i think a lot of president obama's second term will be defending the first term priority of health care. immigration he would love to get it done but there is a lot on his plate with just defending health care. i don't know how far he will go. you mentioned president bush. one thing we could well be looking at is the situation in 2006 is worth remembering. in 2006 the senate passed a brought bill. the house passed and enforcement only bill and they didn't bother to go to conference because they were so different. >> gentlemen, thank you both for being with us on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]>> last week, former president george bush spoke in dallas area in his remarks, but the

immigration system and talked about the country's history. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much and welcome to freedom hall. grateful to be able to witness this joyous and uplifting ceremony. it will be inspiring to see people of different ages, in raise theiruntries right hands and take the oath to become citizens of the united states. all who swear the oath of citizenship are doing more than completing a legal process. a lifetime pledge

to support the values and loss of america. the pledge comes with great privileges and also with great responsibilities. for some of you today, a concept a long and difficult journey. for all of you, it is a defining moment in your lives. america is your country. it is more than a home. i welcome you to this free nation and i congratulate you and your families. fellow --der to tidy it is an honor to call you fellow americans. our immigrant heritage has enriched america's history. it continues to shape our society. each generation of americans of immigrants brings a renewal to our national character. and add some vitality to our culture. have a way of

appreciating the opportunities of america. and when they seize those opportunities, our whole nation benefits. in the 1790, an immigrant from ireland designed to the white house. i am familiar with the place. [laughter] he did a fine job. [laughter] thelso helps to build capitol. an immigrant from russia helped to build google. in between the citizens who made contributions in every professional field, and millions of newcomers have strengthened their communities through their hard work, love of family, and through their faith. we are a nation of immigrants. and we must uphold the tradition

which has strengthened our country in so many ways. laws isso a mission of muslim for some. america can be a lawful society at thewoke me society same time. -- and a welcoming society. laws.are also a nation of we have a problem. if --ws governing immigration is not working. the system is broken. we are now in an important debate about reforming the laws. and that is good. i do not tend to get into politics or specifics of policy. hope there is a positive resolution to the debate.

, wei hope during the debate keep a benevolent spirit in mind. and we understand the contributions immigrants make to our country. we must remember that the vast majority of immigrants are decent people who work hard. and support their families and practice their faith area and lead responsible lives. some defend the flag. including too poor brought to take the oath here today. 2 who are here to take the oath today. it says something about our country. that people all around the world are willing to leave their homes and leave their families and risk everything to come to our country. their talent and hard work and love of freedom has helped does become the leader of the world. ensure thaton must

america remains a beacon of liberty and the most hopeful society the world has ever known. we must always be proud to welcome people as fellow americans. our new immigrants are what they have always been -- people willing to risk everything for the dream of freedom. hopeca remains the great over the horizon. a promised land. we honor the heritage of all who come here, no matter where they come from because we trust in our countries for making us all americans. one nation under god. is a joyful day for you all. it is one you always remember. and so will i. in a few moments, we wish her the same title. -- we will share the same title.

that would be citizen of the united states. i congratulate you and ask god's blessing on you. [applause] >> tomorrow, student loan interest rates. followed by a discussion of u.s. energy policy with american petroleum president. the latest report from the inspector general report. "washington journal" on c-span. >> i wanted a representative look at american life so i need the politics, business, entertainment, food, finance, art. i also was interested in the current pattern that you see with gingrich, oprah z, and sam walton.

people who begin and humble laces and are not unlike the main characters. they sort of reinvent themselves as something new and find a which is a new idea that is riveting. through that, they built an empire. and they cannot stop building did. they dislike an imperative. you have to keep growing. -- it is like an imperative. eventually, it's order decadence sets in where the language becomes the parody of itself. they no longer seem to be producing something good. continue to produce. gingrich urges continued to write a book after book. oprah winfrey is on the cover of every magazine of her -- is on the cover of every of her magazine. it does come to replace the institution that has faltered in

this time. >> george packer intertwines the lives of three americans. that's tonight at 8:00 on "q&a." is scheduled to meet to discuss proposed changes to the filibuster of executive nominees. democrats said republicans are using the filibuster to block many upper the obama's nominees. these include the consumer administrator, and the import/export bank. senator hatch and senator klobuchar talked about this issue. >> i continue to vote against the filibusters. a a principal -- it is principal. whoever the president may be, should have the full choice of

who they put on the bench. unless there is some over well- being reasons somebody should -- overwhelming reason somebody should not be on the bench. it would be asaid disaster for the senate, it would destroy the second. harry reid made all kinds of comments like that. now they are using that as we go to an immigration bill. when put in a farm bill. a water bill. when you put it through 1500 nominations. only 4 were defeated. what is the problem here? >> the president should have the right to put their team out there. have a few nominees that will fell in committee and our party would not want to vote for them. for the most part, i do not understand why the president's team of which there are people whover 180

are pending before the center for the executive office nomination. why we cannot do 51 focus is beyond me. it is not like we can amend a person. daschle why we cannot to do one votes is beyond me. comes to the president's team, we have so much to work on economy. the immigration bill, workforce training, ringing down our debt. we are the precipice right now. fighting over epa director who used to work for mitt romney adequate to stop her , it is ridiculous. have a jointe'll caucus meeting which i wish they did more of. >> and that would be amazing. >> monday evening, and i hope you can work that out. on friday, the heritage

foundation hosted a discussion on the filibuster. the panelists including robert dove. this is over one hour. >> good afternoon. welcome welcome to the heritage foundation. those will be joining usvia c-span this afternoon and all of our television viewers are welcome to send in questions by e-mail to us. we will post the program within 24 hours on our website for your future reference, as well.

hosting our discussion today is our senior legal follow in legal and judicial studies and manager of our judicial reform initiative. he handles things like elections, campaign financing, voter fraud and identification laws and registration issues. before joining us, he served for two years as a member of the federal election commission and has been a counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the u.s. department of justice. he is a former litigator, and house counsel, and senior corporate officer as well in the insurance industry. please join me in welcoming my colleague. [applause] >> i would like to welcome you to the heritage foundation, particularly all of you who braved the torrential rains overnight to be here in person. we are here today to talk about the nuclear option.

anyone who lives in the real world outside of washington would expect that we would have a panel here of our national- security and foreign-policy experts talk about our missile defense system. in fact, we are here to talk about another subject that was heatedly discussed on the floor of the senate just yesterday between senator harry reid and senator mitch mcconnell. senator reid has said he intends to change the rules of the senate, to end the ability of the minority to filibuster which is a long and hallowed tradition in the senate. what do we think about that? here is what a certain senator said about this not too long ago. "the filibuster is not a theme and is not new. it is far from a procedural gimmick. it is part of the fabric of this institution we call the senate. it was well known in colonial legislatures before we became a country and it is an integral part of our country's 214 year history.

senators have used this to stand up to presidents. the roots of the filibuster are in the constitution and in our own rules. there is no way that i would employ or use a nuclear option. it would ruin our country. in fact, breaking the rules to change the rules is unamerican." senator harry reid said that back in 2005. he is now scheduled to do his unamerican act for a vote on monday in the old senate chamber and then a vote on tuesday. why is there a debate about this in the old senate chamber? the old senate chamber does not have television coverage. c-span viewers will not be able to watch and there will be no gallery where the public can see what is going on in the debate. by the way, then senator obama

said that if the senate broke the rules to change the rules "the fighting, the bitterness, and the gridlock would only get worse." unlike many of the president's other announcements, he certainly is correct about this one. i also want to give you quotes from another couple of people. senator bill nelson from florida said "we must encourage compromise not to change the rules in the middle of the game bordering on abuse of power. surely, the senator can rise above these partisan politics and come together for the sake of the nation." another senator, tim johnson, democrat of south dakota pointed out the reason why this is a good rule. "one of the consequences of the 60-vote rule is that it takes both parties by the scruff of the neck, brings them together and says you will have to reach across the aisle and cooperate, coordinate with your colleagues

from the other party whether or not you like it." finally, dick durbin, democrat of illinois said," those who are focusing on the nuclear option and not just forcing the rules to win but they want to force the rules to win every time." this is very important because senator reid and his caucus are saying that these rules have to be changed because the minority has been holding up legislation and blocking the nominations of the president. president obama has been able to get signature bills through, everything from obama care to his latest immigration bill and the vast majority of the president's executive and judicial nominees have all been confirmed. it is a very minor loss rate that is no worse or different than that of prior presidents like president bush or clinton. he has had 201 judges confirmeded including two supreme court nominees, 29 have

been confirmed this year alone, 38%. if that is a blockade, it is mighty poor. this is a serious subject but i have to put a personal note in here. i laughed at one point yesterday during the coverage of the debate. there was a discussion ongoing at the time of president obama's recess appointees to the national labor relations board which the district of columbia court of appeals found to be unconstitutional because the senate was not in recess at the time. excusing these appointments, senator reid said they were necessary at the time because they were due to the unconscionable delay in the consideration of the nominations of the nominees by the minority. it is interesting that two of the nlrb nominees were recess

appointed on january 4, 2012. there were nominated by the president, december 15, 2011, two weeks before. i laughted because of my personal experience. senator reid believes that two weeks is an unconscionable delay and yet it was the same senator reid that held up my nomination during a prior administration for 2.5 years after senator obama put a hold on the nomination. the point is that the claims being made to the rules being changed because of the president's legislation and the nominees are being stopped and the president is suffering disproportionately. it is factually not true. why is this being done? let me tell you that i would suggest that you read an interesting article that may give you a clue. it is in "mother jones" magazine

that is not conservative. they had issued an article on january 9 of this year in which they described a meeting that was held in washington, one month after the november election. some of the most powerful liberal advocacy groups and unions in the country were at this meeting including the national education association, the sierra club, the sciu, the naacp and the afl-cio. the organizations at this meeting are the backbone of the liberal political world and they provide the money, the support, and get-out-the-vote campaigns that got senator reid and his caucus in office. the goal of this meeting was to put together "a national coordinated campaign" to reshape the united states into a progressive, liberal utopia. of the three objectives that were agreed upon by these groups at the meeting, one of them was

to get rid of the filibuster in the senate so that the majority party could ram through legislation and nominees with no opposition and no need to compromise with the minority. we have three very knowledgeable sources to discuss the origin of the filibuster. brian darling is a veteran of the senate and served on the staff of several senators. mel martinez is currently counsel for rand paul of kentucky and served bob smith of new hampshire. -- is a fellow seven-year veteran of the heritage foundation where he started as director of senate relations for our installations to pardon and ended as a senior fellow for government studies. he offered "backgrounders for the heritage foundation that are relevant today and there are copies outside.

for anyone watching, you can get these on the heritage website. one of them is called "tyranny." robert dove is a parliamentarian emritus from 1981-2001 with a brief interlude. he was the assistant parliamentarian from 1975-1981 and the second assistant parliamentarian from 1966-1975. i hate to tell you how old i was in 1966 when you started. [laughter] i will not tell you that. he has also worked as a parliamentary consultant to the consultant dumas and parliaments in various other countries. he has taught at george

washington university, georgetown university law center, george mason university, and a number of other universities. he is a co-author of "defending the filibuster." last but not least, we will have james walder who has worked in the house of representatives and the senate and is the executive director of the senate steering committee. he has been included on roll calls and is one of the top 50 staffers on capitol hill and is an adjunct professor in the area of politics and the congressional and presidential studies program at catholic university and the author of a forthcoming book. he has also published articles from the journal of legislative studies and the forum.

i will turn over to you, brian. you can speak from there if you prefer. >> i prefer to sit down but i think everybody else will end up speaking from the podium so i will. i will speak until i no longer can speak. how much time do i have? do i have 13 hours? >> no, you don't. >> to be clear -- i am someone who spent seven years here at the heritage foundation and wrote quite a bit about the filibuster. my opinion of the filibuster is pretty simple. it protects transparency. just look at the whole idea of the filibuster. we are talking about extended to debate. right now, there are nominations by dead senate majority leader and not one word from the senator has commenced on that filibuster. in the senate, you frequently

have a fake filibuster where you don't really have any debate happening. you have the majority leader filing cloture a nomination before they were spoken when you get into these issues, it gets complicated. the senate rules are complicated but to take a back a step, it is simple to understand. what does a filibuster protect? it attacks the american people to participate in this process is to understand what the government is trying to do and know something about these nominees before they are confirmed. they're not inside the beltway in washington, d.c. they're watching it on c-span and reading about it in the newspaper and cloture is filed and you have two days to figure out something about a nomination on the senate floor. don't have much time to get up to speed. i wrote two papers for the party's foundation. one was "the filibuster protect the rights of all senators and the american people." i wrote that in january of 2011. the theme of that was the

filibuster in the senate protect the rights of senators to debate legislation thereby protecting the interest of the american people. the filibuster actually realize the founders' intent that the senate slowed the legislative process to insure deliberation before passing a bill. if the filibuster is tossed aside for nominations, even just for executive-branch nominations, it is not too far or too difficult to see where that extends tio judicial nominations and over to legislation. if you look at the senate rules, there is no distinction in the senate rules and cloture roles between judicial nominations, executive-branch nominations, and legislation. the other paper i wrote was "tyranny in the united states senate." i argued that the senate majority leader has regularly used procedural tactic called

filling the amendment tree to restrict senators rights to offer debate. my point there was that you have a situation on the legislative side where the majority leader and it is not unique to the current majority leader but it has happened more recent where the majority leader brings up legislation, offers amendments that make technical changes to the bill for the sole purpose of blocking other members of the senate for participating in the process. it blocks them from being senators and what goes forward to the house or the president. this is what is happening now. in my opinion, the left wants to seize more power. they want to do so, they want to load up the executive branch, maybe the judiciary, and maybe they will go forward with legislation to forge a liberal agenda.

this will be something that will take republicans now. it might be democrats in the future but night -- right now it will kick the republicans to decide for the rights have been chipped away by not allowing them to offer amendments, not allowing them to engage in extended debate. the senate is becoming more like a house every day where members do not have the power to get up, give a speech and offer an amendment, debate until they run out of breath until the cannot speak anymore, and that is something that is not good for our republic. when you look at what is happening now, you are hearing breaking the rules to change the rules. what does that mean? the rules are very specific. the cloture rule, rule 22 -- when you read through the rules, you read the wealth of rules of the senate and you see the senate operates on a day-to-day basis in. hear them frequently asking

unanimous consent to waive a rule here or there. that is the way the senate operates. has strict rules that they are consistently waving those rules by consent of all the members to move forward. what this would do is it would make a substantive change in the text of the roles. it would do so with a majority vote. you are are allowed to change the rules of the majority vote but to do so, the way you are supposed to do so, is to have actual debate on changing the rules vary during that debate, indeed a 2/3 majority to shut down debate. the senate has not been doing much over the past week. it had a couple of boats and there is not much we know of coming up in the next few weeks. not have that debate? had that debate for a week on the changing of the senate rules instead of using these nominations as a pretext to break the rules to change the rules. you hear the nuclear option. what does that mean? richard beth wrote in march of

2005 that beginning in the 108th congress, the term nuclear option has often been used to refer to a procedure or course of action that would meet this requirement of bypassing the obstacles posed by the usual procedures for considering procedural changes. critics of this form of action have used this term to connote a unilateral resort to such a course by a majority of my under not mind traditional practices in the senate especially -- that would undermine the traditional practices in the senate that have been held to characterize what happens when one side takes the minority and says you cannot debate and cannot offer amendments, you get no mutual to

structure of the situation and ton they use all the right block everything that happens in the senate and the senate becomes dysfunctional. as i said before, the senate operates by unanimous consent. that goes away if you have destruction.red greg sargent previewed this in "the washington post"a few weeks ago. he wrote that senate majority leader harry reid is increasingly focused on the month of july is a time towill month of july is a time to exercise so-called nuclear option and rivas about -- and revisit filibuster reform. he has said he is all but certain that if the gop blocks three key nominations. he probably consulted with dest. president obama and the need to revisit filibuster reform and the president has told the majority leader that he will support the exercising of the nuclear option.

it has been said that the senior democrats expected democrats to publicly push for it. the president has said he will be there to support senator harry reid. the stocks that nominations and we are dealing with executive- branch nominations. this initial push was not limited to executive branch. it is something that will bleed over into the judicial branch. will see judicial nominations subject to the same thing in the know i saidi have a second seven future.yeah i iow does this play out? only had a we've got seven nominations quin nominations asked allows gas was he only received on the iud right now that senate majority leader harry reid filed cloture re-implant that ship is because of cost on.the same amount as another we have richard cordray to be director of the consumer of financial protection, richard griffin to be in the nlrb, sharon bloch, mark gaston, nlrb, thomas perxz, secretary and of labor. these nominees for the national labor relations board are very controversial. after the court ruled that obama recess appointments of threedo members or invalid richard youmembers or invalid richard think if that were not a factor the other factors wouldn't be enough cordray was also part of a recess appointment that was not subject to a lawsuit and the supreme court will decide nlrb cases.and you

this action would probably take these actions out of the court branch nominations. and that is in the interest of this administration not to have the embarrassment of the supreme court if they came out with a decision contrary. i don't know how this will play after a i would love to hear by other members of the panel how this will happen to understand specifically how the nuclear option would even come into play. what happens on tuesday morning if there is no agreement how does it play out? is the threshold merely lowered specifically how the nuclear option would even come into play. what happens on tuesday morning that is not me from 60 to 50 votes or will all senate debate be declared dilatory?

keep in mind two things -- when you look at this year, two of the biggest thing that happened politically were filibuster's. you hear the demonization of the filibuster. they say it slows everything down and blocks legislation. my boss rand paul filibuster on the senate floor for 13 hours. that raised every americans' awareness of the potential use of drones domestically in the united states. the american people heard it and were educated and having a national debate. in texas, the debate over abortion was raised by an individual getting up and filibuster legislation in the texas state legislature. those are issues in the public to maine -- domain because of filibuster.

if either party back in 2005, republicans consider doing this for a 2013, democrats are. both parties should not consider doing this because it will ultimately destroy the nature of the senate and hurts our republic when you go down this road of making a very easy for the majority to steamroll the minority and not allow them to participate in the process. it would be really not wise for this to move forward. thank you. >> do you want to speak from there? >> sure. i came to the u.s. senate in 1966. when the senate was run by two leaders - senator mike mansfield of montana, the majority leader and senator everett dirksen other illinois, the minority leader. it was a very different senate then. the filibuster was attacked the becausen of the issue of civil rights.

i remember just about nine years later, in 1975, when a republican vice president, nelson rockefeller, together with a bipartisan group led by ben senator walter mondale and then senator from kansas, james pierson, republican, led a fight which basically was the nuclear option. they were successful. they changed the cloture rule from 2/3 down to 60. now the proposal, i guess, is to change the cloture rule down to 51. i am the co-author of a bookas a entitled "defending the filibuster." i wrote it with a gentleman who worked initially for senator paul tsongas of massachusetts and stayed on the hill for 30 and in and in years, ending up working foryou areyears, ending up working for senator carl levin of michigan. there reason we wrote this book in athere reason we wrote this book is we saw the benefits of the filibuster. when rich aronberg, my co-

author, came into the parliamentarian's office in the late 1970's, we knew that in order to pass a bill that senator tsongas was interested in called the alaska lands bill, that the republican senator, senator ted stevens, would have to sign off on if we were to get cloture. this forced a bipartisan approach to that bill. the result was that that bill was adopted and signed by president carter but has been a successful build over the years. i i would contrast that with the bill called the affordable care act which was pushed through by senator harry reid without any bipartisan support. for one goal that moment, that was possible because senator reid had 60 votes in his caucus due to the change of parties by senator arlen specter and suddenly, he had 60 votes.

and he was able to successfully push through that bill. i would contrast those two bills in terms of their support in the country. i don't think it is a good thing for bills to have no support from the two parties. basically, what happened in the affordable care act was that the bill only had support from the democratic party.

that is one of the reasons why we wrote the book, "defending the filibuster." it is true that right now senator reid does not have the 60 votes in his caucus. and he is supposedly going to use "the nuclear option" change all that. this is not the first time this issue has come up. when senator bill frist was the senate majority leader and was being frustrated by votes on judicial nominations, he proposed the nuclear option and the result was that a gang of 14, seven republicans and seven democrats, worked together and came to the floor and said no.

we are not going down that road. issue has come up. and that was to stop senator frist. i would hope that as a result of the caucus on monday night there might be a similar group that would come to the floor and say, do not go down this road.

having seen what happened in

1975 when the senate did go down that road, the repercussions lasted for years. and the bitterness lasted for years. it's not something i would ever wish for the united states senate. the senate is an institution that i love. i worked there for 35 years. i now teach about how congress works at george washington university. and i honor the senate. i can remember frankly that when this proposed, i went on the cbs evening news and suggested that if a group of senators would come to the floor and say stop the madness, we could stop it. and that's exactly what happened. and that's what stropped it. i sincerely hope that is what happens after that caucus on monday night and a group comes

to the floor and says stop the madness. >> good afternoon. thank you to heritage for hosting us and thank you for letting me appear with these distinguished panelists. since i'm going last here i thought i would take a step back and try to put it in context and provide a framework we can think about what has been said. i think hopefully this will help us understand how we arrived at where we are today. it will help us understand why i think it's basically impossible

to limit the use of the nuclear option in this instance to executive nominees which is what the majority has claimed they would like to do. and then lastly, and i think most importantly for the long term health of the institution but also the republic why i think why it is ultimately impossible to transform this senate into a purely majoritarian body like the house of representatives. because of that i think it should give them pause in their efforts. if they go through with this it may result in more dysfunction at the end without arriving at the end point in which they would like to. i think first here, imagine a continuum, think back to college and high school. think of that as a rules based continuum. the house is obviously more rules based and the senate is

better relations based. the senate informal rules govern things. precedence, norms, traditions, acceptable behavior. this tells us something important about the legislative process. in the house it's rules based. the important decisions are made before they get to the floor. the floor is just to ratify those decisions. in the senate is legislative process is critical. because of that you often see large bipartisan majority support legislation once it goes through that process in the committee and on the floor. this is really important for the current discussion and the current issue the nuclear option

and what is going to happen next week. the legislative process in the senate reveals important information about the level of resolve of both sides. and because of the process by which legislation is considered, the minority learns a lot of important stuff about how hard majorities are willing to push to get what they want. and the majority learns important information about how hard the minority is willing to push and react if the majority tries to restrict their rights in some manner. this process has worked reasonably well throughout the institution's history i would think. however, today in the

contemporary senate we have a problem because the legislative process no longer performs this function. today the process is almost completely broken down. it's almost nonexistent. and because of that senate majorities have largely acted to produce this by trying to achieve policy out comes without the input of senate minorities and even over their objections. if you look at what happens in the senate the number of amendments proposed, amendments that a senate goes down to the floor and offers to a bill has declined 2,164 to 974. the number of minority amendments proposed on the floor

has declined from 1,043 to 400. and i think more importantly the number of recorded votes on amendments has declined from 428 to 228 in the last congress. and so when this happens, when there is virtually no floor process, the legislative process no longer tells us much about what side thinks is important and how hard they are willing to fight for their goals. when that happens the current way of business creates dysfunction because in a relation al body when you don't have a lot of rules to tell you what you can and can't do, you have a lot of leeway to do things. now both sides have incentive to use that to persuade the other side what they want to do is important and they will push as hard as they can to get it. what does this have to do with where we are today? number one the current situation is unsustainable and the way we have bills on the floor tells us nothing about what each side thinks is important. i think how the situation is resolved next week will encourage senate to employ nuclear options. this reinforce it is dynamic we've seen. this is no surprise we are where we are today. we have seen this play out over

the years. in january 2011. the senate to diffuse a similar situation passed a compromise rules proposal. we eliminated the requirement that amendments be read and we eliminated the practice of secret holds. the senate reformed the executive process where some were removed from the process entirely and others were given a new special expedited process. in exchange the minority was given a gentleman's agreement where if they refrained from filibuster the majority would allow them to offer amendments. that fell apart. fast forward to october 2011. a precedent was created where amendments could be offered on a bill because they had been shut out during regular course of business. majority leader reid didn't like that so he employed the nuclear

option to get rid of that. fast forward to january 2012 the president disregarded the constitution and made appointments even though they were in session. the supreme court has decided to take up that case. in january 2013 there was yet another bipartisan rules agreement designed to diffuse tension and to discourage the majority from going nuclear. but i would argue that none of these instances especially the negotiated compromises actually worked. they may have made the situation even worse. this is why we can't restrict what is happening next week if it does in fact happen to just executive nominees because the

minority will be in a worse position despite having cooperated in these other instances in the past. because the majority learns a lesson each time. the majority is rational and it says this works. if we threaten and bluster and beat our chest, the minority will give us what we want. right now i think we are seeing that understanding unravel. but they can still take that lesson from this situation. and if they do, you could see this threat employed again on d.c. circuit court nominees on a supreme court nominee. on controversial legislation. there is no rational reason why they would limit themselves to

just executive nominees. and this brings me to my concluding point on why i don't believe the senate can become the house. this has to do with the priding officer. despite the wishes of the current majority the senate cannot become a body like the house. this is critical because the nuclear option whereby they would effect that change is

dependant upon a complacent priding officer. yet the constitution stipulates the president is our presiding officer. this is problematic because in a rules based body like the house you have to have a strong officer, you have to have the speaker to enforce order. throughout history all senators in all parties have been hesitant to enforce order. this is because the vice president is not a member of the senate. he may not be a member of the same party as the majority party. and even if he is, it's not clear he'll have the same priorities as the majority party. so what does all this mean? if in fact the nuclear option is employed next week, it will

destroy the comedy on the relational aspect of gnat decision making is based and it will shift toward this rules based model the house follows. however the stipulation that the vice president is our presiding officer will prohibit us from getting all the way there. the result will be even more of a dysfunctional body and can't operate at all because we don't have a strong presiding officer like the speaker. yet the comedy that bob referred to is gone. so we're in this weird no man's land where it's very difficult to do anything. that would be bad for the republic and terrible for the senate. >> we will be happy to answer questions. officer will prohibit us from getting all the way there. the result will be even more of a dysfunctional body and can't operate at all because we don't have a strong presiding officer like the speaker. yet the comedy that bob referred to is gone. so we're in this weird no man's land where it's very difficult to do anything. that would be bad for the republic and terrible for the senate. >> we will be happy to answer questions. the only thing i ask you wait for the microphone so our viewers around the country can hear your question. if i would identify who you are when you ask the question. i would ask one thing and that is to ask a question please and not make a statement. >> can i ask one from the podium? >> of course. >> i want to ask these guys what do you think is going to happen? i think bob would have a great perspective on what is actually going to happen on tuesday morning? how does this play out? this presumes that there is no gang that comes out of the monday night discussion. >> unfortunately what i think is going to happen is that senator reid is going to play out this game. and the result i think will be disastrous. >> i agree. >> any questions from the audience? >> the heritage foundation. this is primarily a question for james although the other two might want to comment on it too. you talked about the merits of the filibuster whether there is

a option to employ the nuclear option. we know within the context of the senate rules today, there is a majority approach with regard to the budget. to what extent oh do you think that the legislative dysfunction is resulting from that particular element of senate rules as it applies to the budget and therefore to the broad array of legislation in terms of the relationship based decision making process that you eluded to. >> i think the budget is a great example of why rules aren't a panacea. the budget is a majoritarian document in the senate. a majority can pass it.

we didn't pass one for several years and finally passed one. we are far apart on agreement for a budget with the house. it goes to show you significant conflict can exist even in a majority body and dysfunction can still exist. >> could i just chime in because i helped write the budget act. i was part of a group that senator byrd called in to his office to go through the budget act and make sure that "it worked. my contribution was writing in to the budget act what was then the standard unanimous consent agreement providing that amendments had to be germane. that there was a limitation on time of amendments, providing that the motion to proceed would not be debatable. i will tell you that in the 1970's when that act was written, there were many attempts to overcome the idea of senate filibusters. and that was just one of them. the war powers act was another. the whole idea of the legislative veto was very popular in the 1970's. and many things were written into law that avoided a

filibuster. this was seen as a way of getting around the problems of dealing with senate bills on the floor. unfortunately, i can tell you that our intentions were good. but by creating something called dealing with senate bills on the floor. the reconciliation bill, we created a monster. again, a bill that can pass with only majority support and has been repeatedly used by various presidents. the whole idea of the budget process was to cut the president out of the budget. but presidents have learned they can use this budget process whether it was president ronald reagan who got through his budget program or president bill clinton who got through his budget program or president george w. bush who got through his tax cuts. bills that would never have passed had they been subject to a senate filibuster.

and in that sense, there is blood on these hands because i helped create it. sorry. >> that wasn't my intention. >> this question is for mr. dubs. it's unclear to me there is anything that would limit the precedent we're talking about to certain types of nominations on the executive calendar. is that you're view?

>> that is exactly my view. my reaction is you go down this road and you have turned the senate into a manualty institution and you have made it much like the house of representatives. and my reaction is the senate was never intended to be like the house of representatives. >> what types of things would parliamentarians office consider? >> unfortunately if you look at what the ability of the parliamentarian's office to control what the chair has said, i came to the senate when the vice president of the united states humphrey cared not a whip for the advice of the senate parliamentarian and made rulings consistently that were against the advice of the parliamentarian. my reaction is that a determined vice president can return to that model.

now the problem with that is that suddenly the vice president plays a role which frankly hasn't been played since hubert humphrey. he had no role in the johnson administration. he was totally shut out. and so he found himself a home in the senate. since jimmy carter gave mondale an office in the west wing, vice presidents have really enjoyed in effect becoming part of the executive branch. i don't know whether vice president biden would enjoy reverting to the vice

presidential role of hubert humphrey or not but he would have to if he were going to play that role. >> i have just -- i would like your thoughts if you could share a little more information on your boss' filibuster maybe some background. >> sure. again, the filibuster has been demonized so much but most people look at that as a good use of the filibuster. it's been perceived it was a filibuster of the nomination of john brennan and it was in a sense but it wasn't also. for him to get the floor and do what he did, he was actually blocking the majority leader from filing a motion to proceed

to that nomination. and i'll tell you, it's out in the public do main he's written an on ed in the washington post about how it played out. but i can tell you he didn't plan on speaking for 13 hours. he jokes he wasn't wearing his comfortable shoes. he was on his way to the senate floor. he had done some preparation for the filibuster that he wanted to do but it wasn't intended on being on that day, it was intended on the next day and he didn't intend talking for 13 hours. as it went on i was down watching him. it was amazing to me that he can speak for hours on end off the cuff. he did have notes and that was spurring thoughts. but it was amazing to see him go off the cuff an hour at the time. then i think it kept him going when other senators came down to the floor and asked questions of him. senator ted cruz and mike lee were the first two to come down and ask questions and they had a back and forth with question and

answer. he couldn't yield the floor for any point. he could yield for questions. he did yield for questions. and as you saw if you watched it, there were many senators that came down. a democrat from oregon came down to get involved in that. it was an amazing thing to watch. it is something that raised that issue to the level that it's talked about more so than it was before. that was important. it spurred a response from the obama administration. i think by the end of it he was wear and i don't think he's excited to run down and do that again anytime soon. but it was a great opportunity and i think a lesson for a lot of people. and one of the roles of the

senate is talking, getting people involved, getting people to think about issue that is they may not have thought about before. >> if i could just comment, to me the glory of the senate are the people like rand paul. i remember when senator william approximate mire left the senate. he had singlehandedly stopped a project called the sst and he had done it by talking. it is something that the house has no rule that allows people to talk. only the senate has a rule that allows people to talk. and if you get rid of that, to me you have gotten rid of the senate. >> i would just add, it's not just talking, right. we've already seen the restriction in your ability to propose amendments, germane or otherwise on the floor. that's going to continue even more if they get rid of the filibuster for executive

nominees and potentially other things. it's the ability to talk. but both of those are crucial planks in what makes the senate great. >> i'm barbara dean. i hear you talk about if this happens on tuesday what the result will be theoretically. what will republicans do, do you think, if reid goes forward with this and wins? what will be the response? >> it will not be pleasant. you will have poured poison into

a well that will be there for years and years and years. >> that was kind of my first question to it matters what happens. it's unclear exactly what happens. are we going to have reid go down to the floor and say extended debate is dilatory i'm shutting it down. or does he say the 60 vote threshold is unconstitutional and need to be lowered to 50 votes or a simple majority. if that happens, if you still

have the procedure in tact just the threshold lower you have the opportunity to have debate time on a nomination for eight hours with seven nominees. multiply that out, that could take a while. it's unclear exactly how this is going to play out because we don't know what the precedent is going to be going forward. some people may know. but i have not seen exactly what reid is intending on doing. >> i would just like to say how the minority respond is just as important as whether or not reid goes forward because if the minority chooses not to respond or to respond in a way that does not cause discomfort with the majority, then the dynamic that i laid out since january of 2011 if not before continues. and we find ourselves at another crisis point in the future. >> i would not count on senator mcconnell not responding. >> we do have time for more questions. anyone else? >> i share your concerns and the complaints of the minority party, i don't think we've really discussed the role that the minority party has had in getting us here. mcconnell not responding. there are legitimate complaints

or criticism that is the majority is making that it takes nine months for the average nominee to have a vote. so if the panel could respond to some of the criticisms that the majority is making. >> i think both parties are guilty of it. both parties obstruct. look what happened in 2005. democrats were obstructing. democrats were rewarded if not, maybe just not punished. i think when you get into nominations your average american's eyes glaze over

unless you are talking about a cabinet level nominee or supreme court nominee. i don't think they are decisive political issues. but i don't think anybody has been punished for slowing down nominations. maybe at times. i'm sure there are members of the senate that want to block a nomination for the export bank nominee. they want to slow the process down of certain institutions and been punished for slowing down nominations. maybe at times. i'm sure there are members of the senate that want to block a nomination for the export bank nominee. they want to slow the process down of certain institutions and that is part of the political process. nothing prevents the majority leader from saying i'm going to file a cloture. i'm going to make you come down and talk. there really is nothing preventing that from happening today. we live in a world in the senate where you see clot tour filed. there isn't much debate. it's usually an empty chamber. you have this vote pop up in two days and everybody runs away or they set a 60 vote threshold. it doesn't say you can't keep the process going and grind

down. you just don't see that happening. negotiate party has done that. it has happened in the past but in recent memory i don't remember that happening. >> when you said the mansfield foundation. i remember the senator very well. he was absolutely loved by his fellow senators. he was the most fair majority leader i have ever seen. but i remember also on his watch the filibuster of the nomination of lyndon johnson to put abe fortiss as chief justice of the supreme court. i remember how uneasy a lot of people were because they had

never seen a filibuster of a supreme court justice. and it was led by robert griffin and it was successful. and then of course we learned more about abe fortiss and we were probably a little glad that he was not the chief justice. and then i saw the filibusters of carzwell to be on the supreme court and that was successful. and the more we learned about him, we were kind of glad that

he wasn't on the supreme court. so i don't see filibusters as a terrible thing. to me, they can be very educational. >> i would like to emphasize that brian mentioned the process and how it's broken down. and we don't have a process 234i78. but the numbers have been written about they are out there. metrics do matter. if you take the number of nominees that have been submitted or proposed to the senate and then take the number that have been confirmed you get a percentage. that percentage for president obama is higher than it ever was for president bush and higher than it ever was for president clinton. if you look at the ones that have been slowed down. if you look at the nominees on the calendar today, the nominees, the pace is controlled by democratic committee chairman. and then finally if you look at any nominee that is we blocked and i'm not sure that there's

been many. there have been two i believe. the democrat, the current majority you could say started this. but i don't like to go down that road because what bob said is correct. we don't need to get too far away from the fundamental issue at stake had is how the senate makes decisions and how it is set up to make decisions. and my argument is going down this road undermines the senate's ability to work. it's a great detriment to the country. >> we have time for one more question. >> i have a question to dr. wallner and his argument there would be a break down and a no man's land if the rules are changed and attempt to make the senate a more rules based institution. the constitution doesn't have very many restrictions on the

senate. i mean it does say the vice president is the president of the senate but doesn't define the rules. what stops the senate from adjusting and creating something more like a speaker of the house position even if it would be in a no man's land for a short period of time, couldn't it adjust to becoming an effective body again? >> the senate adjusts all the time. it changed the way it makes decisions since the beginning in response to different issues. it determines it's rules internally but it does so in response to external factors. it does that. but it does it together. it does it in a bipartisan way. and because of that bipartisanship it is inherently stable. today we're in an unstable situation because of the lack of mutual agreement and mutual buy in on how the senate is going to make decisions. not on what the legislation is going to be but on how we're

going to consider the legislation. first, we saw prior to this over the past several years this majority use it's prerogatives to approximate for a majority rule in the house. block motions to proceed to block out extreme efforts to get votes on things. filing chloe tour on the same-- closure on the same day a bill is brought to the floor. you still have to entice and force through public pressure a few republican senators in the minority to join with you. once that breaks down, there is only one other place to go and

that is to get rid of the closure rule. i don't think you will be able to find sustainable order in this mode. >> if i could add, you say the vice president could become like the speaker. i can robert byrd when he was majority leader informing the vice president, senator mondale who was speaking at the time that he had no right to speak to the senate. and only through unanimous consent could the vice president speak. i can tell you the senate has done everything in its power to minimize the role of the vice president. and they have been quite successful at that. i don't think the vice president ever could play the role of the speaker. i can tell you one former speaker of the house who tried and that was john garner when he was vice president. and he was the reason that the office that i finally held senate parliamentarian was set

up because he started making statements that when the chair was authorized to point conferees he would make some independent decision on them. that was not what the senate had in mind. and they set up the senate parliamentarian's office in 1937 to tame that particular vice president. >> efficiency is not inherently good. we don't want an inefficient senate, we want a senate that works slower so the american people can participate. what bothers me many people look at the american people and say you show up and vote and that's the last we want to hear from you. this is a process that is

ongoing where people get to talk to their members of congress and say hey, you know that nominee coming up, here are my feelings about that nominee. if you have an efficient senate that will deteriorate. why need debate at all? why not let the leader take up anything he wants and no debate and just vote. vote on whatever legislation and approved amendments that you want? and the answer is we don't want the senate to work like that. it's never worked like that and it's been a pretty good institution. the american people don't like the house and don't like the senate. it's legitimate to look at congress and be upset about it but the reason why they have such low approval ratings is because all the deliberation is out in public. the executive branch doesn't do

that. all their discussion is behind closed doors. you don't see people fighting and arguing. the administration speaks with one voice the president of the united states. the senate speaks with hundreds of voices. it looks like they are yelling and arguing. but that's the way our founders wanted it to have an inefficient senate that doesn't get things done quickly but gets things done eventually. >> i want to thank everyone for coming including our c-span viewers. and thank our panel with a round of applause. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] you are in meet behind closed will meet in the senate chamber, home to the u.s. senate from 1819 to 1859. and the u.s. premium court from

1860 21935. here is a list of the chamber from our video collection. senate chamber. ♪ >> i wou have enjoyed >> i would have enjoyed being in the old senate chamber the date reopened. marvel of architecture and engineering, a marvel of american hindu spirit. ch a startling contrast to everything around it, everything else in e city so muddy and dusty. everything else in the country,

a country where people lived in log cabins. this incredible temperaturele to the legislative process with marble columns, imported italian marble caps, wall to wall carpet, draperies, must have been stunning. >> the room is just spectacular. the art work in it is just wonderful to have the portrait of george washington that's above the podium. it was there from the 1830's to 1859. it is george washington rising up into the heavens. underneath him is the words father of our country. the painting is known as the port hole portrait because he is encased in the porthole. and above him is the head of

jupiter. it has become associated with the senate here in the old senate chamber and eagle and shield, again, great symbolics of american icon here in the building here in this room where the vice president would have presided and where the senate would have met during the 1810-1859 period. >> henry clay of kentucky, steven douglas of illinois, han ball of maine, daniel webster of massachusetts, louis cast of michigan, calhoun, and this was just the beginning and this was the april ex of the golden age of the senate. the modern visitor goes into that chamber, everything is clean and fresh smelling. if you were to bring back a senator from the 1819 or 1830

period, they would double over in laugh ter. it wasn't like that at all. this was like the floor of a stock market merchandise exchange just before the closing bell. this is the only place where people had a place to work. there was paper everywhere. a senator's desk in the senate chamber was his office. there was no other place to go. >> imagine, no electricity, no furnaces. and you see the spitoons as well. the new carpets wouldn't have looked like that. looking at them sitting in the chamber. every senator had one. there are patterns all over the floor. >> you know who charles

dickens. if he dropped money in this he would use a glove to pick up the money. think of all the arguments that led up to the civil war. >> this is the room where the senate became the senate we know today. when the senate first moved in here, it was a pale reflection of its modern self. it was a rubber stamp for the house of represeatives. not a lot of major ideas came out of the senate in that early period. all of a sudden, 1819, 1820, the major issue before the nation became slavery. the great thinkers who were in the house of representatives begin to decide the place for them to be is in the senate. this is a forge on which the union was defined. is it a group of states, or is it something greater than the group of states. >> people used to line up at

dawn to get into the senate chamber to hear daniel webster speak. he had an elegant manner about him and people thought if it wasn't the greatest speech, they could tell their children and grandildren they heard the great daniel webster. he could speak for days on an issue. but they were able to get to the nub of what the issue was and we remember him today not for the length of his speeches but certain telling phrases. i speak today not as a northern man but as an american. henry clay used to sit in the back of the senate chamber and people say why didn't he move down toward the front? i think henry clay never wanted to turn his back on enemies or friends for that matter. clay was known for compromise. he was trying to reconcile the interests of the north and the south and was able to keep

control over the senate. people charged him with being the dictator and he said i'm not the dictator but one of a number of senors. everyone knew that he knew as well that he was the dictator. when calhoun came into the chamber, he was a dramatic looking man. he resigned from the vice president si to become a senator. he started out as a nationalist but came back as a sectionalist . and in his last appearance in the senate chamber, he was too weak to actually deliver the speech he had written and he had to sit and listen as another senator. he was dying. so the man's life was completely absorbed in the united states capitol in one way or another. and it would have been quite remarkable to actually see him in action. >> the senate of the 1850's was

often referred to as a dueling ground or as a brawling pit, as a bear garden where contestants came in and verbally took on one another. members carried loaded pistols into the chamber. they did it because the atmosphere in the senate chamber and perhaps in the house chamber as well, was explosive. >> it was during the coming of the period of the coming othe civil war in the 1850's when it was really a terrible time in which the members of congress were abusing one another, the language that was used. an charles sumner, a distinguished senator, elegant, arrogant, educated, wonderful speaker, got up and gave this

address called the crime against kansas. >> in the process of making this speech, he attacked a few senators verbally and steven douglas of illinois, who recalled an animal and andrew butler a senator from south carolina who wasn't present in the chamber that day. several days later, a relative of butler came into the chamber, brooks, a house member, and beat the living day lights out of charles sumner with his cane and nearly killed him. it was 1856 and it became apparent that this turned into a brawling room and the civil war was not far behind.

>> while it avokes the history of webster, it has become a shrine to the current members. it is an important space in the capitol. the senators recognize its importance. when they come into this room, they remember the senators of the 19th century. its importance is not only thinking about its past but to the current members of the senate. >> before the senate returns on monday, harry reid will talk about proposed changes to filibuster roles -- rules. watch live coverage here on c- span. >> tonight, "q&a" and then

british prime minister david cameron in his weekly question time. later, a discussion on senate rules >> this week i q&a, and journalist, playwright, and author, george packer, discusses his latest book called "the go -- the unwinding to go -- the unwinding." purpose of the flight that we see? of a mans a photograph that we saw in rural virginia. the flag was starting to