planned parenthood and funding. what is going on? >> you cannot take politics out of capitol hill matter who you are and what you think is best. you have a lot of pent-up anger among republicans who have felt for years that planned parenthood what ever services they provide is a political organization that opposes republicans. why should the government be funneling money to a political organization particularly one that helps women obtain abortions and is still a very controversial service in many republican circles. some republicans are adamantly pro life. republicans for years have want to cut off funding for planned parenthood and were disappointed when republicans ran the ball from 1994-2006 that things like this did not happen.

add to this the budget crisis and the debt and a down economy and you have republicans and especially whether they are talk-radio hosts or bloggers, a conservative thinkers, saying particularly now when we cannot afford anything, you cannot justify that we continue funding planned parenthood. as much as cecile would like to make this about services that planned parenthood provides and how the government would have to spend money in any event, for many republicans on the hill and their supporters around the country, this is a quasi- religious issue. not only should we np fundr we should not fund planned parenthood. >> what about the tea party saying they don't want to talk about social issues? >> good point but it is still a fiscal issue. it is still the government spending money somewhere where

the private sector should be doing it instead. people like to see all have to enter this question. who else should get caught? congress is facing a situation where everything has an interest group but nobody wants to cut any funds for their group. the guy over there says you have to protect my group or the world will end. there is no good answer. the government does not have the money. let's not forget the new class of republicans on the hill. they have not been in public office before and many of them are small business owners, people approaching the issues of washington in a real everyman way. they look at something like this and they think $300 million for a service that maybe the federal

government should not be involved in a. . it doesn't necessarily get into the social this is for them but the role of the federal government. why does this make sense? >> when we asked cecile about the size and scope of the government, that is the way the new republicans are approaching this purpose may be a great service but should the government be involved in >> ? mike pence3 offered the resolution. will there be attempts by him or others to continue to go after funding for planned parenthood? >> yes, most definitely. the situation in congress next week when lawmakers return from recess is that this provision to get rid of the funding for planned parenthood is attached to the broader house-passed bill that would fund the government through the end of the fiscal

year in september. to get a compromise with the senate, the senate majority leader harry reid has said not only will he not allow that amendment to stay on h he saidell, no. -- to stay on the bill but he saidhell no. it will come back in different forms and our other legislation out there that tinker with federal funding for family planning and abortion services. >> cecile was quick to bring up that on the senate side they have republicans that are with them on this. >> they do but even if they didn't, there is no way a de- funding of planned parenthood gets out of the senate. it is a political line where you will not get any major democrat to cross that. to give you a picture of the politics of this, republicans

recently in the house were able to pass de a bill-funding npr. some were disappointed that republicans did that separately and dead not included as part of the budget. they thought they were not released data and challenging democrats in the senate or the president. they thought that doing it separately was a way out. to give the mind-set of some in the republican base outside washington and that is where this planned parenthood issue is wrapped up, it is not happening. they will get their money because harry reid, chuck schumer, president obama will not allow this to happen. >> we will have to leave it there. thank you both for being a "part of newsmakers." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> i am not interested in

developing a strategy to win the primary and not be in a position to win the general. i want to go out there and say we have done well everywhere. >> today, rick santorum says down "on the road to the white house." it is part of a series of interviews with potential gop candidates. >> i am a numbers guy. >> be up columnist "for the new york"* expresses his opinions with the charts and graphs. >> i don't decide to talk about a subject and look for data. i search for data first. it is something that may agree with an opinion i have. something that would surprise me. >>"q &a" tonight at 8:00 on c- span. >> a discussion on the history

of the senate, its constitutional role, and the prospect for changes to procedures such as the filibuster. we will hear from former senate majority leader trent lott, senate historian richard baker and wall street journal's reporter janet huff. this is one hour, 40 minutes. >> we had a fire alarm and i appreciate you coming back again. mike -- i am the director of the program and your moderator today. for those of you who are new to the center and we have about 40 or 50 people in our audience but we have a live web cast going as well as c-span coverage. we're getting out to a larger

audience. let me explain briefly what the wilson center is about. we were created by an act of congress back in 1968 as a living memorial to our 28 president, woodrow wilson, who is still the only president to hold a phd. before he got into politics, he was a teacher, a professor of government and history and went on to become the president of princeton and ran for governor of new jersey where he served for two years and ran for president in 1912 and served for two terms. he always believed is that the scholars and policy makers would benefit by getting together and talking about current issues of the day, that both would benefit from the other's views. it was in that spirit that congress created this living memorial rather than one more marble statue somewhere. we have about 800 meetings per year in which we try to live out that spirit that wilson had in mind where we bring together policy-makers and scholars the thinkers and doers to talk about

issues. this product was created in 1999. we bring together members of congress from each party. we bring together journalists to cover recover the hell and scholars. we talk about a policy issue and how the process plays out. that is what we are about. this is the penultimate program in a two-year series on the theme of policy-making the media, and public opinion. we are grateful to chevron for several years of sponsoring these ongoing seminar series. the program today is entitled or poses the question, is senate reform an oxymoron? in my introductory essay which is in the handout and available on our website when i was studying politics back in the early 1960's, i learn from some of the more liberal academics who were writing books of the time that the three horsemen of

the congressional apocalypse or the house rules committee, the security system, and a filibuster. they have taken care of the rules committee which is now under the arm of the majority leadership. the seniority system has changed considerably. committee chairman are now basically responsive to their party caucus and their leaders for the filibuster still remains a bone of contention with many who would like to reform the senate. it is not my idea that we will spend this entire two hours talking about the filibuster but rather go deeper into the nature of the senate and its role and how it has changed over time and what still might be done. this started during the

discussion for changing the cloture rule. there were about three different alternatives to changing the filibuster rule. the bipartisan leadership got together and came up with their own tournament agreement as an alternative. they took votes on all of them. the filibuster reformers did not get a majority on their proposals but the bipartisan leadership did carry the day with some significant changes on narrowing the number of confirmations -- nominations that the presidential nominations have to be confirmed and have fewer filibusters' of the majority did not block the minority amendments. they did some significant things in that process. they also got rid of secret holes which is a significant step. they have made that foolproof we will see. the young reformers indicated they were not parties to this

gentleman's agreement and that they would not hold off for the rest of this congress and they might resurrect the reforms if things are not going well. we will see how that works out. we are fortunate today to have with us a very outstanding panel. i just saw this last week. i opened with a sentence that said the senate has long been a favorite whipping boy of the media, scholars, and some senators. little could i have known that the washington post this morning with a form -- what from the mediocrity 20 opened a column last week as -- in united states senate, failure is not an option, it is a requirement. [laughter] with that, let me introduce our panel. we will have each of them speak for 50 minutes or so. we will give the -- for 15 minutes or so.

we will give the former senator a little more. no filibuster is, though. trent lott is a former republican senator from mississippi. he is now the senior counsel with the pro-life leadership group. he spent 36 years in the congress 16 in the house and 20 in the senate. he served in a variety of leadership positions. they include being the republican whip and a house and going on to the senate where he was also the republican whip and majority leader. he also served in the house rules committee. that is where i was fortunate to serve under him as staff counsel for a subcommittee of the house rules committee. that was probably the best eight years of my 28 in the congress. he was a great boss and we had fun and got blood on the process. after he stepped down as majority leader in the senate, as he was elected to the rules and administration committee. they consider reform proposal. he has undoubtedly sat for many

hours of hearings on senate reform. you have been through a lot of reform efforts in both bodies over the years. our second speaker on the panel is richard baker who is now the senate historian anne merritt says. he served as the senate historian since the founding of the senate office back in 1975 until his retirement in 2009. that is when the senate passed a resolution giving him the honorific title of senate historian emeritus. he is the author of numerous books. right now, he is working on one volume history of the senate. i thought this would be a good time to have him here with his work in progress. i asked him to give us some ideas of the significant years in which the senate has changed whether by conscious reform or just the evolution.

we are very delighted to have dick baker here for that. our third speaker will be john fortier who is a research fellow at the american enterprise institute. he worked on many projects related to government politics and he is also an author. i recommend his books to people are confused about the electoral college. he has served as the principal contributor of the aie-brookings project. i have asked him to give us back and on public attitude to congress in general and the senate in particular so we can get an idea where the public is coming from. most would agree that the

senate pays attention to public opinion in decisions it makes on policy and internal reform matters. perhaps more so since they have been collected by the people instead of state legislatures. i give the journalists the cleanup batter slot because they are good at synthesizing what has gone before and giving their perspectives on what basie when they cover capitol hill. we have janet hook here. she went on to work for many years for "the los angeles *." times." she has won several journalism awards including the average dirksen award for the status reporting on congress. with faster to talk about how

journalists cn report on the senate. maybe we can get a comparison as to how that debris from the house. that will be very interesting to learn. i will turn things over to trent lott. i will ask the speakers to use the podium for their initial statement entering the question and answer period, i will stand of the podium. >> thank you very much. we appreciate the kind introduction i will try to stay within the 15 minute limit. he has already threatened me with a cloture motion i will have to be aware of that. i want to thank the woodrow wilson center for doing this. i think it is important that we have discussions from a panel like this about what the senate does and what congress does to help people understand what really is going on up there. sometimes it looks like it is

totally indecipherable and beyond understanding. when you have a discussion like this maybe you will pick up some of the uniqueness of the institutions we are talking about. i am delighted to be on this panel. i was pleased idonthat don mentioned we had an interesting time working together. we did have fun. i remember they slamma jamma speech you wrote for may. we had a great michigan basketball team and won the national championship and they were referred to as the 5 slamma jamma and the road a speech dealing with prejudice in the house of representatives. we had the unique rules activities were one time there was a special thing in the roles were the minority could actually

take control of the floor away from the majority in a unique use of the roles that have only been done once or twice. he and i engineered where we took control of the floor of the house away from the congressman of missouri and never forgive us that. it was don's fault. when i was in the senate, i tried to make the senate more normal and relaxed which is hard to do ver. we have the annual senate spouses dinner where the leadership would have a dinner where we honor them recognized our spouses. bill cohen wrote a poem and i had bagpipes' one time. i wrote an ode to tricia which was an ode to my wife that don actually when he talked about the three horsemen of congressional acropo apocalypse, i

was all three. i always want to be chairman of the rules committee but in the house, not in the senate since they have different rules. it is great to be with don and i appreciate the service he gave to me and the country. he continued to do great work here. to be with richard he is a great historian. as the years have gone by, i have become more interested in history. that is the only thing i read now other than the obligatory "particles like janet hook. richard and i talk quite a bit about the senate. he was involved with an effort i had in the senate called the leaders select series where we brought in former leaders republican, democrat and talked about what they saw in the senate and what they would

recommend we do. mike mansfield was one of the speakers and he delivered a speech that he was going to give the day john kennedy was assassinated and never gave any came back and delivered it in the old senate chamber to the senate. when i became majority leader, i had not really thought exactly what type of majority leader i wanted to be. i ask for some reading material. he recommended some books and i read about lyndon johnson and mike mansfield and howard baker. and a different leadership styles. people ask which one i chose? they are shocked when i said i actually chose mike mansfield. i did not like the aggressive in your face tactics of lyndon johnson and it looked to me like mike mansfield got more with sugar and by laissez faire than lyndon johnson did by beating them over the head like he did with hubert humphrey.

it is great to be here with richard again and john testified. i felt like we had not done enough on the continuity of government issue. john was able to give expert testimony and janet i look forward to having the media wrapup. she covered me good, bad and of what was on the mountaintop and when i crawled back up the second time. i am delighted to be here. his senate reform and oxymoron? oxy-moron. or is it oxymoron like? ic? the senate is what it is and it is good. what i make changes? yes. >> and did i make changes, yes. how was on the floor of the senate and experiencing a real

time lashing from senator byrd was accusing me of trying to make the senate a mini-house. he drew on the fact that i had been on the rules committee in the house and that i really wanted the senate majority leader which i was of the time to become the rules committee of the senate. that was actually not true. let me warn you in advance that i'm an institutional list. i have been since i was a child. i have always been one to try to join different organizations. that's when you get to know them and become actively involved and eventually, tried to be a leader. of what ever organization it was. also, my nature is to study the rules. i came to work in washington in 1968 for the chairman of the rules committee, a democrat from my home town, congressman bill palmer when i was 26.

i started paying attention to the rules and studying the history of the roles. one thing i learned quickly was that the secret to southerners success, particularly the old democrat chairman was that they understood the rules. it was my feeling that he who controls the rules, controls the institution. i started getting involved in the rules and studying the history. then i became a congressman and went on the rules committee in my second term and served there 14 years, moved over to the senate and once again found myself being an institutionalist. somebody asked me the other day if i am for term limits. i was before i was against it. i am thinking about it again. it can go back and forth. in the senate, i started studying the rules and sat on the back row, not quite ready for primetime a freshman

senator and i started to figure out what the rules are. they don't make any sense. why i asked the parliamentarian of the senate. what are the rules in the senate? he said there are only two rules. he said exhaustion and unanimous consent. [laughter] if you get the senators exhausted enough, they will unanimously agree to anything. i said i've got it. from that point on, including when i became leader, wants to make up your mind, you'll make the said act, the way to do is to keep them in on thursday night into friday morning and into friday night and the case law on saturday but you cannot love them so many times. if you threaten a saturday session, you have to do it. my whole background is one that was interested in rules and history and believed in

understanding and protecting the institutions. that is not to say that the house rules or senate rules cannot be improved or change. d. i actually was the lead sponsor on the senate resolution that led to the broadcasting of house floor proceedings. democrats who were with the did not want their mnemonic. i wanted -- did not want their name on it. it was a time in america's history where the american people should see what is going on in the house and the senate. you can argue whether it was a good or bad idea. i thank was the right thing to do. i never like to secret holes. i believe in transparency. tom daschle and i tried several times to get a grip on secret holes. the hole is a huge problem for

the leader in both parties. you have these secret polls that come down out of the rafters and stop a or a bill and quite often, the majority leader would be trying to move a bill. not only were they secret, they got rolling holes which is once by determine which centre was holding it, he would say he was not holding it and another hole would drop on it. i felt there needed to be some reform there. there is no question that the difficulty in getting people to accept nominations to executive positions and the difficulty you go through regardless whether you're republican or democrat is outrageous. the recent reform where they took about 1/3 of the nominees out of the confirmation process they did not need to go to that process. i have always been an advocate

of saying that nominees had to be moved on some sort of schedule, that you could not hold them up for ever without really good cause. occasionally, that does happen. senate reform is an oxymoron. when you study the senate, it is hard to move. in the senate, it is easy to stop any thing. it is hard to move anything. it takes real leadership. it takes determination. you have to get engaged and push it hard. that was the way it was intended, i think. i watched the hot passions of the house and i watched the lumbering slowness of the senate. i think they both serve as quite well. without going on at great

length, there is always some improvements you can make. the way they handled this reform this year was almost perfect. some of the reformers made fun of the gentleman and take between harry reid and mitch mcconnell. we will have fewer cloture petitions and fewer filibuster's carried out and there would be some limit on the amount of time they would spend. they did it on a german sanchez. gentlemans handshake. in 1996, we were only in session 132 days. if you study the list of legislation passed, it was very historic, everything from safe drinking water to every appropriations bill. if you reward of the senate and

you don't filibuster or you d and i was guilty of that and these things have gotten worse in recent years. more filibusters, more cloture petitions, more of the leader going in and filling up the tree which is blocking the other side to present any amendments. tom daschle reacted. he would get mad. i did it to john mccain, too, when he was trying to pass campaign finance reform. i told them he would not pass an amendment. i blocked them. we had on pleasantries between each other and stayed great friendship i never surprised him. i used the rules and the use the rules and eventually, he prevailed after we lost the majority. i think that's sort of thing it needs to be used with

discretion and on rare occasions. it makes it very hard to get things that need to be done because the other side will go into the nuclear option mode and you'll get nothing accomplished. the bottom line for may is having served there been in the majority and minority, tom daschle went back and forth three or four times between the two, when i came out the other side of it after 19 years in the senate i felt it was a pretty good place. one of my last night's in the senate i had a long discussion. we had a dope voterama. we would vote 70 or 80 times in a row. i was standing in the well with jon kyl maybe lindsey graham, kent conrad, chris dodd and joe lieberman.

we were talking about how stupid we looked. what was the problem? was that the rules? was the institution itself? we're talking about all that. i said it is not the rules. it is not the institution. the rules could be changed to stop the voteramas. the problem is us. we are the problem. it is the leaders in the senate. we are not leading. when we get tired of this sort of thing happening and we feel it has got out of control or something needs to be done to change the rules a little bit we are the ones who can solve the problem. i also said i believe the problem as our generation. all of us were about the same age, in the mid-60's. we came to political life in the 1960's and 1970's and 1980's. all of us served in the house except lindsey grandparents we can to the senate as partisan

warriors. we get up thinking. i think the next generation will not be quite that way. i think they will be able less partisan in the way they fight every day and a little bit more willing to reach across the house and make the place more livable. that is the good news about the future of the senate and reforms that may or may not take place. thank you. [applause] >> dick baker? >> thank you. thank you for that nice introduction. i have tried to live up to my charter. i started with a gentleman named edward everett hale who is

a historian and social reformer who served as united states senate chaplain in the first decade of the 20th century. a popular lecturer, he was stricken the asked by his audience what he actually did in the senate. do you pray for the senators? bno he carefully responded, i look at the centers and i pray for the country. [laughter] in the same vein, will rogers once said after i read that into a room at a senate too, i knew then what it had declined [laughter] observers and senators also have dined out on such stores as -- at the senate's expense since the days of george washington. there is the slow moving senate'/s need for reform. in 1989, all sessions were conducted behind closed doors. those who elected those senators complained loudly that we elect of those people but we cannot

see what they are doing. occasionally, members of the house of representatives in a spirit of helpfulness have proposed reforms of solutions. representative victor berger offered a constitutional amendment in 1911. where as the senate in particular has become an obstructive and useless body, a menace to the liberties of the people, and an obstacle to societal growth his resolution concluded with a provision simply to abolish the senate. it had some supporters. historically, the pressure for senate reform comes from the outside and in particular from newly elected members who campaigned on a pledge to come to washington to fix the senate. of course, by the time those newly elected reformers gained

seniority necessary to seriously advance their proposals some of them begin to doubt whether they were actually needed as reform proposals. as with other complex institutions, reform comes to the senate sporadically partially, and with results that generally disappoint its most fervent advocates. there are some senate reform goals that will never be met. the most evident is the deliberate malapportioned the gives disproportionate power to the smaller states fiat of the supreme court, this could not happen in state legislatures. given the disproportionate power to the smaller states as hard wired in the constitution. it will never be changed. then there is the deeply entrenched tradition of virtually unlimited debate as we have recently been reminded, but for the reform there is unlikely anytime soon. i have been asked to mention a few historical examples which

the institution under went substantial change by design or inadvertence. adoption of the first cloture rule in 1917 emphatically is not on my list. and that was merely a shrewd move executed under great public pressure to diffuse citizens angered by setting up and in practical mechanism for cutting off debate. it requires a nearly unattainable 2/3 majority and permits that each of the 96 senators than serving as the opportunity to speak for one hour each after cloture had been evoked. for the next half century that rule number 22 had very little impact. here are my three arbitrarily selected historical examples of major senate reform achievements. they come from the years 1911, 1946 and the period from 1975- 1986.

i backed off after 1986. the one major flaw in the constitution related to the senate was the provision that senators be elected by state legislatures. there are some editorial writers today who do not think that was a flaw and it should come back. that particular provision quickly became a breeding ground for corruption bribery, and legislative gridlock. senator byrd's history of the senate, you'll find a richly documented chapter on that particular time to support that point. after the civil war congress tried to fix the problem with statutory adjustments but without enduring success. in the 1890's, the ever helpful house of representatives, passed a constitutional amendment to provide for the direct popular election of senators but the senate was having no part of that. southern senators in the jim crow era wanted to take no chances on having a black

american citizens control who might be elected to the senate. by 1910, southern states voting requirements removed that threat by disenfranchising all black voters. in that same year, the 1910 senate elections brought in a large new class of members committed to adopting a constitutional amendment similar to the ones that the popularly elected house had approved. some of those new senators had previously been house members. with its infusion of new members committed to progressive-era reforms intended to bring the government closer to the people, the senate quickly adopted that amendment in 1911. by then, substantive change in the manner of electing senators really had been in effect for several decades. an example of how senate reform tends to come from the outside approximately half the state beginning in 18 a.d., had enacted provisions directing the

legislatures to abide by the results of senatorial primaries. agitation for this reform had deep roots even back to 1789. the year 1826 saw the first constitutional amendment come before the senate in an attempt to fix the problem. from 1826, it took the still slow-moving senate another 90 years to give its approval to what became the constitution's 17th amendment in 1913. the second historical example is the reorganization act of 1946 exhibits and the center are divided into six chronological periods. the so-called modern period begins in 1946. hone of the main reasons for 1946 from the perspective of

congressional history is the 1946 legislative reorganization act. it is the granddaddy of all congressional reform undertakings. it's fundamentally shaped the congress that we know today. those reforms came after years of editorializing and public hearings about how congress, a creation of the late 18th century, needed the up-to-date tools necessary to cope with the challenges of a dangerous mid- 20th century world. to make the reform possible, it took the second world war and enormous resentment among congressional leaders over how they had been manipulated by an increasingly powerful presidency. the 1946 act's major legacy rise in the exponential growth of resources available to members to adequately perform their responsibilities. for the first time, members and committees could recruit professional staff. they could pay sufficient salaries to ensure that the

staffs or at least as competent as those working for the executive branch. my third historical example begins in 1975. it is another year that would be a good candidate for the modern congress. it was deeply influenced by the extensive congressional reform activity of the 1960's. there are people in the room who were involved in that 1960's activity. in 1975, recognizing that was about to experience a generational change, the senate established a blue ribbon commission on the operation of the senate followed a year later by its special committee to examine the senate committee system. in 1977, as the two senate floor leadership positions passed from the older mike mansfield-hugh scott generation to the younger hands of robert byrd and howard baker some of the recommendations offered by the study panels were ready for implementation.

they inspired three notable changes over the following decade. the first change can in 1975 under seven resolution60. i s senate staff members if they heard of that. this resolution was implemented to allow all committee members not just the chair or the ranking minority member to select their support staff, a revolutionary change that is taken for granted today. the second change relates to an effort to define proper ethical standards for senators. the senators began work on a code of conduct for its members in 1959. in 1964, following some serious scandals related to abuses of campaign financing, it established the select committee on standards and conduct. in 1977, as part of this institutional reform surge, the senate for the strengthened its

rules governing financial activities of senators and upgraded that committee to become today's select committee on ethics. senators and staff are now allowed to exempt food from outside interests so long as they concern a with a toothpick and are standing up. that is where we are on that reform. [laughter] finally, this is the combination of a long reform to bring change to the senate. it is the initiation in 1986 of gavel-to-gavel television coverage of senate floor proceedings. it took many years to accomplish that objective. it was a vast change from the closed door a senate of 1789. he will not get unanimous agreement that is working quite the way its strongest advocates had hoped. it certainly is there. the long road to televising senate proceedings serbs as a prime example of reform senate

style. reform senate style appeare. the late incomplete, and not satisfying to all, thank you. [applause] >> john fortier. >> thank you to the wilson center for putting on thisd wonderful onon gave me two missions. one was to talk about public opinion of senate popularity. the other it is really not a subject that is asked of the public. there is a lot on congress, but it is not pretty.

gallup had the congressional career. it 18%. -- congressional approval rate at 18%. the president sits in the mid to high 40's. they have been low and they have been low for parties that control the congress. the day said the party loses its congressional leadership confidence. you sought in 2006 the brief burst among democrats. now we haven't little more confidence congress is going in the right direction but that did not last very long. both parties are finding a way to be unhappy in a way where they are not as unhappy with their president.

there been changes in the attitude broadly. more broadly, there's the question of how the senate if it's in to people's worries about getting things done in washington. how this has changed is that 30 or 40 years ago that there were a number of walking point that could disturb a minority -- disthe minority party. political scientists fellow scientist said the 1940's issued a manifesto worried that our parties were not responsible enough and that we should have a more parliamentary style government. a few elected a president and

congress of one party, they should have a platform and we should know what they stand for. we should be able to say i agree with what you down, you have done it well, or have not done it well. with those political scientists and others felt. sometimes the senate was implicated to come that the house rules committee the political parties themselves, and large, progressive left wing and a small to medium-sized right wing. there were many cross party coalitions. it has started to dissipate. as our party is become clearly more ideological and more left and right with different positions, what is left is the senate, much more exposed

because of its supermajority requirements as the body whose jobs the dedicated majorities from getting what they want. clearly, we are seeing this in both parties, 2005 in particular and the judicial nominees wanting to stop the president from putting people into the judicial office that they chose to select and also the democratic majority being frustrated by even when they had the 60 votes and worrying that it was really too hard to get a significant majority wanted to get done. the senate is much more exposed it is seen as the one place for democratic programs,, are

started. this is additive to worries of the polarization. political scientists worried about no polarization and today we hear about the extreme polarization strong years, a strong rhetoric, the lack of agreement, the need for bipartisan agreement. the senate is, i will say the land of gangs. i do not think they will show a gang tattoo, but you do, in the senate have the ability to have small groups of people, often in the middle, coming together sometimes, not with the blessing of their leaders, but finding ways to come to an agreement. the gang of 14, referring back to 2005 when there was a group

that on both sides of the aisle worked on a lessening the senate filibusters for judicial nominees and agreed not to make the large changes in rules which majority or some of them were proposing. today it is the gang of six another gang looking at our important fiscal problems. a gang of republicans and democrats to find their place in the little and mike ship with a future compromise is. the senate does have frustrating aspects in terms of the ability of a dedicated majority to get its way. it also has possibilities of reaching across the aisle and allowing larger coalitions to address our larger problems. the 17th amendment i have a few things to say about it. the 17th amendment interestingly, has come back as a political issue. there were some conservative academics who took up the cause

a few years ago and i think the main argument and the worries on their part or that we are forgetting our federalist routes and the world of the states. there is too much emphasis on washington and perhaps a role -- a return to the old system were elected parties may be more concerned about what is going on in their state and with their home constituents actually cared about. i know in the senate convention in utah, it was the only supporter among the candidates on the republican side who was a supporter of the 17th amendment. the others all thought it was not a good thing and that we had gone too far into washington and maybe we would be better off going back to our roots in the state's by 11 state legislatures to elect the senators. i am not for that, and i do not

think it will spread wildly enough to have something appealing that but one thing i will note is, yes, in many ways it has anti-democratic features but, they are better known than their house counterparts. more people can name their senators. more people look for senators. they can drive a larger turnout. when there is no senator or governor on the ballot, turnout can be much lower. there is a more democratic charged to the senate. i would ask those who advocate getting rid of the 17th amendment whether the senate would be able to withstand some of the pressure against it if it were undemocratic in that way as well or less directly democratic because they were elected by state legislatures. how many countries around the world have an effective second chamber? many of them do not have a second chamber at all.

some of them have an archaic second chamber in the case of the house of lords has minor powers which if exercised would lead to the abolition. having a second chamber and the ability to have a different kind of majority reflected comment the senate gives it a greater legitimacy than it might otherwise have. the president benefit from his time in the senate? i often gets to speak to foreign audiences in one of my favorite lines is that before president obama was elected i used as a quarter of our last five presidents never held the job in washington before they became president. reagan, carter clinton, and george w. bush had all been governors and have not worked in washington. how could that be that any other country could say that that the leader of your party, the person

becoming prime minister to be said to have never worked in the capital city? it is a very uncommon thing. it is a strong tendency for us to look to governors and outsiders of washington. the president was elected and he was one of three in recent times it came directly from the senate to the presidency. i think one thing he did gain by that experience, even on the four years was an appreciation for washington. i mean that in a good way. jimmy carter, bill clinton, they came to washington without a strong connection to washington, as real outsiders. you saw that reflected in the type of people the picked as the chief of staff and how they dealt with congress. they had a rocky start especially with the wrong party. the president in many ways has benefited from this time in the senate senator daschle the staff that he hired, and the

ability for a young president to look to experienced washington hand those more experienced than him in the key traditions. the one area which i think we want to leave open for future debate is thinking about the president's legislative strategy and where he sees the senate in that moment. the bush in the illustration was kind of industry. i think that it fits in with today's polarized politics, the house of representatives been strongly supportive of the majority and president bush had the house of representatives often in this case, i do not much as a rubber-stamp but they passed his agenda with much of it in tact and the senate was the place where the deals were cut and the president may have to take 80% or go for some sort of compromise. president obama, especially on health care and other areas found himself going back and forth between the senate and the house and have not really

secured his program in the house and found that the senate might disagree. the house wanted to renegotiate. one can imagine in the senate of today where it is a tougher hurdle to get past that the president may be more likely to follow the bush model. the house, the more parliament terry body the senate committee supermajority with a little more of negotiation and causes the president to trim the sails and that is where a president may say they need a deal to get to that point and that is where the final deal will become. [applause] >> janet? >> i am so short. would you mind if i sat down?

>> yes, you may. i did not give you the stool to stand on. >> i am glad that john was commenting on president obama and his role in the senate. i got a great window into what his view of the senate is right now. over the weekend president obama attended the annual white tying dinner that the press has in the president addresses. he had a great laugh line about the senate which was "the last time i was at this dinner it was 2006 and a lot has changed in those five years. back then the, i was a newcomer who could not get anything done in the senate. now, i am the president to cannot get anything done in the senate." he sees it as it being a big problem to events in his agenda even when he had were democrats there.

from president obama to the public opinion polls to my fellow journalists that there is a lot of senate and congress bashing. it is really easy. it is very hard to love the senate. it is archaic in its ways, and comprehensible. you turn the tv on c-span and nothing is happening. it is a hard place to understand i have covered it long enough that i get the glimpses of people who do love the senate. when chris dodd retire did he give his final speech, there was a man who really loved the senate and to talk about it in a way of that you could really feel that he thought that this was an institution capable of great things. in his final months in the senate, he had a big hand in some of the very ambitious accomplishments which he took the lead in writing the health

care bill and the wall street reform bill that went through. it is a very complicated and hard to love the institution and i her voice felt like my role as a congressional correspondent i feel like i'm a foreign correspondent to my fellow americans and that this is what is going on. it is a drawing and a lot of people ask me how can i cover congress for so long? do i not get tired? there are a lot of jobs in journalism -- i do not know. maybe this is a streak of self importance, but i think understanding congress is a very important thing and i feel like it is a service that i can provide and not just making fun of an awkward institution but helping people understand what they're doing that affects people's lives. i love the question of this --

is senate reform an oxymoron? in journalism, in daily reporting where we are supposed to be right down the middle, we cannot use the word "reform." we cannot talk about senate reform. it is wise that you support what is going on. it is restricting filibuster's a senate reform? only if you think the filibuster is bad. in all of the years writing about tax reform, we could not call it reform because it implied that it was a good change. we have all of these synonyms that we use like tax overhaul, revamping the tax code just trying to be neutral. when people currently talk about tax and senate reform, they're mostly talking about the filibuster and the rules. the question is can we have senate reform or is it an oxymoron. can the senate change? for better or worse that is the

value judgment, but the senate can change and it changes every two years, quite a lot. the rules change slow lane for the reasons that my fellow panelists have laid out pretty well. part of it is the constitution and part of it is that it is an institution that loves change. you can bring in these new members to to try on tradition but they are usually it's a fact of outnumbered by those who love the tradition. i started my career covering congress for "congressional quarterly." we covered everything that congress did in minute detail including the procedural aspects. world changes are generally really hard to read about for a general audience because it is inside baseball. having written for them, i came to know quite a lot about it and i was pretty interested. when i left and then worked for

"the l.a. times" and then "the wall street journal," you do not get to write about it that much. in the last two years coming senate procedure got to be much more interesting political story. people outside of the dolma cared. the pressure for the senate to change, i felt what was much -- most interesting in the latest round of efforts to change the senate rules and the criticism of the filibuster is how much came from outside the senate. here after year, you always hear people complaining about the filibuster are outside of the senate if you are in the majority. as soon as you are in the minority, senators are much more inclined to like a filibuster. in the last two years you heard a lot and it was a reflection of, i think a lot of the complaints coming from the left and the democrats who were

really frustrated that in the last two years the democratic party had a commanding majority in the house and the senate and they could not get done what they wanted to get done. it is almost a function of the fact that democrats had 60 votes that the filibuster came to be that much more frustrating. why can we do what we wanted to do? there was this sense of it -- in many ways, i think the pressure to change the filibuster changes when you have a narrower majority because the parties have to work together and form bipartisan coalitions, but as long as democrats had 60 votes in the senate, there was this perception that you could accomplish things with one party making proposals. now, that cannot happen. i thought it was interesting than that the filibuster debate

came to head this year after the democrats lost their majority. it really was a classic case of there being lots of members proposing things and harry reid and mitch mcconnell formed a gentlemen's agreement to not changed the rules. we would just agree to do what we wanted to do. i think it was donna mentioned that the basic agreement with the mitch mcconnell agreed that the republicans would not support filibusters' on actually bringing the bills up and in exchange harry reid would allow more amendments. the kind of depends on when did you think the problem is with the senate? some people think that the problem with the way that the senate works is that things take a really long time. there were others to think that the problem is that they just do not vote on things, you know?

the filibuster and they just do not get to the vote. there are others who do not like what the senate actually accomplishes but that is a political and not a procedural decision. i am here to report on the results of the first two months of the gentlemen's agreement. it solved one problem. they're voting on a lot of stuff, but it does take a really long time. one of the first bills brought up was, and it seemed like a routine authorization bill, it is a big deal, authorizing the faa does not sound like a partisan thing, but mitch mcconnell did not put up any procedural obstacles. took them two weeks, three weeks? it took a while. i did not know how long they thought it would take, but they allowed a lot of amendments added to their credit, a lot of the amendments had to do with airplanes.

some of them did not. it was during the debate on the f a bill that they voted for the first time on repealing the health-care bill, the health care law. they got their vote and it had nothing to do with the faa but they got a vote. then a couple of other off topic subjects. they also voted in repealing the weight standard act. things like that. for the most part, it was a lot of amendments around airplanes. it did take three weeks. but then they did a patent reform bill which was a big important bill. there is a sense that the gentleman's agreement is producing debate and amendments, but it does not speed things up because that is what we are interested in. john was suggesting that i would talk about the difference between covering the house and the senate. reporters are people. we do like to get home to our

families. the thing that we really hit about the senate is when the debates go on, on a on and you never know when they will take a vote. i am telling you that there is one question that editors and bass drum my career that i just have to tell you. i cannot answer the question if the question is, "when is the senate going to [blank]?" they came up with the idea of staying at 6:00 we will not take any more votes. the biggest difference between the house and senate is kind of predictability. the house rules committee sent a lot of ground rules for floor debate. you can have x amendments and you get one hour of debate on this amendment, two hours on this. the senate is much more for reform. -- free-form. when the house recently took up

the big continuing resolution on spending cuts, john boehner made good on his promise for ever want to offer as many roles as they wanted. the offered hundreds of amendments. did you get the number? >> 5 record 8350. >> it was really interesting. it was a little chaotic but it was like the vote-o-rama with back to back rollcall votes. it was interesting. what i foudnnd was that so long the hosue is run with the rigid structure of deciding the 4 amendments they are very partisan. they choose the subjects. with this open debate, there

were a lot of partisan votes and a lot of bipartisan votes. tea party and really liberal democrats joining together to kill something. this is from a reporter's perspective. i like things that are interesting and important. i think that is why a covered congress for so long. with that fact, i think maybe it is time for us to your questions? >> can you follow up on what the others said this issue when first? >> i thought what janet said was interesting and relevant. take the faa building go i worked on that bill when i was in the senate in 2007.

the same bill. and had been pending since, i think, 2006. they have had 17 extensions of the old wall because they could not come together on how to move the federal aviation administration order to the next generation modernization of an arab control system. there had been troublesome amendments amended in the bill all along. they could not come up with an agreement to pull them out. senators like lamar alexander said if you bring up this piece in this, we will filibuster, so it had been gridlocked for i think, five years. what finally happened is they said that we needed to get the bill done. it was a par partisan group and they took out the trouble some labor amendments some others, then of what law -- then voila.

while slow and cumbersome, but it eventually produces a bill. what held up for three weeks was they had a retreat some of them had to go to out of town but there was one amendment that was very troublesome. it had to do with a perimeter rules. how many airplanes can fly out of ragan national? that was what held up. at the end, they got a bill that had been hanging around for five years and they got it down probably right. now, it is probably a show of what it should have been, but it is still a very good bill. there have been arguing about patent reform for i do not know how long. janet, how long have you covered it? >> the last time we had a that was 2006 and it was a big shootout with the pharmaceutical industry on one side, silicon

valley on the other side. they wanted reform but could not agree. finally, they got it done in a consensus. the house still has some problems. there are a few examples of where it is fuzzy slow, but it forces them eventually to quit being partisan and produce a product. on open rules speaker brainer i thought that was a brilliant move. the first bill of the year, open row -- open rule, go at it, have fun and hopefully that is the last one you will see in the house. >> it reminds me of when newt gingrich asked if they wanted that. they said no. the issue of how many planes flying out of reagan has always been an fortin. >> we want to fly the reagan and the local people say we have to fly into dallas.

it is a big issue out. -- fly into dulles. process is substance. process or procedure. if you do not understand procedure, you will not get a bill. it does not matter with the substance is. when i was in leadership positions, i would use the process clearly to thwart the will of others to produce a substance. i wanted. process is really important. one question that comes out of this is everyone is advocating change. does the senate really need to change? i do not think so. can you find some improvements or are there some problems? always. and the secret is that to understand their roles in the institution and to learn how to make them work not only for you as an individual senator before

the country. i is to get in trouble with my own party because i became known as a compromiser. that was bad. i would give and take. look. this is a legislative process. it should say "the art of compromise. we were dealing with 100 egomaniacs, and i say that affectionately, and 98 of them all think they should be president. i do not think of the other one other than me who did not think they should be but you cannot just say this is the way it is going to be, my way or the highway. that is what you will get. you look at the highway. he would get nothing. you have to find a way to get to resolution. do you have to give up your principles and philosophy? no. i always started on the right of center. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, tom daschle he

was a popular but i was a conservative republican, but i start here and he started there. we wanted to get to this week's broad, good enough for you maybe if i had the votes i would go to him and i would ask if there was some way to tweak it to make it easier to sell it to his conference would go down easier so we could get a result. by the way, when the need to nervous about the senate. you may think it is slow and ponderous. when it wants to come it can move like lightning. after 9/11, go back and looked at history of the patriot act. we move at lightening and we take away individual freedoms, too, but that was the case where tom daschle and i talked on the phone and we needed to get it done. i spoke to him on the self when outside of the republican --

talked to him on the cell phone. we both agreed it needed to be done then. i told him i would meet him on the floor of the senate. the two hours later, it passed. the senate, when it wants to, can act. you talk about legislation, one year we passed 47 bills that night by unanimous consent. just the two of us. >> because he did that, we never leave until they turn off the microphone. >> that is when the good stuff gets done. >> when the senate wants to move fast, it can. >> you were talking about change reform, and how sometimes it is used to much as if it is a good thing. i remember boy to cut other who

has since passed away, but he thought the world unconstitutional. he would sometimes "someone from the british reform debates of the 1800's said, "reform for reform, reform is all we hear as if things are not bad enough already. and that is the attitude that some members of the house and senate have towards those who may want to drastically alter the way things are done. it is time to open things up for questions. not everyone at once. we will start here in the front row. name, please. >> i am looking for background on why the senate does not have had any jermaine -- germane rules

>> i occasionally been suggested that and what made senator byrd mad at me. one of the difficult things in the senate is that you can wander out there on any bill anytime and offer any amendment you want to whether it is germane, relevant, paid for, or anything. if you have those theoretically, you may have a point of order on a budget or anything else. it makes it difficult for the leadership because you do not know what will pop up. the gentlemen's agreements do matter. quite often, i used to complain to harry reid when he was the with -- whip, that when we would

go to a bill, 100 amendments. i would go to harry and say "we will get these appropriations bills done and we have to move these things. help maine." he would say he got it down to 38. i would have eight on my side. i show you mine, you show me yours. no ugly intention. there were be here pulling amendments they but not the dawn. next thing you know, we would accept 17 by unanimous consent and vote on seven or eight amendments. again, as much as i hated it in many cases i would not change it. that is the senate. that is the unique character and

nature and the rights of the senators and the power and sometimes you get so mad that one senator wanders in and balls up the whole senate. it does not take a freshman senator long to figure out they can do it. it tends to work out many give it the appropriate attention. >> the first rules of the senate and then referred by thomas jefferson's manual of parliamentary procedure as published says that debate is not to be tedious or beside the point. that has been interpreted to mean debate is supposed to be germane. how you define germain denis -- germaneness? senators would always say, "i am speaking to the point if you

give me a while to get their." germaneness in terms of debate went down the drain pretty quickly. >> other questions? >> i am with the congressional research service. i wanted to rest may be anyone on the panel -- wanted to ask anyone on the panel about something that has concerned me about the attempt on the hold process. bazaar's you have the threat of the filibuster, the leadership passed to pay attention that they will be willing to filibuster something whether they follow the rules makes it public or leaves it in secret.

if there is a rule that says you have to give notice of the hole and it has to be public, then it will not -- or as a friend of mine put it, all he has to say is "this is a nurse little nomination here and it would be a shame if anything happened to it." how are you going to be able to control without controlling the filibuster? if i could have a second question of a rather different kind, i wanted to ask you senator because the media has indicated that you might have been the indicator for the nuclear option and i wanted to know if he could say -- the nuclear option and he thinks it makes it nuclear >> ok. >> we better explain to the hold

of. >> that is where the senator notifies the leader or the leadership that he or she wishes to be notified when an amendment or a bill will be brought up so that he or she can come over and discuss the issue at length. this is the leader's greatest nightmare. quite often they would have to deal with the democrats threatening to hold. i have it on my side ever once in awhile. the problem is that the one thing that the leader in the senate does not have this time. i think it is the toughest job in that city. i would hold public criticism the design of he has the toughest job. the president makes a decision and thousands of people in the executive branch move. in the house, speaker bannoehner or speaker pelosi controls the place.

the chairman of the rules committee controls on time. the leader in the senate does not have it. it is not a constitutional petition. you run by tradition and respect, if not for the person themselves. it is a very difficult job but if you have the luxury of time, you can break it. i would quite often find that it would be a staff member, which is one of the problems, and they would have a whole they want to debate. i would tell them to come on over that we were going to debate it. it is amazing how many times that hold would disappear because it was quite often at 5:30 6:00, 7:00 at night.

at the end of recession you do not have that luxury. one time i got tangled up was senator kennedy. in the senate, when senator kennedy was there and if he were going to take c'mon, you better bring your lunch. when the changes they made was one that he invoked. it was the end of the session in 1996 and it was a labor issue. he was going to change the labor provision and he was going to block it. the floor director said we could not do it because they would block it. i said why not? he will have his seven motions and it will take us days to break it. i well and that keeping the senate there and after we cover this one issue. this was on thursday night, but he demanded that the bill be read.

he could not have done that objection under the new rule. i went down to the dining room to get something to eat. i tried to make the senate a decent place to live and work. that is very hard to do. they would invoke the rules to force them keep them open another day. i went thursday to thursday to break the holds. the final was 98-2. the leaders do not have a week. on the nuclear option, i do not even know who came up with that, but someone found that the first

time the term "nuclear option" was used with filibuster or supreme court justices, i must have done it because i got the attribution for it. the term was, and i embellish was that if you did it, it would blow the place up. if you and forced that vote, and at one point we had the vote to enforce the nuclear option, 51 votes, but that depended on the ruling of the chair that you by the majority could in the essence get rid of the filibuster. i had a few problems with that, if you recall. here is the thing you need to understand. i really did not want the nuclear option. i did not think they should filibuster a supreme court justice. he may deny it, but the person who came up with the solution

was lamar alexander. there was a side room -- group the gang of 14, but i could not be in the group without looking like it was undermining the majority leader. i went to john mccain and told him i could not be in the middle of it. we needed him to go into it and work out the language and enforce this solution which was the gang of 14 solution. a few in the media recall and can be confirmed by susan collins that i was involved not only in the term "nuclear option" but that the solution that avoided that from being employed.

>> go to john king a year. >> i think someone ought to be more critical of the senate then you'll have been. so i will do it. john 48fortier said the the -- the public opinion surveys are s about the congress, but they are asked about the senate. the house does their business. last year, they sent 400 that the senate never acted on. it was not that they voted down those bills, they never even act on them. they did not pass appropriations bills and so on. i heard that kind of criticism from house members back in the 1960's when i was interviewing

house members. but i think they would say that it has gotten a lot worse. use of the senate was composed of 100 egomaniacs. >> including myself. >> yes. well i take them more seriously. i think that is a really big problem for the senate. mostly senators get there because they know the place that they can individually throw their weight around as opposed to having an institution that is actually going to accomplish something. your story about kennedy holding up the senate floor for weeks and then eventually the thing passes 98-2, most observers looking at that would say that that is a ridiculous way to do business. that is ridiculous. the reason i wanted to say something about this is that i think it has gone to the point where it is beyond the

filibuster and beyond dysfunctional. i think it is dangerous to the country. it is strangers when the public gets this angry. i think it is very perilous. >> thank you. before anyone else response, let me just quote from an excellent book called "herding cats, a life in politics" by trent lott. he said the senate was the most treasured employes said ever been in my life. the process was glacial messy and unpredictable. all i could do was along and try to change things the senate when i had the opportunity. then at the end of the book, after you step down as majority leader and you are about to go on the rules committee as chair and then look at these roles you said, "the senate, in my judgment had become increasingly dysfunctional. some may argue that it has always been that would but the plot has worsened over the

years. there are such rules and rights in the senate that the senate has been impossible to manage." that is what herding cats means. you said nothing about bullfrogs. >> i said dealing with the senate is like trying to keep all frozen wheel barrow. you get to an end one jumps out and you just can keep them in there. they keep jumping out. that is nothing about senators. a lot of them do not go there to pull their weight around. a lot of them go there with their high goals for their country and what they want to do but once they get there they do realize that the rules and the power of the individual senator. i did not realize public to that question until i got there. but a lot of these senators have been congressmen and governors and they are a little older than the house. they're more experienced. you cannot pin them down. i was a whip in the house and a whip in the senate.

it was easier to count 196 republicans and stand were they to do it would be that to count 46 senators and count on them. first of all you could not make them or force them to make a decision. they would not tell you until they saw the whites of verizon had to vote. you -- whites of your eyes and had to go. the would have a different man. they would not stay in the girl from where you thought there would be and take a different position. >> can i talk about the frustration the voters feel about the senate in particular? i think it also plays in the house, which is different and opened the potential for a different kind of pressure for reform. i am astonished at how much more people know now about the gory details of what is going on in congress. the internet and on-line access

information -- it is easier to watch stuff, committee hearings and roll stuff. before the senate was on television, who knew? whatever the opposes of the institution are, they are out there a lot more. i was talking with some house republicans of of the tea party. they were very involved in the election and i wondered how much they communicate with members about their governing as opposed to campaigning. one of them said, you know, i was heavily lobbied by tea party people on our decision of the committee chairman. the committee chairman was like the most inside baseball of all inside baseball. but it really did make a big difference who would be chairman of the appropriations committee, who would -- would it be a good

old boy? i did not know how much lobbying mattered to them -- >> energy and commerce. >> energy and commerce. but just affect the people were aware that, i think the institution is more where that. their opinions and ability to express what they think and the second examplin the house is voting on the continuing resolution, eight cut like $60 billion which was a lot of money and the democrats opposed it but there were soe conservative republicans that wanted to cut another 20 billion was sponsored by the replican stud committee and the amendment to cut more went down but it went down because -- 92 republicans voted against the traditional cut so it was an interesting vote and right after the past eight they went after their town hall meetings for their august recess or whatever it was winter recess and they

reported people showed up the telhami thing is knowing that 92 republicans voted against this amendment and they knew whether the member of congress voted for or against that amendment and the was information spread rapidly in the this is an accountability, the voters going home and so i don't know i think it's good that people know more about how the congress is doing -- is working what it's doing and what it's not doing and so i don't know whether that creates another force for change or on a filibuster or anything else but i guess i believe more information is good. >> and what y were saying i was talking to the go old boy priest retired schoodistrict in my state recently and they have got a new member of congress and they had those 500 votes, and he observed how the new congressman had cast seven votes against what was the tea

party and leadership position. i mean he knew that this individual congressmen voted seven times against the wishes of somebody. i was staggered that this guy -- that he's sitting there and actually watched c-span, the watched fox or msnbc, and they keep up with what the senators are doing. i guess that's good. it's a little surprising and scary for the congressman. >> you are absolutely fried the number of people watch has grown but it's a relatively limited public. it's an activist informed public that doesn't stand as wisely as the average voter doesn't know at's goingn in congress. but more generally i'm glad you brought up the question because you're right the panel doesn't reflect what was a very strong anchor against the senate. my point was that the senate is

now bearing the brunt of what might have been addressed and parts of the house or party system before the senate is in the last dedited majority from getting what they want. the other question to ask this it really is whether you want a kind of a ystem of party government or whether you want a kind of hybrid system that we have come and whether you like the polarization. in many ways people do like the politician and the clarity of ideas and abily of the party to come and put their stamp on things but the senate if you think about the simple point of the football field the way the house acts it's not so much the house has to please its ost democratic side, the most conservative member to get something through. often there's a kind of enforcement of party discipline in the house that didn't exist when the caucus was much more desperate and so the majority decision coming out of the house of representatives is likely to

be around 25 or 30-yard line of the political spectrum than it was 2030 40 years ago. and if we switch parties, switch the whole house and senate to the other side and parliamentary system we could expect it to shift more 25 or 30-yard line of the other side. the senate if it works does tend to forceou to go out and get somewhere in the 40 to 50 arlan. maybe the parties are too far apart and trying to get that one member from the other side means you have to go so far that you to compromise your principles. what do the to but the danger of falling apart government line too far down the road is we are going to have relatively more left and right control of government and big swings whereas there is a kind of consensus makes you move to the middle. >> i was thinking when you brought the question not about john and elizabeth's book

versus public enemy where they were operating under the assumption that if people knew more about the congress and which operates, with the process is and so long they would understand it more and tend to support it more and they found just the opposite in their poing and said to know them is to love them and they found out the grease content and the was the sort of conclusion they came to so it's kind of an interesting point i think. >> if i could this culd spark a debate so i don't need to be doing that but i would maintain people were as every bit mad or medium more at the house and the proof is in the putting the changed the majority in the house. they didn't quite get it done in the senate and i am jt so thankful the senate didn't pass that garbage the house was sending of the last two years. how many post offices were not named as a result of that? but just so that i will -- picking up on what you did in my book i do think that the senate -- pt of the problem they are

balanced. you have to pass a budget every year although they didn't pass one last year you have to pass every ppropriations bill every year. a lot of authorization bills are one-year authorization bills spending exhibit today. i was always an advocate of the budgeting. i can to could do it a lot of different ways but budget one year and appropriate the next and i am for the multi-year authorizations. five years, seven years so that the organization, the entty that you're off uprising, the committee or the department or agency knows what the rules are to come three, four, five years. so i do think that there is a term if u're in the stream water there is a horse that is so muscular he will jerk his leg and he cn't do what he needs to do. that is what the senate has become it is emotionay down and it has too much and the need -- the only way you're going to

get appropriations bills as the lead has to make a decision hopefully with the corporation of the minority leader todo nothing appropriations for at least half of may and all of june otherwise you will never get itdone. you know the last time we got every appropriations bill done before the end of the year? 1996. we did it in 1996i believe or maybe -- but it was because we made the conscious decision we are going to get these thing done and by the way you go back and look at the record, that year the congress adjourned october 4th for the year, and that you're the days incision was only 132 yet if you studied what happened that year it was mentioned said if the date a safe drinking water, portability of insurance, every appropriations bill, budget, balanced budget tax cuts,

welfare reform all in tha year and as a matter of act, the last 20 years that is the fewest number of days with one exception. 132 days over the last 20 years and yet one of the most productive sessions but it takes strong -- the leader has to say we are going to do this or we are not going to do anything else and you have to push the envelope and it takes the corporations on the other side of the aisle. one other thing i just saw complicity i filed 82 cloture motions in 1995, 96 brackett. only 50 actually had votes on the culture and only the cloture to stop the filibuster succeeded nine times but i kept chipping away at it and by 2001 2002 we had moved the cloture to actually stopping the filibuster

but it up to over half 61 cloture votes, 34 succeeded. again, it can be done. but it takes focus and determination particularly in the senate, but it needs reform just to allow them to be able to get the job done. >> you're going to get the award r that number might. [laughter] >> with that we have come to the hour of six but i want you to join us in the atrium outside for toothpicks and standing up and having some whites and wine but think the panel. [applause]

>> on "newsmakers" cecile richards. today at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c- span. >> i am a numbers guy. >> charles blow expresses his use of charts and graphs. >> for me, the data comes first. i do not the said to talk about the subject and look for data. i research the data first and see if it says something interesting, something that kind of agrees with an opinion that i have or try to confirm something or something that some confided to me and sometimes a surprise my readers. >> tonight at 8:00 p.m. on c- span. >> new york democratic congressman anthony wiener, a member of the energy and commerce subcommittee said the the what has these to do more to highlight the benefits of the

federal health care law which was enacted one year ago. it also refuted charges by opponents of the law that it was a takeover of the health care system by big government. hill -- he spoke at the center for american progress action fund in washington d.c.. this is 45 minutes. >> welcome. i'm the chief operating center for the american progress. i oversee our health center. we're very honored to have you all here. prior to my time here at cap, i served on the president's health care reform team at the white house and was an adviser to secretary sebelius. i'm honored to have you all here on the anniversary of the affordable care act. the first year anniversary for

the affordable care act, it is actually a six year anniversary for us at cap. it was six years ago today that we put forward our own plan to provide coverage for all americans, reform the health care system through insurance regulation, provide tax subsidies and subsidies to people to be able to afford it and to lower the cost of health care. if that sounds a little familiar, i hope it does, because we believe it hps shape the debate and the presidenti cycle and ultimately for congressional passage. over the last six years, cap has worked very hard to push the idea of covering all americans and lowering health care costs as well as working with our allies in congress in last year's debate to get the bill done. through that process, now six years later, i know that on this anniversary, there are those who are a little weary from the

attacks a year later. people wonder why the bill is still so controversial and why we're still having to defend it. we have a congressional debate which, instead of moving forward to discuss how to make the bill work more effectively it's really about how to take all the benefits away from people. a lot of us can grow a little tired. i find myself every once in awhile growing a little weary from talking about health care reform and defending its benefits. every time we grow weary, i hope we remember that people who are already benefiting from this law, the cancer patient, who no longer has to worry that she has to cut off her basic services from her doctor because she's reaching her life time limit because of the affordable care act, those days are over. the parents who worry about bein able to get health insurance for their child with thma because she has a

preexisting condition. because of the affordable care act, those days are over. on the affordable care act anniversary, i also hope we'll remember those public servants who underwent angry town halls, some of them under went death threats to defend this during the process of the deliberations and ultimately voted to have affordable health care for all americans. there were many publicervants who knew it was a tough vote knew it was a politically tough vote for them, but they did it for a simple reason that it was the right thing to do. in the cical age, it's important to remember that that was really the guiding principle for very many members of congress. so we're very honored today to have one of those fighters and true champions of health care reform congressman anthony weiner. he's a western who never shies from a fight. often leads the fights on behalf of progressive values whether

it's 9/11 workers or health care reform or funding basic benefits for the american people. he's been a champion for these issues throughout his service and has been a champion for health care reform. for that we're very grateful and very honored to have him. congressman weiner? [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you very much and thank you for the center of american progress for hosting. it is indeed the one year anniversary of health care reform and i'm thrilled to be here. if you are busy or have time later, i'll also be doing a twitter town hall meeting at 2:30, a facebook town hall

was 6'4", 220. this is all that is left of me after 22 town hall meetings, 70 hours of markups and hearings. i think there has been this exaggerated sense that was frequently from -- that was expressed by rather inartfully by nancy pelosi in a widely misquoted thing she said. there was this presumption that after six months of pitch debate and back and forth once the law became reality and people could see it on a piece of paper and the policies would take shape and we would start to see people in our communities that benefitted from health care reform, it would be harder to make up stuff about the bill, harder to lie about the bill. that turned out surprisingly not to be the case. a year later, a year after pen to paper by the president of the

united states, a year now that people can actually see what's in the bill and what's not in the bill, there's this widespread and sophisticated campaign by republicans and opponents of the bill, many of them sponsored by the health care industry to make up things about the bill to continue the mistrust that goes into it. now, i think to some degree, we democrats and progressives, we sometimes have this fidelity to process and words and laws that we sometimes don't realize that it's not enough just to say here's this great bill. here's the good thing it's doing and we're off to the races. i think we haven't done a particularly skillful job in the last year of rebutting some of the basic thrusts of the republican opposition to the bill. thankfully, the republicans have given us another bite at the apple by coming to washington in

2010 with an agenda. they've come to washingtono say let's repeal and replace this bill. every day we've had hearings on some other vote or element of defunding, eliminating the health care bill. they've put an enormousmount of stock to have portions of it ruled unconstitutional. some of the hiding under the desk wing of the democratic party are chagrinned at this. i, on the other hand i think the center for american progress has reviewed this as well. we welcome this. this is like a second opportunity for us to make the case and explain to people the separation between wheat and chaff here. there are a lot of opportunities where people are going to be doing summaries of the bill, i want to take some of those basic republican thrusts that i don't think we've done a good job of confronting head on and just trying to take them down a notch and try to explain why at the end of the day, they are not

only not valid but in many cases deeply hypocritical. the thirst thing said about first thing said about the bill, we who sponsored the bill was this notion that what we had doneo health care was this giant transformative thing. in fact it wasn't. in fact for many americans who have health care at their workplace, they're still going to get treated like crap by their health insurance company. they still have very few chances. that still is going to exist. i would like to have done more transformative things and made those things more difficult but t of a deep sense going into this that we wanted to try to find a compromise between the peopleho were like me who said let's doubldown on the employer-based model, double down on the single pair government model as medica which essentially takes money from taxpayers and gives it to doctors.

doesn't take very much in overhead and nothing in profits and the employer based model. this effort was made to essentially double down on the employer-based model. there were great pains that were gone into by the sponsors and by those of us who supported the bill not to completely disrupt the marketplace of people that already have health care. the one thing that is said that isost commonly said is that health care was completely transformed. for those that are uninsured, it is a dramatic improvement. they have a place to be able to go. for small businesses that want to do the right thing, provide alth care for the workers, enormous benefits, but the notion that the entire health care infrastructure got turned on its head a year ago today simply is myth logical. there are things that were changed but not nearly as many as many people in america wanted. if you look at many of the polls that say what wound up happening? are you satisfied? if you drill into those dissatisfied, you find out many of tm wanted bigger change

because they found out that frankly, their benefits were not going to improve that much. the next thing is that there is big government takeover of health care. no, in fact this is the opposite. when people use words like socialization to describe what is happening, this is the polar opposite. we are taking taxpayer dollars and giving them to private companies, private insurance companies, it's the opposite of socialization. and in fact, even if we would have done what i wanted which is expand medicare to more americans, that wouldn't have been a government takeover of anything. it's private doctor, private hospital and private clinics. the idea that socialization or something like that is happening, it's quite the opposite. we went to great length in this law to empower people to get private health insurance policies. the third we hear is it's particularly interesting to have governors come to washington and compin about t plan,

although they were governors witholitical interest like haley barbour. come to washington and say you're trampling on our rights as states. if you look at how the bill is structured, the exchanges, we gave the states every right to administer exchanges. i think even the most anti health care governor is going to say yeah, we want our state to govern the exanges. we hear republicans complaining that there's not tort reform. hi, huma. apparently there's peace in the world. she's able to stop by. we took -- should i start at the top? no. she'll be one of the people on read it asking questions later. the decision not to include a broader tort reform and limit on torts in the federal law, something the republicans bittly complained about today was a hat tip to the idea that's

the province of the state legislators. there's not a body of tort law that governs things like mal practice. the idea there's a big takeover of trumping state's rights is not the case. finally, we've heard many governors complain about provisions of the law that expand medicaid eligibility between now and 2018 saying you're going to bankrupt the states. what they fail to point out is in that period of time yes, more people are going to be covered under medicaid but it's going to be paid for entirely with federal dollars resulting in what should be a dramatic savings for the states. no there is a scenario in 2019 that states have to pay a lot more, but that's only if you govern your state very poorly. because if you think about it, the expansion of medicaid still means you have to have an enormous amount of poor people for this not to be a good deal for your state. it's funny to list ton haley

barbour come to washington sand say you're going to bankrupt my state. he's stipulating to the fact there's an enormous number of poor people in the future in his state. it's further ironic to hear the governor of mississippi which has the most generous reimbursement rate complaining about anything in the federal government. they get close to an 80% reimbursement on their medicaid expenses compared to 50% in new york state. far be it for me to complain about haley barbour. i hate to punch down. still i believe that the kplamtss about trumpi state's rights are simply not true. today, we saw an article in the "usa today" by congressman gaves, who is the chairman of the small business committee talking about the burdens to state. that's not true. there's a 1099 provision is the only new regulation tax fee burden put on small businesses.

on the other hand, we in this law, are going to make it 30% cheaper for any small business to offer health insurance to its workers. in the future, we're going to allow those small businesses to go into this exchange where there's going to be competition to hold down prices. we're going to offer small businesses for the first time ever the opportunity to get subsidies to purchase health insurance for their workers. if anything, we now have reblicans complaining bitterly about one of the largest tax cuts for small business in american history. the idea that somehow small business is being burdened by this law, quite the opposite. we hope that small business takes these incentives to go out and buy insurance for their workers because it is simply unfair to be honest with you, to have a shoe store on one side of queen's boulevard to make a decision to offer health insurance competing on one on the other side that doesn't. the fact is those costs are getting passed along.

the way we chose to solve that problem is to offer heavy incentives for all small businesses to offer insurance to their workers. another common cry that we've heard from the republicans is the notion that this is going to bankrupt the federal government. we could have a conversation that can dominate this forum on how the cbo score was done how it's ten year projection, 20 year projection, both of which show this is going to be a dramatic reduction in the national debt and deficits i prefer we focus on is an element of this discussion that has not come up in this conversation about costs. the cost to the federal government is only one of the costs that we have to deal with when dealing with health care. we also have the cost to localities and local taxpayers. when uninsured people walk into hospital emergency rooms without care, in new york city, we pay $8 billion in taxes. $8 billion in taxes each and every year for the uninsured and

the under insured. that doesn't even count to the social cost of the fact that we have 17 fewer hospitals in new york city since the year 2000. that shows up in no cbo score. it shows up in none of the debate that we've had in washington about the cost of this bill. frankly, there is a transfer from local taxpayers from state taxpayers to the federal government in this bill. even with that transfer it winds up being a net savings of $1.2 trillion over 20 years. i want to point out when we have this conversation about cost and bankruptcy, one of the things the cbo gives zero credit for is a lot of the incentives built into the bill for preventive care. we know intuitively and we also know because our mothers told us an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. the heads of cbo don't see it that way. they give us no credit for

virtually everybody agrees is that if you do things like we do on the medicare side of the bill where we cover preventive services 100% without a single co-payment, that you're going to insentivize people to get those preventive services, the conversations we're going to be having about insentivizing in years to come to get more people in the front end of the health care structure than the later end, none of those savings are included in the bill. i think if anything the cost is articulated by the cbo score are very, very conservative. that in fact the savings are going to be much higher. if you start adding in the savings to state and local taxpayers, you're going to see the number increase even more. finally, there is this issue of the mandate. this is perhaps dominated in more conversation than it really

deserves. first of all, the philosophy behind the mandate is one most americans derstand the idea that people have to bear responsibility in this transaction for their own care. people have to be if we offer them incentives, if we offer them subsidies ultimately they have to accept responsibility for their own health care decisis inasmuch as they impact everybody else. there's a basic element of legal thinking that, you know, the right of my fist ends at your nose. i can do what like. when i start to impact your rights as an american, as a st, there's reasonable place for government to come in and set the rules of the road. when it comes to health care, people that choose not toet insurance, choose to be uninsured are making a decision that s only two branches on the decision tree. one is to be perpetually healthy and the other is to pass along expenses of health care to someone else. as much as we think we're ready,

the shear expense of being hit by a bus is pretty high. when you can't pay it it gets passed to hospitals and fellow citizens. the mandate is something that was included in romney care, included in the president that the signed a year ago. in massachusetts, which again, it's a similar model. i'm going to enjoy watching governor romney debate himself duri campaign 2012. it's a similar model. here's a subsidy. here's a system to shop for health care more efficiently. now you have to get it. a number of people that given that structure which is the same in this bill, that chose not to get it in massachusetts was .067%. meaning virtually everybody. this should come as no surprise to anyone who takes a step back from the political debate and thinks the way most people think, people want health care. they want health insurance.

they want their family to be protected. they want that peace of mind. if lightning strikes and it turns out that as many of us believe the supreme court turns out to be a third political branch of government and they strike down the mandate, big deal. big deal. first of all, i believe that as many of you know not to get off on a tagent it's pretty clear that justice thomas should recuse himself from these decisions given the amount of money he's gotten from companyings overturning health care reform, putting that aside, we prettmuch see the direction the supreme court is going, although i think it would be folly to strike it down, it's a relatively small number of people. by the way the solution, if the mandate is struck down is not that the bill falls like a house of cards. people aren't going to suddenly start cheering and say i'm going to sign up now i'm not, the

solution is going to be offering something that everyone agrees is constitutional. that's the public option in the exchange. clearly that is constitutional. no one denies that because it would be into medicare social security where we do require people to withhold money from checks and go into those programs. if you think about that list that i just read and the brief and i think i did each in a couple of minutes, the brief rebuttal it don'tesn't change the fact that more millions and millions of americans, they saw this first year not be as much about back and forth as if they wanted it, if they were a senior citizen, they got coverage for the doughnut hole, if they were a young family, 23 or twourld 24-year-old person in the family, they were able to go on their parents' health insurance plan. this next period is going to be very, very important. it's going to be the rule making that's going to go on, as with

any big bill, it's going to go on here. you have enormous back and forth about the minimum standards in the bill. that's the next big fight. every advocate for an illness is going to want coverage. advocates for certain technologies want prejudice in the bill for their services. that's going to be tough but necessary. the third stage of the bill is the implementation of the exchanges which is where the big stuff that we're trying to do in the bill covering the uninsured, taking that burden off of statesnd individuals. that gets implemented and people get to shop on those exchanges just the way members of congress and federal employees shop for their benefits. the final stage of the bill is all the republicans who voted no going to ceremonies and going to town hall meetings where they're bragging about how great obamacare is. they have to bite their tongue for calling it obamacare for the next 50 years. i don't anticipate this fight will end. i think we're in this dynamic that synopsises are facing in a

certain direction on this bill. we're going to continue to have debate. democrats have only a couple of choices. we can engage the debate or not engage the debate. i think it would be folly to believe it is going away. it would be folly to believe that i am either. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> we'll take your questions. go right there. that's great. so i have a few questions and we'll take questions from the audience. first of all you referenced the presidential debate the upcoming presidential debate. as you might note republican presidential candidates possible republican presidential candidates are celebrating the anniversary differently than we are. you referenced this a little bit at the end, what specifically do you think advocates for the

legislation should do over the next year as presidential candidates on the other side attack the bill with a lot? >> it depends on who wehink is going to run against us. i think the one thi we have to do is make it pretty clear that a lot of the values that these republican can indicates espouse are in the bill are reflected in the legislation. look, this was basically a structure that republicans, for years, had advocated. the idea of taking tax benefits and incentiveizeing people to get health care. we took a couple of steps to codify it differently than they would have, but, you know there's inherent inconsistencies in what they argue. there's a class act which is a voluntary long term care insurance program. what it does, it says if people sign up they cansock away some

money and ey get a guaranteed cash benefit to provide long term care services in years to come. it's a medical savings account. it's exactly what many of them have been arguing repeatedly year aft year, yet this is what they want to repeal. the other thing is i think we need to embrace this argument about -- i think we need to engage and have some fun with the argument that the field is having with mitt romney because if for no other reason, he to some degree deserves some credit. i mean i can do him his campaign by giving him credit but for leading an adult conversation in massachusetts but also showing something else. the basic thing we learned from the romney care plan in massachusetts was that even a state isn't muscular enough to be able to force insurance companies to compete and hold down -- hold down rates. most of the rest of the field doesn't seem to know what's in

the bill. either that or they're overtly lying about provisions of the bill i think we should -- i mean, i don't think the president necessarily should engage every one of them but i believe we as democrats haven obligation to the primary voters of iowa to have this debate. >> also we could demand they put their own plans forward. >> right. >> i want to shift a little bit to the budget debate. we're seeing there's two points emerging in the budget debate on the hill. there's a debate about how much money we spend. and then there's a debate about riders. obviously, repealing health care reform itself is a rider. so i wonder, there's been obviously a lot of back and forth. the white house seems to be signaling they have a real concern about the riders and trying to eliminate that. i think it could end up that we're in a place where a

government shutdown is threatened over riders itself. how do you think we as advocates should respond? >> well there's two things i think that fundamentally have to change here. for one, i think we need a competing narrative from two of the basic thrusts of what the republicans have said. one repeal and replace. i believe fundamentally americans offered the choice between repeal and replace and something like implement and improve believe basically in the idea of no rolling back things but trying to work them out and make them better as we go. yet we haven't offered them that narrative. it's been very defensive and reflexive up to now. the republicans have done a pretty good job of making this fight on their de, for lower deficit, smaller government less debt lower taxes. our side it's just this general defense ofhe good things that vernment does.

rather than us having our things, we should have i don't know medicare social security, environment and education. those are our four things that we're not going to budge on. now let's negotiate, because i think the challenge we're having in this town legislatively and from public perception is we have not defined our side of the argument particularly well. i think if the republicans want to shut down government ovary peeling the health care reform, i don't think we're that lucky. i mean there is this tendency among republicans right now, but i think that it is insufficient as i sd recently, to sit back d wait for the republicans to self imlate. i think we need to have an affirmative contrast. >> i now invite questions from the audience. if you could identify who you're with. over there. >> bob catcher. thanks from brookings and

mckenzie. we're inspired. republicans keep saying, this bill doesn't cut deficits enough, yet they're against cutting medicare and medicaid. how do we score that argument? what's the right comeback? >> yes. for one thing, implicit in a lot of their critiqu during health care is they can't possibly like medicare very much. you know, they're concerned. i mean i asked a pane of witnesses at one of these mind numbingly boring hearings on health care whether the panel considered medicare to be a sing payer system that they derive so much. i think there is this notion you just mentioned it, that it takes a great man to build a barn but any jack ass can kick one down. we pretty much know the republican talking points against the solutions we've tried to come up with in this

bill. we've yet to see very much public pressure put on them to come up with what their ideas are. i can tell you their ideas during the health care debate not with standing their protestations were not serious, things like tort reform is a solution. well, the cbo -- we asked cbo to score a 30% reduction of torts. what they found is it would save you $50 billion over ten years. spend 2.7 trillion every year in health care. they have yet to be terribly serious about it. i think we haven't done a very artful job even with the thrust of this nonsensical question of double counting of the $500 billion of savings of medicare. article after article have unpacked that and explained it to my republican funs. they keep using it because it's fairly successful.

we need to do a much better job pushing back. >> right there. >> my name is scott. i'm from gw. first of all thank you for -- i don't think members of congress, i don't think y'all get enough credit for this bill. you get a lot of crap for it. i'm diabetic, i have a preexisting condition. i'm able to stay on my parents' plan until i'm 26. the president said something about letting states opts out if they can come up with a better plan by, like a few years from now. what's the whole consensus on that? what are they trying to do about that? >> what was your name? >> scott. >> before you put down the mike there's a lot of talk about the free market governing health care. you chose to have diabetes, right? that was your free market decision? >> yeah, when i was 8, i said that would be cool.

>> i think -- look, thank you for the kind words. i think the president articulated something that i was debating whether to bring this up in my remarks about things we're not pushing back upon enough. there have been well over -- i don't know what the ext number is, over 1,000 waivers given over differentrovisions of the of the bill to states, labor unions and businesses. this notion of one size fits all, the federal government shoving the bill down the throats, hhs has administered this bill to be very sensitive to the idea we have common objectives. we want lower costs more access. we want the system to work. the idea thatomehow we would not want the law to work by driving health insurance companies out of business or by being inflexible in regulations. in fact the waivers i would hope that the administration kind of understands makes this argument more forcefully, is an argument, look a lot of the people who got waivers were

organizaons that didn't like the bill and had real problems with it. some of them are friends. i think when the president said if you've got better ideas that can accomplish the same thing, come do them. i'm in the process in my office of trying to e if we can take him up on it in the city of new york. i have a passing interest in the management of the city of new york. so i'ms i think the president is right. if you can achieve the objectives of the bill then all of us in congress would be flexible enough to say go to it. >> right here.

thank you, congressman. i'm from americans for democratic action. you mentioned before we weren't doing a very good job at that narrative. i simply want to ask why and what agents you think need to play a role in helping us craft that as a young progressive where should i go and who should i be looking to for leadership on theseissues. thank you from your organization does great things. i think it's more about who we are structurally as progressives to some degree. we have this idea that if you have a law and think it through carefully and you're trying to implement and you have regulations, we're all going in e same direction, that ultimately, that will weigh out for someone who still to this day is talking about death panels. i think to some degree we have to play more skillful defense and offense at the same time.

i think that today, you're gog to see a lot of democrats. nancy pelosi is using her twitter feed to have another benefit of the bill every hour. it's important to do. it's important to realize that we have not done a good job disabusing americans of some of the things they've heard so many times that we can't just say that's obviously not true. people can go to any website they want and look at it or pull out a fact and check it for themselves. no. we he to keep doing -- we have to keep at these fights. who does it? i think the white house haso understand at the same tim they're trying to write these regulations this is going to be an issue in campaign 2012. i think whether they like it to or not and think they should make a virtue of it and should be out there doing it more. i think there are a lot of people in congress who are trying to do it, but we in congress still have within the

democratic family do have disparate voices. there are some people who are cringing anytime health care comes up they don't want to go through that again. it's not going to get any better. we're going to have this discussion whether you want to or not so let's have it skillfully. >> there's a question in the back. sorry to make you walk around. >> i'm deborah shumen with physicians for national health program. i've also been worng in the state of maryland with the governors coorditing council to implement the affordable care act. one of the main things going on in anap list during this session is to try to create an exchange or at least set up the structure for an exchange. in maryland, we have two bully insurance companies care first and united health care who control 70% of the market.

one of the things that th talk about in the committee meetings is who's gog to pay for the exchange. they look at it as another layer of bureaucracy. i have to say i agree with them. i wonder how this is going to get paid for once we have the essential benefits package. these are all good things, essential benefits package is a good thing. no lifetime limits a good thing. no preexisting condition limitations and resions, those are all good things but i really can't believe that an exchange is going to be able to control costs. it hasn't in massachusetts. i'd like to hear your comments. >> first, look, there is no doubt we are, to some degree, betting on the following premise, that if you give companies a playing field on which to compete, if you give coumers informatn that allows them to examine choices

side by side that the presence of that competition and the rules of the road being consistent, will lead to people making decisions that are driven by cost and price and that consumers will choose lower priced plans and that more chces that people have the more likely costs will come down. this, by the way, is not socialism. it's free market concept. it'she law of large groups of consumers shopping for a product. now, we are not entirely taking a shot in the dark here because putting aside the massachusetts experiment which had mixed results, we got the federal employees health benefit plan which covers 9 million americans and their families. that's a pretty big universe of people who use an exchange model that is very low cost, meaning the administration of the program costs less than .075% less than one 0.1 of one1%.

there's one other element that my republican friends talk about a lot but ignore in the bill. once you have regulations that are consistent across state lines, that tennessee can no longer have very, very bare bones things, there's nothing stopping companies from offering servic over state lines. this mantra we hear from republicans all the time. why don't you let companies sell their products over state lines. there's a simple economic reason. they have their own state insurance commission, but another is a fairness thing. if tennessee, just to take an example, offers a bare bone, low cost health care plan, it would serve to attract a lot of younger, healthier people and states like maryland and new york would be stuck with more,

bigger families, more sick people. it wouldn't be fair. once you have these regulations in place, you may have more than two choices, but your argument, your question is why cbo said that having the public option uld save a bunch of money, because then we would know that there would be an efficient low cost option available to peoe and with that knowledge we know that competition would at least have some effect on lowering costs, but to some extent it's an experiment with the rules of the free market, and unfortunately, the insurance industries have proven that the laws ofconomicravity don't apply when it comes to insurance rates for a lot of reasons and hopefully, this model will work. >> we have time for o more question. someone in the front? right there. >> final question, congressman, ms. tanden. what's the verdict? is this a happy birthday or an

unmerry birthday? >> i'll let you take that one. >> the way i look at it is what are we going to be saying about this in, let's say ten years? if you look at as i did, you look at the debate on medicare, u look at the year after. there was still enormous amount of questions about whether the system would work. what ultimately happened was a divided public opinion. ultimately evolved to a near universal amg 65 and older people, near universal support for medicare. among people 65 and below a great deal of confusion. but i do think th if we're going to look back at this year and we're going to laugh at some of the things that the things that its critics said about the law. we're going to see that things like a day of armageddon or

whatever boehner said the day that this passed, crazy. and still be tweaking it in ten year that's what medicare -- we're tweaking it to this moment. so i think this is a day that stimonies and people who voted for this bill should be celebrating. and i hope it's a day that americans renew an interest in it and don't look at you know, two people shouting on tv and try to learn a little bit more about the law. and i believe that each successive year that goes by if we handle this conversation right, i think it's going to be seen as a true success story. and i guess the question is going to be this. this time in 2012 or later in the fall of 2012, are you going to see ads by the republican saying, don't vote for president obama, because he passed obamacare, or are you going to see ads from president obama and