so they understand their responsibilities, but also finding new models to really raise compliance and not only to what's required, but often above that. we have some initiatives -- we have initiatives in certain sectors of the franchising industry where we have worked with franchisers to create incentives to sort of raise standards collectively. we're doing work in agricultural and some retail apparel industries to try to, again, work with the employers and with the stake holders involved to really raise those standards and change the basis of business decision making. >> i have one last question before the audience will get a chance to chime in. so audience you can start gearing up. so as great of all of the enforcement strategy we have described, i think most people would recognize there's some new tools are needed.

and you were a supporter of one of these big new tools that just passed. i wonder if you could very briefly talk about your support and advocacy for that and then if there's anyone else wants to chime in on the importance of any new tools. >> well, i don't know many employers being against wage theft -- it's funny because in our business, the restaurant business business, when you're going to steal something from someone, they are going to steal someone from you. it's just the way it works. so the idea of saying i'm going to be able to steal wages from you and expect you're going to be a successful business person is a flawed perspective certainly. i think any initiatives that

help to professionalize a business that i'm in and certainly to raise the standards so we can compete for the best and the blightest out there, i'm 100% for it. i think it's really important to continue to do that. and i think the industry has changed a lot over the past few years. we have the super star chefs and we have all of that. people are noticing this business, but it has to trickle down all the way and one day we'll not have tipped employees, which really is the ultimate goal. the idea of a tipped employee makes very little sense to me. i'm still trying to bring enough businesses around to say how can we change that structure. how can we change the mind set and the foundation of that. because that just makes very little sense that you can actually choose to pay somebody's livelihood or not according to to your whim. i don't do that for my dentist. i would never pay him if it was

my dentist, so the idea that you can just pick and choose how much you're going to pay somebody makes very little sense to me. >> any quick thoughts? >> a few things and just to build on that. in california we have some strong legislation. for example, you cannot use tips to trend against the minimum wage in california. but under governor brown we passed a number of things to address some of the thing wooes talking about. one is just to streamline some of the ways that my agency can operate, making sure when we find violations, we can find all of them at one time rather than you can cite for some things but not cite for others. the second is that i do think that effective enforcement realized retaliation protections for workers who step forward. so in the last few years, the governor has signed some strong

antiretaliation protections especially for immigrant workers. you threaten to call i.c.e. or the police because they complained, those clearly constant retaliation and can constitute criminal extortion. the third is the governor signed a bill that creates the concept of compliant employer. and that gets to the workplace that david has talked so much abo about. a century of labor laws are premised on the employee jsh employer relationship. when you have these middle men and subcontracting, you start to take away from the protections between those at the top who contract for labor and those at the bottom. so the compliant employer concept is if you higher workers as parking lot of your regular course of business and there's a whole definition for what regular course of business means, but then you as the client employer are responsible for all the wage liabilities as if you were the employer.

i think this has a potential to be a very powerful tool to get at the insulation for the top layers and bottom layers. it will address issues that we have talked about already today including supermarkets who hire janitors, farm labor contractors, hotels who hire contractors to do different aspects of the work. >> we'll go to some questions. sglz so speaking of the norms, one of the big industry norms now, not for you, but in the restaurant industry is this just in time. and the cheating of workers because they are told, well, i'm going to call you today. we'll figure out when. so you have just robbed me of the opportunity to have another job because you're going to

retaliate if you call me and say i want you here at noon. well, i'm over at mcdonald's, i'm sorry, i can't come. so how do we get that it strikes me that this is an overtime violation. you are booking up my hours. at some point, you have gotten me into overtime. this has to be a pattern that we start to address because it's really getting to be a big problem. >> i like your premise that it's actually a sign of just a larger erosion that we have gone this place. so we have advanced technologies that allow us to do more and more of this microscheduling. and unfortunately a lot of retail and other environments has been used as this tool to then say i'm going to do last-minute scheduling.

it is sort of another example of risks being shifted on to the worker because of responding to changes in demand or whatever it is. and i think in that respect, we have to number one go back to the premise, book, we have established when work time begins and ends and we need to think about the implications on these new systems and when you're expected to work and when you should be compensated for that. but i think it also suggestive of just erosion and a lot of other places o of what we find acceptable practice. i don't think that would have been viewed as acceptable a decade ago. now we can have it start up and then as andy was talking about, we see it propagating very quickly once you establish that as what could be a new norm. >> i think there really needs to be a serious ad campaign maybe

through the department of labor or something like that to really educate workers and educate employers. and you mentioned something else if i could digress about the enforcement part. what does an employer want to see as an enforcement, how would that look like. i think there's a sense of government from an employer's perspective and business perspective is bad.

please contact me, here's my card. give it to somebody. i think it just changes the dynamics of how and maybe if i'm an employer this kind of like on the edge, that give. s me just enough to say, you know what, i need to be on board with this because i see that there is a sense of -- a relational situation here that's developing. so i think sometimes that kind of approach might help employers to get what they need to get. and information, that's the key really to information.

a lot of it is hearsay. you look to the left and look to the right to see what they are doi doing. employees talk to each other as well. an employee that worked two other jobs or work ed in other restaurants that have done that, what you're talking about. may think that's normal. and so in their new job and that's happening, and then the employee complains because the outliar, because the one that's not helpful, doesn't care, is not a team player, that kind of stuff. that's problematic. >> we have time for one last question. there's a gentleman in the very back. i wanted to also flag the san francisco just passed a retail workers bill of rights, which at least is an attempt to address that by making sure workers get.

paid. >> my name is jules bernstein. i'm a private practitioner here in washington. lawyer for about 40 years. and first let me say and this may surprise some people, not all, but the largest single environment of the fair labor standards act in its history has been the united states governme government, and indeed as i'm sure david knows, in 1978 or '79, he sued the postal service under the recovered half a billion dollars. and government itself is frequently a violator. so the governments need to get their house in order with regard to them as well.

but now to my question. it is that the secretary talked about the department's partnership with a private attorney general. frankly, i hadn't heard that term used in awhile, and i know that the department and maybe some of the states represented here do work with private attorneys because there are far more flsa cases in the courts. tens of thousands of cases brought by thousands of lawyers against employers alleging violations of fair labor standards act for thousands and thousands of employees. so perhaps david could talk about the partnership with the

private bar and how -- what it's like and can it be improved. >> sure, let me say a couple but i could also defer to my colleagues from the state. first of all, the flsa give private rights of action. if we didn't have that, i wouldn't claim that we are the only game in town. that clearly is an important part of what we do as a country in enforcing this. this is why i get back to the question of who exercises that right? who brings these claims? where do we see this going on? i think to me one of the most important changes we have introduced is we do a triage process about how we pursue incoming complaints to figure out who do we need to take on? where is there a stmic problem where our intervention is most

effective that's going to have the biggest impact in terms of incoming. and where can we have -- where's the private bar at in doing well in terms of pursuing private claims. where we e don't need to intervene. so i think a big part of strategic enforcement is thinking strategically about how we allow for the fact and work with the private bar in ultimately pursuing these claims where they can have greater impact or given our limited rour resources. >> thank you. the audience can join me in thanking the panelists for this very interesting discussion. i appreciate it. thank you all.

we join this discussion in progress so you missed the remarks from labor secretary tom perez on wages and benefits. that portion is available online at our website at c span.org. over at the u.s. capital today, busy in the house where members approved a bill to block president obama's november 20th executive order that would defer deportation for 5 million illegal immigrants residing in the u.s. the prospects for passage in the senate are expected to be slim. house lawmakers also passed the 2015 defense authorization bill laying out policies and programs for next year. in the senate it's been a day full of votes on a number of the president's and judicial branch norm nominees. lawmakers hearing farewell speeches from outgoing senators and a tribute to senator mike

johanns. right now west virginia senator jay rockefeller is giving his final remarks. you can see the house live on c-span. the senate live on c-span 2. back to the defense authorization bill at the end of the house debate, the chair ranking member spoke about the task of bringing that legislation to the floor. the top democrat also took tyke to thank the chair for his efforts. the congressman who is retiring at the end of the year took time to deliver a farewell speech. this is about 15 minutes. >> i also want to particularly recognize the leadership of chairman mckeen. this is the last time as chairman and a member of congress. our committee has tried to have two basic core principles. one, we get our bill done. two, work in a bipartisan fashion. and when you look around this body today, the greater appreciation of how difficult

those naturally bipartisan and they are not naturally inclined to pass legislation because there's always something about any piece of legislation that somebody would prefer to be a little different. that's not any less true in our bi bi bill, but we recognize the necessity of getting it done. and the ability to do those two things starts with the chair of the committee. when i arrived here floyd spence was the chairman of the committee, and he and everyone right up through ike skeleton have made it a priority to number one, work with the other side. buck, from the very moment he was elected and the moment i was elected as ranking, reached out to make sure that bipartisanship started at the top and flowed down throughout the entire committ committee. the second piece of it is is the absolute commitment to getting the bill done no matter what. the chairman has just been outstanding in that regard. it's been a tough four years,

many challenges have cropped up, but we have met every one of them and been able to get the bill done. so i thank him for his leadership. i want to thank the chairman on the senate side as he's retiring as last year's chairman. he show ed a similar commitment and had an even more difficult time over there. he and senator inhofe were having a conversation a couple days ago as we were trying to figure out how to do this to explain the rules. i'm never going to understand them. just don't explain them. there's nothing i can do about it. that's up to you. you figure it out as best you can. senator levin has shown outstanding leadership as well. this is a good piece of legislation. we have to remember that we face a wide variety of threats at this point. we still have troops in afghanistan. we now again have troops in iraq. we have north korea, which is very unpredictable, we have the challenge of dealing with iran and all of its levels. we have russia and vladimir putin that are messing around in

the ukraine and a variety of other areas. this is probably as dangerous a time as we have had since the end of the cold war. our national security strategy, the funding, and the decisions we make could not possibly be more important. at the same time, we have a huge budget challenge. we have sequestration, and we have this rampant. desire u to cut everything from not contemplate any new revenue, or any possibility of spending more money and our national security strategy has to try to wrestle with that. so that makes it very difficult. and i will say, again, what i think is going to be most important in the next few years. i don't think sequestration is going away. i'm going to continue to argue that it should, but given the maj majorities in the house and the last house in the senate, given the last election, it's unlikely to go away. which means the military is going to have to live with a dramatically lower amount of

money than they thought they were going to have. and they are also going to have to live with all those national security challenges that i mentioned and undoubtly a few that i didn't. so how do we do that? right now unfortunately congress is doing it the old way which is parochi parochial. we don't want our base closed or a ship that is stationed in our district or a particular contractor that's invested in a particular piece of equipment. so whenever the pentagon comes up and says, we need to cut this, you have a predictable group of people who will rally and say why we shouldn't. and by and large, the congress has gone along with that group of people. i'm here to tell you that's just not going to continue to work. it's not. the very small, minor personnel cuts in this bill are things that none of us would have liked to do. we'd like to have more money, but we don't.

on the retirement of the cruisers and the vehicles, on the changes to the garden reserve that have been proposed, all of these are things we would prefer not to do. but we have the money that we have. and until this congress decides to change that and provide more is the absolute worse thing we can do to reject every single change. we have had things as minor as a guard unit wanting to move five c-130s from a base to another and proposes our bill to disallow them to do that because the people in that state don't want them to be moved. i understand that, but that's not a sustainable defense strategy in this environment. we are going to have to make some difficult choices that we don't want to make. we're going to properly protect our military because, again, what happens when we don't make those choices, money doesn't magically appear to pay for

those things. the pentagon has to reshuffle the deck and make cuts elsewhere to try to figure out how to make it work. the cuts always come from readiness. we have always said the worst thing we can do is create a hollow force. a force that does not have the training and the equipment to do the missions that e we ask them to do. that is precisely what we do when we reject reasonable cuts and don't do a brak, and leave the mull tear with no choice but to reduce training and equipping. that's all that's left. that's the last thing on the table. i hope we'll start making some of those tough decisions in the next year. i thank the chairman and the staff. i wish senator levin the best in his retirement and i urge passage for the bill, and with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from california is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of my time. . >> the gentleman is recognized. >> i at the outset would like to thank mr. smith.

i agree with probably about everything he said. he has been a tremendous partner to work with. and he just had hip surgery a few weeks ago, and these last few weeks when all these meetings and the time and the effort hooegs had to put forth in great pain, i really commend you for your integrity, for your steadfastness in your commitment to serving your district, the members of our armed services and this nation. it's been great experience working with you and i enjoyed just about every minute of it. times when we disagreed, but we have really done that at a high level and tried to keep it always on the issue, never personal. it's been great. i want to join him in thanking

our staff. we get all the credit -- the majority side. because they work so closely together and that's just the culture of the committee and i'm sure it will continue. as you've heard through other debate, this legislation addresses a wide variety of policy issues including supporting operations in afghanistan, fund iing the war against isil and iraq and syria, reenforcing our capability in the pacific and maintaining the nuclear deterrent, but many challenges remain. next year the armed services committee will be in excellent hands. mr. thorne beri and i have sat next to each other for 20 years

on the committee. mr. smith will continue to be the ranking member. they will have their work cut out for them. but they are more than up to the task. and i wish them all the best because our skurecurity of our nation lies in their hands along with all the members of the committee and all of the members of this body. i hope some time next year a compromise can come to the floor that will end sequestration. there isn't a magical solution that republicans can support and the president can sign without sacrifice on both sides. when that solution comes, it will be a tough vote on both sides. i pray that our colleagues will hold this one thought and the vote comes. remember the great sacrifice that our troops and their families and loved ones at home

are making. right now, they are walking in the mountains of afghanistan. they are at sea within missile range of iran. they are flying wing tip to wing tip against rush russian bombers over the north sea. they are nose to nose with the north koreans. they are sweating in the heat of africa fighting a horrible disease. they are standing on the sands of iraq risking everything against a brutal enemy. they take those risks, they make those sacrifices because of you. they do it for you, they do it for us, for their families, for their flag, for our freedom. and how have we repaid them. with equipment that's falling apart, by laying them off while they are off in war zones. by docking their way and their

medical benefits, but throwing them out of the service and on to a broken economy. i met our forces on the battlefields of iraq and afghanistan dirty and sweating from fighting. i have watched too many families, as have all of you, spend long months waiting for those returning from deployment. i have seen too many heroes put into the ground. they never failed us, not once. so shame on us if we're unwilling to pay back the debt we owe them. shame an all of us if we cannot make far less sacrifice than we ask of them on their behalf. my road in congress is coming to an end. it will be in the next congress and the present to make these injustices right. so please show our troops the respect they deserve.

give them the tools they need, help keep them safe. honor their sacrifice with your service. i know that you'll do the right thing. i'm in the twilight of a 22-year career here in congress. you know, it's been mentioned that we passed this bill 53 times. i want to tell you i was not here for all 53 of those, nor was adam. he's much younger than i am, and you might think i'd been here 53, but it's been the higgs ri of the committee to get this done every year because it is so important. i have come to know many of you as friends and many of you as family. to the armed services committee staff once again, that's minority and majority, you're all veterans, you're

professionals, you're tireless, but i just think of you as the best. my personal staff -- -- oh boy. i did not want to do this. i did not want to give this speech, not because i had any regrets, i just have this problem, you know, thankfully the speaker has it a lot worse than i do and he gets all the attention, but i have the same problem. you know, we hear a lot about government workers and we spend money on government workers, and they don't do anything.

i just to want tell people of america that all of these people that work here spend countless hours, and they do so much for so many people, i have some constituent workers at home that have helped thousands of people, and ere one of these government workers here deserve our gratitude, our thanks for all that they do. i want to thank all my colleagues for their many wonderful things they've said. i've made a comment the other day that my funeral is going to be somewhat anticlimatic. i've heard speeches saying what a wonderful person i am. fortunately, i'm old enough that i don't take any of that personally or too seriously. i understand that this is a

responsibility that was given to me by colleagues, i've enjoyed it, its been a great experience, but i know it's not about me, it's about what we do here. i want to thank my -- my family. people say, boy we love your christmas card. we have six children. 30 grandchildren, and now one great grandchild. and they are all great. and i'm going to spend a little bit more time with them. i think i'd like to teach some of my grandchildren how to fish, if somebody will teach me how to fish.

[ laughter ] and my wife has stood by my side for 52 years now, and she's -- she's a tremendous person who i look up to so much. now, i'm a mckeon, so that means i'm of irish heritage. i'd like to part with a irish blessing for all of you. may the road rise up to meet you and the wind be ever at your back. may the sun shine upon your face and the rain fall softly on your fields. and until we meet again, may god hold you in the hollow of his hand. to this great body and to our troops, wherever you may be, may god bless you and keep you. may god bless america.

and now for hopefully the last time, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. >> he yields back the balance of his time. [ applause ] >> the cspan city tour takes tv on the road traveling to u.s. cities to learn about their history and literary life. this weekend we partnered with time warner cable for a week at waco, texas. >> as we received the vinyl to be digitized, to be saved, we began turning over the b sides of the 45s that we received. now, first off, gospel music was not widely heard in the white community, only the hits, if that. but the b or flip side would be heard even less. and what we discovered quickly was how many of the b side songs were directly related to the civil rights movement.

since there's very few data bases and none were complete all gospel music, i didn't know that. we didn't know the sheer number of songs, very overt songs like there ain't no segregation in heaven type songs. at the same time wh62c possessg one of those songs, much less singing it was a very dangerous thing in the deep south. you could get killed for a lot in the deep south. singing that sort of song outside is a risk. >> the texas ranger hall of fame, it was set up in 1976 for the the 175th anniversary of the rangers and honors, at this point, 30 rangers who made contributions to the service or gave their lives under heroic circumstances. we have paintings or portraits of all of those rangers. they really begin with steven f. austin. austin was very successful with his rangers. they fought not only, managed to make the area reason wli safe

for -- reasonably safe from indian raids, but when the texas war for independence broke out, the rangers played a major role in texas gains its independence by saving off the mexico army long enough to allow the come longists i that. >> watch all of our events from waco, saturday, at noon eastern on c-span's book tv. former senate majority leading tom dashle today criticized congress saying there's been an erosion of corrosion in the house and senate. he called on congress to go back to regular order and quit running thins only through the speaker's office. speak income washington, they talk about immigration, health care, and the eric garner grand jury decision in new york yesterday. hosted by the bipartisan policy

center, this is about an hour. >> i told you, we took the whole family -- >> okay. thanks for coming everyone, dave cook with the christian science monitor. i guess this morning are all affiliated with the bipartisan policy center. they are center co-founder trent tom dashle, and center president, jason grumet.

then senate majority leader dashle was the guest speaker at bud sperling's final breakfast as host. the senator had visited nine times before that, he's a graduate of south dakota state university, served as an intelligence officer in the air force was a senate staffer and one election to the u.s. house in 1978. and the senate in '86. he became democratic leader in '94. serving both as minority and majority leader. he left the senate in 2005, and is now founder and ceo of the dashle group, a public policy advisory and baker-donaldson. did i get that out? >> perfect. >> all good. >> senator lot managed to avoid appearing at one of our intimate gatherings during his long and successful career. not for a lot of crying on our part i might say, but we're glad to rectify that today. senator lot is a graduate of the university of mississippi, and

of the university of mississippi law school. after practicing law, moved to washington to become a congressional aid, and was elected to the u.s. house in 1972. in time to serve on the house judiciary committee during impeachment proceedings. he was elected house minority whip in 1981, and in 1988 was elected to the senate where he went on to serve four terms. he was elected senate republican whip in 1995 and majority leader in 2006, he left the senate at the end of 2007 to open up a lobbying firm. i think it's preferred strategic consulting firm -- >> yes. >> with the former senator. >> tells the truth. >> the firm was purchased by pat boggs and he is now senior council. jason earned his bachelor's degree from brown university and along the way became the 1988 national collegiate debate champion. he has a law degree from harvard, he directed the national commission on energy

policy. he co-founded the bipartisan policy center. along with senate leaders baker, dashle, dole, and mitch, he's president and author of the new book city of rivals. slight extra fee i would have held up the book. now the morning's mechanics. >> thanks go to ceo marty dur bin at the table with his colleges helping this guy survives on the payroll. we're on the record here. please no blogging and short no filing of any kind while the breakfast is under way to give us time to actually listen to what our guest says. there's no embargo when the session ends. we hope you resist that relentless selfie urge, we will e-mail several pictures of the session to all the reporters

here as soon as the breakfast ends. as regular attendees now know, if you'd like to ask a question, do the traditional thing and send me a subtle signal. i'll happily call with all the time we have. we're going to start by offering guests the opportunities for comments and questions around the table. thank you all for doing it, we very appreciate it. >> well it's nice to be here, always good to see our friends from anga. we want to have an interaction. all i'll suggest is that the system is bone crushingly gridlocked, and it will stay that way if we just continue to play by the same rules. i think our view at the bipartisan policy center is that the rules are going to evolve. the frustration of those who are constructive partisans who want to get things done are going to start to require a different approach for legislation.

congressman boehner now has 244-member majority. than changes his latitude some. i think if you look back to last year during the shutdown when speaker boehner showed real leadership and said we're not defaulting on this debt and i'm moving forward. that strengthened his hand. he did not fall through the ice as many people had predicted. and the last thing i will say with opening is that my experience, the people who are absolutely the most frustrated with washington are members of congress. this is not what they signed up for. the vast majority came here to actually get things done. and i think that constructive frustration, just like the constructive frustration of the general public is going to start to have an influence which we can talk about a little more, and i tried to, in my book, has not been held up -- talk about -- >> what was it titled? >> talk about what are some

prague gnattic, but not naive way to move towards a productive partisanship. >> um, first of all i'm sure this is all off the record. thank you to anga for hosting this, and the christian monitor for making its possible for us to be here with you today. i assume tom and i will have an opportunity to speak for 30 minutes with extensions it if we need more time to filibuster. but you know, i'm delighted to be here with my good friend tom dashle, we do a lot of joint appearances now, that's natural because we did a length of time things jointly when we were the respected majority, minority, majority, minority leaders back and forth a couple of times. when you go back and look at what we went through together, not only the impeachment trial, but 9/11, and the anthrax attack that affected tom's office and how we dealt with the 50/50 congress.

we went through tough things and also proud of what we got done. i'm still an incurable optimist believe it or not. i still feel like good things will happen, but it's going to take strong leadership. we're going to have to see some change of direction from the president, we're going to have to see the speaker really move aggressively in trying to keep his conference moving in the right direction, you know, aye always said that when you're in leadership in the house of the senate, you can follow your conference, or you can lead your conference. and if you just follow them, you've got trouble. and i'm hoping that the speaker will step up in that regard and of course mitch mcconnell achieved a goal he's worked on literally i think since high school. now he's going to be the majority leader. there are a lot of things that need to be done with anga here. obviously what's happening in the energy field is having a dramatically positive effect on what's going on in the economy, but it presents opportunities and challenges that i hope the congress will step up to next

year. but, you know, we don't to want eat up all the time making opening statement. we'll go to your questions. >> well, i just to want thank dave and christian science monitor for gives us a chance to come back. and it's a good opportunity to see some of you. we haven't had the opportunities that we used to have as leaders to mingle and talk with you as frequently as we, we used to. so i look forward to the opportunity this morning. let me also thank jason if you haven't read the book, you ought to do so, it's a fantastic book and i would highly recommend it. trent and i have worked together in a lot of different it rations over the years, and its been an enormous pleasure for me to work with him over the last several years and a lot of different contexts, especially here at the bbc. over time we've become closer friends. so i've treasured that friendship and appreciate the chance to be with him this

morning. it's not secret that our country itself is very divided. the research center and others said this may be the most divided we've been philosophically and i'd logically in over 100 years. the congress really reflects oftentimes the divisions within our own country. and i think we're experiencing that today. largely, it's a debate about the role of government in modern society. it's a debate between those who consider themselves rugged individualists on one side and those who believe that there is a lot to be said for collective action on the other. finding compromise between those two points of view as we consider the role of government in modern society is always a challenge, but its become even more so. its also been a tactical question for a lot of members who get elected to congress these days. the tactical question is when do you stand your ground and when do you look for common ground? there are a lot of people who believe they were sent to washington not to find common

ground, but to continue to insist on standing their ground and making a stand on principle alone. that, the challenge in reconciling those two points of view, first on the role of government and secondly on the tactical way with which one governors has really presented the set of circumstances we're facing today. as jason and trent both have said, there are ways of which to address it. there are easier ways, there are somewhat more difficult ways, and then there are ways that are almost impossible, but if you've read walter's new book, he quotes larry page as saying, noord to be successful in everything, you have to have a healthy disregard for the impossible, and i think that's really what we've got to understand. we've got to have a healthy disregard for those who just say there's nothing we can do about this because it's just impossible. it isn't impossible, we can't address it as a country. we've done so in the past and i hope we can continue to demonstrate our capacity to do so going forward.

>> thank you. all three of you and for your remarkable time sensitivity which we don't always find with our guests. thank you very much for that. i'm going to ask one or two and go to charles, jim carol, david jackson, and others. that'll get us started. let me ask you a non-congressional question or perhaps a non-congressional question as we all know, new york grand jury yesterday declined to indict a white police officers in an unarmed black person, eric garner. does the death of unarmed black americans at the hands of police call for bipartisan action, and if so, what? >> well, maybe i can start by saying, i think without knowing the specific circumstances in that case, i understand there's going to be an investigation. so we'll better understand just

what, what actually occurred and why. i do think that we have avoided a serious discussion about race in america now for some time. and it's critical that we continue to understand the need for that dialogue, the need for us to become much more aware of the inequities and the challenges that we face as a nation. whether it's the voting rights act or voter suppression or any one of a number of other challenges we face in the country. we have a lot of work to do, and these cases are certainly a reminder of that. >> i'm going, the way we're going to do this mechanically, i'll let each of you respond to whatever you respond to. either want to respond as well. >> to add maybe a broader reflection, really does affect i think a lot of the folks in this room, we now get to see almost everything. whether it is interactions

between individuals and police, they get violent, whether it's horrible grotesque actions of isil, and that is changing the way people understand these problems. i have no actual statistical notion that there is more violence between white police officers and african americans today than there has ever been. maybe my intuition is there's less, but we see it more. and i think that does in a very constructive, important way force this conversation forward. and you know, it's hard to imagine a federal legislative response to that, but we do have a very strong federal role in civil rights enforcement. i do believe this is going to be an ongoing conversation. >> yeah, i think it's something we have to confront. we have to come to terms with what happens in instances like

this. and what could be done differently. i've always had a little bit of a problem. you're talking about what legislatively could be done. some of the equipment that the federal government provides to police departments around the country, you wonder why they need that. it's heavy equipment. and, you know, and sometimes in small town police departments. i think congress and diane feinstein has been talking about maybe doing something in that area to at least limit it to smaller side arms or weapons rather than tanks if you will. i'm not sure, may not have tanks, but they have large anti-riot vehicles, but also i think it's time that everybody ask themselves, are these things being handled propertierly? well not only on the streets, but in the public discourse. and its been interesting, and troublesome quite frankly. some of the things we've seen and heard and others that have

taken the advantage of the opportunity. we'll see what happens with that. >> last one for me. i want to ask you about what you see as the most likely areas for bipartisan action, speaking to the business round table yesterday, president obama cited tax policy, the transpacific partnership and trade, infrastructure, and surprisingly, immigration as potential areas for bipartisan legislative action. based on your considerable expertise, what are the best possibilities for bipartisan action, if any. >> i do think strayed one that they have a good opportunity to and need to work together. it can get off track, if members of congress see the negotiations particularly with the age and negotiations. if they go too far and the area. republicans will react to that.

or if they don't go far enough. democrats will have a problem with it, there's a delicate balance there. to the administration's credit, they are reaching out in the a bipartisan way. both to congress, members of congress and some former members of congress. talk about how this can be done. we were involved in doing it with nafta. the problem is you get a debate, and 60 votes are required on the trade promotion authority, the fast track, but the actual vote is only 51 votes. so members are going to be a little jumpy before they know the final product, you know, we're going to give this fast track authority where there's no amendments, you debate in a fine a. times under the rules and sthen you vote. i'm very much an advocate of the t tip. the one in europe. there are complications with both of them, had problems of course with japan on automobiles and agriculture products and there'll be projects in europe

and will not want to put some things on the table. i know that mitch mcconnell will be wanting to be helpful and move that forward. i also think tax reform is possible. i think they kind of tripped over things last week. they were getting close to having the big $400 billion tax extender package with making some of the extenders permanent and in the president threatened a veto and it fell apart. now they're using a tax extenders. to save the bigger debate so have more pressure to get a tax reform and extenders in a pack anl next year. i don't know. i'm a little nervous because it seems like every time they get started in the right direction, something trips it up. and they lose the momentum, but it needs to be a comprehensive package. it is about jobs and the economy. i really hope they'll do that.

i think there's a good possibility in the energy area. you know, they're going to have to deal with some of the energy areas. we recommended that the bipartisan policy center, some reforms that would put somebody in charge of energy policy, nobody's really in charge. how many, like 17 agencies, commissions, and bureaus and departments deal with energy. nobody has the con as they would say in navy. inthat's a possibility. obviously -- i think that's a possibility. obviously transportation. i think that'ssg possibility well because you have the aviation, faa is expiring next year. we have to do something about the me a trust fund. i would hope they would get serious about dealing with the need for money and how you do that, there are not many options on the table. but, bill is one of the best legislators in the congress, and he's got good helpers, good legislators on the senate side. we have seen barbara boxer shown the ability to get bills through a committee. working with jim and dave.

now, if barbara boxer andday move infrastructure in the past, that's pretty impressive, and you add bill on the house side, there's a great potential, but i hope that they will do as they talked about, go back to regular order. quit running everything out of the speaker's office or the leaders office. you got chairmen and chair women that are very confident. let them do the job, have hearings and investigations and mark ups and votes on amendments. move it to the familiar. raise held, have a great debate, stay in late, stay in on saturday and vote on amendments and quit acting like a bunch of chickens when you have a six year term. i'm hopeful that things will move. immigration, they got to do that. we should have done it in 2007 it's one of the most disappointing experiences i ever had as a member of the senate. the amount of cowardice i saw exhibited in 2007 on the

immigration bill was extremely disappointing to me. it was one of the things that attributed to my decision to move on and do something else. i hope they'll come back to it. they can do it in pieces, i fray they try to do the big gulp, they'll choke on it. and they could move it in three pieces, but there's got to be three. you have to do the border security. you have to do the visa situation, h 2 a's or whatever those are. what is the appropriate way to deal here in a fair reasonable way, but do it in such a way where it can't be defined as am necessary fip that's a delicate -- amnesty. that's a delicate balance. >> i agree with the with regard of the potential lists. i'd add one that is somewhat counterintuitive, i'm sure everybody at the table, that's health care. i'm sure there's a list of health care initiatives that could enjoy broad bipartisan support, i would start with the relegal and the replace of sgr.

the sustainable growth rate. 51-0 vote in the house commerce committee earlier this year. and i think it's clearly something that everyone recognizes, need to be addressed. the children's health insurance program expires, and so, most of you know, it always enjoyed broad bipartisan support. i think telehealth, there's a lot of recognition of the importance of telehealth, not only in rural areas, but urban as well. a whole array of new services to be offered through electronic communication. in addition to that, there's a number of issues affecting diabetes. we have 29 million americans who have diabetes, 86 million americans who have prediabetes, at a cost. $322 billion a year and there are a number of things we can do on prevention, protection, and equipment for diabetes that already have enjoyed bipartisan

support. a number of areas having to do with health. i think the potential for bipartisan is quite high. >> we have a deal with sunflower county, one of the poorest counties in the entire country with diabetes. by this use of telemedicine, they're monitoring people that aren't are diabetics a and they have diet problems, check their blood pressure, they work with them, make sure you take your medication. talk to them about what they should be eating or not eating. and they're doing this all by medicine, remotely done, it's 120 miles away. where there's no local doctor in the county. so, there's really a lot of exciting things that could happen in the medical area through the use of medicine. >> just to make the point that there are a lot of issues in the queue. and a lot of issues that

actually had some bipartisan momentum over the last few years that frankly got choked out by the really, i think destructive relationship as you move forwards leadership. i think the assertion that we have to let the committees do their work is really essential, and there's a whole strap that of issues. i just mentioned a few of them. energy efficiency, it has been sitting there. senators blunt and brown have legislation on advanced manufacturing. postal reform. something that people actually would feel sitting on the table and it said bipartisan support. and so i think, we don't have to start from zero. there is a misperception that congress across the board that has collaboration. that's true at the highest levels, it's not really true within the rank and file. so in addition to some of the big issues, see if you can swallow the square mill on health care, there are two

things i would mention, oil exports. this is a fantastic issue. because it kind of explodes the 30 year structure of energy legislation which was based around light blue sweaters and scarcity and fear of the 1970s, we now live in an era of incredible energy abundance. oil exports is one way to think about it, and it's a new issue. people are not entrenched. >> might also mention, liquefied natural gas. we have anga back here. >> the good news is it doesn't require congress. it's movingings forward already, but the last point i'll mention.

technical corrections, modest adjustments, but bring those bills back into the forum. >> the associated press. >> thank you very much. >> the senator mentioned cowardice in the congressional some years ago. and that's a term here in the gridlock. they are not willing to risk some static back home. i'm wondering if, the american voter, had in your time of looking at american politics and government, have you seen a change, are americans less willing to take some dings on paying taxes or having a limit on social security and medicare, that sort of thing? or is this all a reaction within congress itself? >> i actually think that the american people are willing to be led, if they can be shown that in so doing, america can be

elevated to a higher level in public policy or in ultimate objectives. so i, i think there is as jason so eloquently talked about earlier, there's far more transparency today. and we've always known that the legislative sausage-making is never pret fip and i think -- pretty. and i think we see that elevated state of sausage making and people repel from that or the lack of sausage making in many cases because of the transparency that exists. to a certain extent, there's a reluctance on the part of members to deal and to come up with compromise in part because so much of it is so much more transparent than ever in the past. used to cut deals. we used to, you know, and frankly, earmarks were part of deal cutting. you could trade things that members needed back home for the attorneys. it wasn't pretty, but it worked.

now we don't do any of that, in part because of transparency, in part because of reaction to earmarks that understandably generated the last several years. >> you know, i agree with everything tom just said. these are different times, these are different people. i do think, you know, there's a little bit too much, everybody looking to appeal to their base boat. whether their far left or far right. and i never was one that hung around in the middle. but i also think that people yearn for somebody, their elected officials to lead. to try get things done. try to explain to them why they're doing what they're doing. i voted for a separate department of education, and i knew my constituents at the time, this was when i was still in the house did not agree with me. but i did the same time that i indicated what the vote was and i voted for it, i explained why i did. even though i knew that 54%

didn't agree with me. i never got any flak for that. they also knew when they elected me i had egts background, schoolteacher and working for the university of mississippi and all of that, but you know, the times are different, you know. people, social media's a part of it. and its gone beyond 24/7, it's explosive. and the media gets locked in on an issue and you really can't get away from it. my phones were jammed for a week or two, rush limbaugh gave out my phone number. i had to go to the office early, and when the phone would ring and i'd say hello. who are you calling? had them in a disadvantage immediately. i did it to see what they were going to say. during that process, i got three death threats. one from oregon, and a third one. so i mean it was ugly. but remember we lost that vote in 2007 on a procedural vote.

and we, the counting i was doing, i was back in his whip, i thought we were going to be able to win that, but over the weekend, rush limbaugh labelled it amnesty, and labor got ahole of the democrats and said we don't want these workers coming in with the visas. so democrats were coming in voting no because of labor, the republicans were voting no because of amnesty from rush limbaugh. and i'm in the well of the senate with john kyle and lindsey graham, not two notorious liberals, but also ted kennedy, diane feinstein and harry reid. we were working the vote and we lors. that was one of the most mind boggling things i've ever seen. so it is harder now, i think. but, my attitude is, why would you want to come here if all you want to do is raise money and

get reelected? why wouldn't you want to make a difference? when i hear some of the criticisms about, you know, i point out to some of it, held raisers now, whenjq) president and tom and i were leadership, we got welfare reform which we did a balanced budget, tax reform, we did major telecommunications forms, raised military pay. what among those is not a good thing? what among those is not conservative from some of my conservative friends? you know, i tell some of them, look, just to do nothing is not a conservative position. to change the direction of the country, you have to get an action. whether it's liberal, moderate, or democrat, you have to get something done. so it is harder now to do it. and you do run the risk of getting defeated, i guess, or losing your leadership position, but now it's easy for know say

now, so what? at least you go down standing up as morgan freeman said in the movie "glory." standing up fighting for something. if you're going get your head chopped off politically, try to get something done. people want leadership. they want obama to reach out to mcconnell and for the speaker to reach out to the administration. talk. see where they can find some common ground. i think american people would react positively if they would see that. >> the one issue chuck, just to raise, this idea of not taking hard votes is just tragedy. the wonderful news is it didn't work. right. all the folks who senator reid were trying to protect by avoiding tough votes, virtually all of them lost. voting is not only what captures the possibility, but it's also what ventilates the anger. the body was created fundamentally to vote for things. and so, my hope is that the last

election cycle where a lot of people were harmed by saying they were in lock step with the president will demonstrate that actually it's the political imperative is not to prevent people from voting so we have a constant si of 98%, but it's to allow them to differentiate themselves. that would be a major step forward if that sense of the political logic shifted. >> francine. >> my good friend and partner is typically john is talking about how okay, yeah well, the republicans have got the senate and they're going to have 54 votes, but they need six more. on a lot of issues, on most except budget, they need 60. and he's looking to see if there's a fulcrum appointed, if there's six democrats that might be willing to maneuver the way john used to. he used to give tom and me both heartburn because sometimes he was moving against me and the reverse. if that group of somewhat more

moderate democrats decided we're going to be a part of trying to finding the 60th vote to get some things done, they could have a lot of influence around here. >> francine. >> so so much has been talked about with mcconnell and what he is going to do with the new majority. reid subpoena going into the minority now, what is his task as minority leader? >> i think it's to lead. i think it's so to find ways to achieve some common ground. he said something last week that i thought was very encouraging. he said, we're not going to get into payback. if he meant that, and i assume he did, he always speaks from his heart, my guess is that there are going to be opportunities on the array of issues that we've already talked about, where there could really be some common ground. it wouldn't have to take the six

people that john is going to be looking for, you could do it with, with 60 or 70 votes. and that's possible depending on how democrats look at their role. it seems to me that it's in harry reid's interest to accomplish as much as we can in the final two years of the obama administration. i mean, obama has two more years of opportunity, and i find, as i look back, some of the most productive years of any administration are the final two. that's certainly true of bill clinton. and you could argue that, you know, about other presidents, but there's no question, there is a very rich agenda here. that could be addressed if we could find real corporation. i've been encouraged, trent and i were talking about this before we came in, i've been encouraged by the signs of maybe a newfound relationship between mitch mcconnell and harry reid in the last two weeks. they seem to be talking more, they seem to be coming up with agreements a little bit more

frequently, and if that's any indication, i'm still even though it has to be shown, i'm still hopeful that we could really find some common ground next year. >> you know, he did say after he had been working to try put together the tax extenders, big package and fell apart. he did say that he would support just the one year extension. which you know the house voted on overwhelmingly last night. he also said he can go with the other. which some people didn't like it that he spoke and said we can do the cr, but the cr would be a short term homeland security. just the fact that he said, basically, realizing we have, what, six, seven legislative days left this year, that this was probably the best we could get. so i was encouraged by what he said on both of those. >> jim carol. >> to have both of you here, it's so attempting to spend the whole hour just talking about

your experiences as majority and minority leaders, and you could write a book about it, and in fact both have. and i guess, thinking ahead to how mitch mcconnell is going to govern, he want ps to try to find common ground. first of all, have you talked to mcconnell, has he asked for advice on becoming majority leader, and second of all, what should be his takeaway, if you haven't talked to him, what advice would you give the future majority leader of the senate? >> i haven't talked to him since he's obtained his new position, but i've obviously had hundreds of conversations with him over many years about this. i'm encouraged that one of his real heros is henry clay. henry clay has always been iconic as, and viewed as a great compromiser, somebody who could bring sides together, and if that's mitch in modern times, i'm encouraged by that. i'd all go back to his experience with marlo cook.

he was also somebody who found ample opportunity to work with people across the aisle. so he has a long history of experience and comments made about henry clay that seems to me are indicative of where his real soul lies. and let's hope that that can be reflected as he makes his decisions about leadership. these are as trent said, these are different times, but i think it's going to take meaningful leadership, stepping up to the plate, looking for ways to do things differently, and i think he has that capacity. >> senator, i talked to mitch and have over the years, i must say that majority leaders don't generally ask for advice very much. [ laughter ] they tend to think they already know it, having said that, mitch does have a long record of learning. having been a staff member for john sherman cooper. and having been in the center for as long as he has been being

in leadership, both as whip and minority leader. so he jáf5sjs think what he's had to say has been just the right toeb. of all the leaders in washington right now, i think his tone has been the best. and you might expect that from me, but when i say that, that means i'm saying other people haven't had the right tone of

either party. so he'll be an interesting study, but you know, i mean he makes the point himself. the three biggest deals that have been made in the last four years were between mitch and joe biden. and you know, i understand the white house they call joe biden the mcconnell whisperer. why they can talk and why they can make it work. that's a valuable talent that we need more of. and we need to take advantage of it. >> usa today db been talking to the white house, a lot of people are wondering if the health care law if you were in charge of passing it? and i'm curious, do you agree? how do you think things might have been different had you been in the white house then. what's the future for obamacare? >> well, first of all, i have no idea. we've failed to pass meaningful comprehensive health care legislation for over a century.

the fact is we passed something, and in 2010 and i look back with great satisfaction. you know, it was a perfect bill? absolutely not. i think most people fail to understand how much commonality there is. there is very little difference between republicans and democrats about the fact that we still have a cost problem. we spend more on health care in the united states than india has in the entire gdp or brazil and russia. $9,200 per year this year. you know, costs have come down dramatically result in part of the passage of the affordable care act. i'd emphasize only in part, but nonetheless, they've come down. we still have an access problem, 30 million people are uninsured. we have serious quality problems. we don't even rise to the top ten and in the top 20 different criteria from performance in health today.

so, on those three challenges, we, we find very little disagreement, the causes are also areas for which there is little disagreement. and i think even the goal, we to want build a high performance, high value health care marketplace with better access, better quality, and lower cost. and i think there's a great deal of consensus about that. what i think those who oppose the affordable care act really ought to be forced to do though is to say okay, if it's not aca, how are we going to address cost access and quality? how are we going to achieve that high performance, high value health care marketplace? very few critics have come up with a plan that would allow us the confidence in knowing that that is a viable alternative. in fact there are no viable alternatives to the health care act today. at least on the table. so i'm still hopeful that over time we can come to the realization that repealing the

affordable care act is just not a viable option. finding ways to improve it certainly is, and there's plenty of opportunities for us to do that. >> you think the slaw written now will survive -- >> i do. i am totally confident it'll survive. it may not look the same as it does today, but you know, we made hisfully -- history in january. very little was said and done about it. but for the first time in all of american history, if off preexisting condition, you can get health insurance. if you have a preexisting condition, you're not going to be charged more than somebody else. if you're a woman, you're not going to be charged more than a man. there are no many annual limits or lifetime limits. if you're a young adult, you can sign up on your parent's plan. even those little things are ones that i don't think the american people are ever going to be prepared to give up. and so, you've got 20 million people now who have insurance who didn't have it before or didn't have the quality of the care that they have today. so, and i think within the next couple of years, that number

could easily be 50 million. so we're on a, in an trend towards a change in the health pair dime of -- paradigm of major consequence. the ada is here for good. >> let me comment on that. first of all, i think it would have been different if tom had been the secretary. it wouldn't have been probably every republican voting against it. he would have worked to find some way to make it a little bit more bipartisan. i do think that the congress next year will vote to repeal it. i don't know whether it'll be just a repeal or repeal to replace. i think that'll send it to the president and he'll veto it. then they're probably going to do two of three whacks at it. could do a block or they're going to come back to the medical device tax, they're going to probably want to do something about the mandates. so they're going to pick some pieces off. now to the president's credit,

obviously he won't like that, but he did say, correctly, never has been a bill passed that was perfect. maybe there's areas where we could make some changes and we could tweak it in a way that's beneficial to the people, but i don't think republicans based on the election cannot try to make some changes in obamacare. >> dave, just to add, democrats want to make changes too. >> medical device, yeah. >> medical device tax, interest, concern right now about the interpretation about whether federal subsidies can float to states that don't have state exchanges. and clarifying that language, there's a cumbersome, really i think unintended consequence where folks in the lower middle class don't are have access to subsidies. there is a mutual desire to change it, and now if republicans can swag that as repealing portionsing with you know, it might pass something. >> perfect to answer my

question, the supreme court agreed to hear a case on whether federal subsidies or exchanges are legal on the block. in the past, as i understand it, these technical fixes to legislations were fairly routine. you'd go back and clarify -- >> almost always. >> almost always major bill. we'd have tech any call corrections. >> yes. >> right now it looks like there's going to be political warfare over making a technical fix to the aca. i'm wondering if you think that that's logical. i'm wondering if you guys would have done this differently had you been running the show. and for senator specifically, i'm wondering if you think republicans should make that change to get rid of the ambiguity around federal subsidies. >> well, i would think they should work at that. one of the things i'm looking for, who would be the leader in the house or the senate, republican or even democrat that would try to find a way to do

some improvement without, you know, demolishing the bill? paul ryan going to step up and do that? you know, how will orin hatch work together? that would be an interesting twosome to keep an eye on. i think they could be dynamite, frankly. i think they could really want to do some good things in the health care area and in the tax area. and they might get out of control of their leadership too. they're both known to be a little independent sometimes. i used to have to wrestle with the children's health thing. he'd take it all on his own. frank, i like that. i mean they're leaders too. they've earned the right to be a ranking member and the chairman of the finance committee clearly one of the most committees in the congress. >> justs to clarify, you would encourage republicans to work on the technical tax? >> yeah, i would. >> rick kline of abc. so,ic you guys would agree that

whatever the failings in leadership and whether you agree or disagree that these are rational actors making ration gnat decision makers. given that, where does the change come from a different mindset at the top saying i know what i thought before was rational decision to make, but i'm going change that in the interest of this. does it have to start in the middle with gangs or some kind of a bipartisan consensus that grows from the middle out? or does it, does it frankly start with voters who just elect people that have this different mindset? it seems like unless these guys change their minds, you're going to get kind of more of the same. >> if i could jump in there, the new members in the senate are pretty good group. you take a look at them right across the board, they are experienced men and women that have been in state offices, have been in the military leaders, been in the house. so you know, they didn't, i

don't think they came here to blow this place up. got a guy like cory gardner that won in colorado, this is a doer. so i think that, i'm encouraged by the quality of the republicans that were elected. but, i'm a strong believer, tobacco begins at the top. obama has got to, you know, he's got to engage more. he's got to, he needs more people talking to him and, but i don't think all the burden's on him. when i wanted to talk to clinton, i picked up the phone and called him, or bush. so that goes, people just say, obama, he won't talk to them. well, what are they doing about that? sometimes you have to get around staff, which i used to do and got me in a lot of trouble. paul didn't like it when i did that. but i think obama needs to lead and show some movement, i think mcconnell is determined to try to do that. i think boehner would like to,

he's still struggling with some of his conference members. i think that's where it begins. >> i'm -- i'm sorry. >> no, go ahead. >> i'm actually encouraged by the rhetoric i heard during the campaign about wanting to make washington work better. congress is at a approval rating of 14% right now. you had the lowest voter turnout in 72 years. 36%. and so, there's ample reason for everyone who got elected recently to want to make washington work better. but there are two reasons we haven't talked about yet. one is the, the erosion of authority and institutional power and stature of the senate and the house itself. the more they are dysfunctional, the more they seat authority and power to somebody who isn't, the more they exceed the power to the president to who takes executive action or to governors who do their own thing, and that's what's happening. congress is at a position now

where they've got to ask themselves, are we going to become increasingly irrelevant because we're incapable of addressing the nation's problems today? i don't think anybody in the institution wants, wants to be guilty of that. the other is, i'm always amazed as i travel abroad, the intense curiosity people have about america in foreign land. i guess asked about it all the time. why is washington so dysfunctional? and as we try to convince the developing world especially that democratic republics are the best way to govern. if we can't showcase it here in washington, how do we really make that case around the world? and that to it seems to me also something that going back to it, something we said earlier, the transparency is not within our own country, it's worldwide, and as that transparency continues to demonstrate the dysfunction of this city, it sends an

enormously powerful message to the rest of the world and gives all of those who are not allies of ours, reason to suggest that they ought to be looking elsewhere for models for governess, not the united states. >> dave, i want to add a couple of thoughts. i think that the point that the electorate matters, there was some shift of people saying we want governments to achieve outcomes, even if that requires collaboration or compromise. you know, from where we were a few years ago, it's also true that, you know, the country had a really deeply damaging recession that caused a great amount of pain to tens of millions of people. and that creates a lot of anger. and i think a lot of what we have seen in the congress, i think some of it captured by the tea party has been an expression of that deep harm. and thankfully, our economy is now starting to click forward at a more predictable pace.

so i think there are some external factors that helped, but i don't think you can emphasize enough the process. we are social creatures. and these same group of people, we see it all the time at the bpc can act horribly dysfunctional or collaborative ways based on the external conditions. i think senator mcconnell deserves a lot of credit, and the words regular order are the least interesting words, if any of you explain it to the american public, please do, but you know, the schedule came out yesterday, and it actually does move towards doing something remarkable, coordinating the house and senate so that they're operating at the same time. it does move towards longer workweeks so that we're not trying to run the country on wednesdays. the notion of instilling more authority in the committees where people actually do spend time together matters a lot. the idea that members of congress should take trips together, you know, this should be supported by leadership. 15 hour flight to kazakhstan

where people, as congress people get to know each other. and lastly, as i mentioned in my opening comments, the rules are going to change a little bit. i think there was an incredibly significant step an incredibly significant step to run very high quality candidates in the midterm elections. that was not casual. it was not quiet. it was an incredibly agrezive item. i hate the words republican establishment. i think those folks are tired of the dysfunction and you will start to see more aggressive response to an insurgent movement that changed the rules and it takes a while to realize that has to happen. on both. you're going to start to see

some shifts in the process. >> you saw what happened just briefly in mississippi. we had a ferocious primary which floored me. a lengthy conversation i had saying get down there and we tried but it was really really tough. they did survive. we came up with pretty good quality. >> i'm going to draw them all

together here. i just want to put to you, i'm kept call about a lot of what you have said. i keep coming back to people who are in there now, just -- ted cruz to name one. you mentioned all the people that will give boehner fits. respond to the idea that has been put forth that we are at a point where it really is, the problem is more on the republican side, that there are more people, you said, too many people come here to stand their

ground, not find common ground. that's the basis of a lot of these primary fights. the voters want people to just stand their ground and not find common ground. you two were quite the part sons in your time. could you address this question about whether one side is more to blame than the other given the way the party has evolved? >> you might expect me to disagree with that and i do. look, there are problems.

we couldn't get things moved because others said no we're not going to let you do that. it was a tweak of dodd frank, which we were talking about. i do think we have a problem and it may -- maybe it will clarify itself in 2016 but i'm assuming that we will come up with a viable candidate and we will have a chance in the general eletkemann and one of the ways i answered that is i hope it's a governor or former governor, period. >> no senators? >> no senators. >> just to add quickly, it's hard to see that senator warren or merkly would bring down or shut down the government or threaten default. and that's the kind of action that is written. you never would have done that

either. >> i think leadership will have to find a way to deal sternly with some of these members.

>> he says and does some things that shock people. it is reaching out. so, i also believe and i use this word and wound up in the washington post. i caught hell for it. but some of the new members, i think the leadership should move quickly. bring them in the loot. don't let them drift over to the far right flank. i hope at the end of the day we will come up with somebody that actually has a choons to get elected. >> do you want to weigh in on the blame before we end? >> i do think that mitch has a bigger tactical challenge than

harry does. there are a lot more people in his caucus who come with the belief that standing your ground is the right thing to do, who don't want to compromise. and you know, i think he's got a big challenge and trent's advice to mitch on that score is absolutely right. the more you can include, the more you can engage and bring them in quickly, the more likely it is that those stand your ground types will look at the advantages of finding common ground. >> i think the balance is pretty reasonable. but again, speaker boehner and nancy pelosi can pass any piece of legislation they want. harry reid and mitch mcconnel

can pass any piece of legislation they want. but, i think there is some logic. you're not going to see it all the time but on some key votes you will start to see collaboration that is intentionally designed to isolate their edges. if not, we're going to be having the same conversation in two years. >> i want to extend an apology to my colleagues. there were a number of them. i want to thank senators for coming. thanks for doing this. appreciate it. >> can i ask you a real quick question?

>> and here is a little of what else you can find on c-span. saturday night at 10:00 onbook tv on c-span 2, university of new hampshire, jason sogul and how the u.s. was not always supportive of african-american civil rights. and our live three hour conversation with author arthur brooks. and on american history tv on c-span 3, saturday night at 78:00 with lectures and history.

mar thaw jones on female slaves and the law. and president george h.w. bush's former secretary of state james baker. find our complete television schedule at c-span.org and let us know about the programs you're watching. e-mail us at comments@cspan.org, or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> on tuesday, the wall street journal ceo council held its annual meeting in washington d.c. among the speakers, mitch mcconnel of kentucky. topics including the economy, taxes, immigration and health care policy. this is about 20 minutes.