for seniors and poor people and spending billions over there on a wasted system. we should not be there. it is a waste of money. the american people are fed up with the wars and we should pull the troops out. this guy should not have a job or doing that because it is a wf money. host: i'm going to leave it there. what is meant for your job, for your investigators? guest: we will be focusing on the planning, as i mentioned. on thosee focusing contracts that go along with the planning. we will spend a lot of time looking at the election. we will be looking at the ways the afghans are going to be raising income. can they raise real income and taxes so we do not keep having to pay all that money? we will also be focusing this week on the denial system.

we will have a final look at the denial system. hopefully, we will have information on the bank fees, looking at the financial sector, too. host: your investigation continues on this headquarters in afghanistan. when will we know who is held accountable? guest: it depends on when the investigation is. i think in a couple of months we will have an idea of who made the decisions. if it is a systemic problem, we will identify that, but there is an individual behind every systemic problem. host: chuck, independent caller. i wonder if he has ever racket.""war is a militaryretired u.s.

general. he wrote this pamphlet after serving 30 years in the united states marine corps. this is definitely a systemic but google it. what he wrote is a five-chapter a truth, but it is throughout time. guest: i do not know the book, but i would caution the caller the others who say that it is a systemic problem. i have been hearing that since i came here in 1982. we keep using that as an excuse for not doing anything, and i think we need to do something, we need to do something in afghanistan, and we intend to do that, and we intend to make recommendations to the congress

and administration to change this "systemic problem." sopko, thank you for talking to our viewers. that does it for today's "washington journal." [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the house met in a brief pro forma session this morning. unfortunately, there were some technical issues and we were not able to bring that to you. members return for less than a

work tomorrow. major legislation will be considered later this week, including bills to the late portion of the health care law in dealing with individual and employer mandate. the senate meets today at 2:00 eastern, and they will start with the general speeches. all centers are to meet in the chamber. no cameras are allowed to discuss changes in the senate rules. harry reid is proposing to change the rules on filibusters to stop president obama's nominees. have live coverage starting at 10:30 eastern. mitch mcconnell says that that move would result in the minority party bogging down the system with procedural moves. here is what they said yesterday.

>> madam president, i move to proceed to executive session. >> is there objection? the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor, say aye. all those opposed, say no. the ayes have it. quick senate cloture motion. >> the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nominations. >> bureau of consumer financial protection, richard cordray of ohio to be director. the clerk will report the cloture motion. >> we the undersigned senators hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of richard cordray of ohio to be director of the bureau of consumer financial protection, signed by 18 senators, as follows.

>> we do not read the names. >> is there objection? without objection. >> i moved to proceed to legislative session. >> all those in favor, say aye. all those opposed, say no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. >> sorry to interrupt you. i proceed to the next session. >> the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor? all those opposed? the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. >> nomination, national labor relations board, richard f griffin junior, of the district of columbia, to be a member. >> a cloture motion. >> in accordance with rule 22 of the standing rules of the

senate. on the nomination of a member of the labor relations board, signed by 17 senators, as followed. >> i motion that reading the names be waived. i moved to proceed. >> all those in favor? all those opposed? the motion is agreed to. the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor? all those opposed? the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. >> nomination, national labor relations board, sharon block of the district of columbia to be a member.

>> i have a cloture motion. >> we hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of sharon block of the district of columbia to be laborer of the national relations board, signed by 17 senators as followed. >> i asked the reading be waived. >> without objection. >> i now move to proceed to legislative session. >> the question is on the motion. all those in favor? all those opposed? the motion is agreed to. >> i moved to proceed to executive session. >> the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor? all those opposed? the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to.

the clerk will report the nominations. >> nominations, national labor relations board. >> i have a cloture motion. i would ask the clerk to report it, if the chair agrees. >> we the undersigned senators, and provisions with rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of mark gaston to be a member of the labor relations board, signed by 17 senators. >> can the reading of the names be waived? >> without objection. >> i asked the comment under rule 22 of the senate be waived. >> without objection. toi moved to proceed legislative session. >> all those in favor, say i've. all those opposed, say no. the motion is agreed to. toi moved to proceed

executive session. >> the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor, say i've. all those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nominations. >> fred p hochberg, new york homage to be president. atthere is a cloture motion the desk. >> the clerk will record the motion. >> we the undersigned senators, in accordance with rule 22, moved to bring to a close the debate on the motion, signed by 17 senators, as follows. >> the reading of the names is not necessary. >> is there objection? >> without objection. >> i asked that appointment rule 22 be waived. >> without objection.

>> i now move to proceed to legislative session. >> all those in favor? all those opposed? the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. >> i moved to proceed to executive session. >> the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor? all those opposed? the ayes appear to have it. the clerk will report the nomination. >> nomination, department of labor, thomas edward perez of maryland to be secretary. toi sent a cloture margin the desk. >> with the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provision of rules 22, owing to a close the debate on the nomination to be secretary of labor, signed by 17 senators, as follows. >> i ask consent to read to the desk. the names be waived.

>> without objection. >> i asked that rule 22 be waived. >> without objection. >> i move to receipt to legislative session. >> all those in favor? all those opposed? the motion is agreed to. >> i now move to proceed to executive session. >> all those in favor? all those opposed? the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. >> nomination, environmental protection agency. >> i sent a cloture motion to the desk. senators,undersigned in accordance with the provisions of the standing rules of the senate, moved to bring to a close the debate on the

nomination of regina mccarthy of massachusetts to be administrator of the environmental protection agency, signed by as follows. reid, boxer, harper, dryden, marie, sanders, baucas, durbin, angela brandt, shaw, and others. >> without objection. would set up these votes in a much more expeditious way down the way the majority leader is

proceeding. but first, let me just say these are dark days in the history of the senate. i hate that we have come to this point. we have witnessed a majority leader break his word to the united states senate. and now, our request for a joint meeting of all the senators, set for monday night, a time when attendance around here is frequently quite spotty, in an obvious effort to keep as many of his members from hearing the concerns and arguments of the other side as possible. foremains our view that this to be the kind of joint session of the senate that it ought to be, given the tendency of the senate to have sparse attendance on monday night, to have this meeting on tuesday, before it is too late. having said that, and more

expeditious way to accomplish most of what the majority leader is trying to accomplish would be achieved by the following concept. onsk unanimous consent that tuesday at 2:15, the senate proceed to consecutive votes on the confirmation of the following nominations. number 104, that is to be a member of the nlrb, 102, johnson, and 103, ms. zamora. parenthetically, if those were confirmed, coupled with those illegally appointed, whose illegal appointments continued until the end of the year, there would be a full complement of five members, and able to conduct its business.

but following those votes, the senate could proceed to the cloture motion for the the senate could immediately proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination. 30t would eliminate the hours, assuming cloture were invoked, on the very controversial nominee, perez, to be secretary of labor. onther, the motion filed mccarthy to be epa director. if cloture is invoked, the senate proceed to vote on the confirmation of the nomination. also, eliminating the 30 hours post-cloture, if cloture is invoked, on mccarthy. and i might add that the ranking member of the environment

senate proceed to vote on commis cloture on the mccarthy nomination. thereby, it is reasonable to assume that cloture would be invoked. on what is, for a lot of our, including myself, a very controversial nomination. i further ask that the senate then vote on the cloture motion filed on number 178. if cloture is invoked, we could eliminate the 30 hours, cloture is invoked, and i assume it will be. finally, i ask consent that the following votes -- senate will vote on the remaining three filed cloture motions. before the chair rules, what this allows is for the senate to work officially, through a

series of nominations, in a quicker fashion than the majority leader has proposed. they would get their votes, and there would not be a delay. this would leave discussion" on the three remaining illegally, according to the federal courts -- the three remaining illegally appointed nominations. mr. president, that is my consent. >> majority leader? >> no matter how often my friend rudely talks about me breaking my word, i am not going to respond about how many times he has broken his word. he can keep saying it as much as he wants. all we have to do is look back at the record. as for monday night, my members will be here. i do not understand, unless this is part of the overall pattern we have come to expect around here, to not do anything today

you can do tomorrow. to president, we are going have a vote at 5:30. goodrs are usually pretty at getting here for votes at 5:30. by i also am stunned boasting about the 19 number of a committee suddenly saying he is going to allow mccarthy to get a vote. isn't that something to cheer about? he is responsible for 1100 questions to this woman. that is what is wrong here. this is so transparent, what my friend has asked. approveaid he wants to the two republican members of

the nlrb. those have votes on first. and only one democratic nominee. what does this mean? it means within a couple of months, the republicans have a majority. i do not blame them for wanting that. they do not like the organization anyway. so i can understand that the republicans would like to get consent to create a republican majority in the nlrb. but it is so obvious. i object. >> the objection is heard. >> we are going to have a caucus on monday at 6:00 in the senate chamber. we will have a vote at 5:30. i would hope that for something this important, we will have attendance. i know my caucus will be there. there,ing is resolved which the way things are going today, likely it will not be -- we will have a vote sometime early tuesday morning on these nominees.

>> mr. president, they majority leader always reminds me he can ame the last word, and i sure he will have the last word again. speaking for senator victor, he did ask for a lot of information from the new prospective director of the epa. so did senator boxer. she asked for 70,000 pages herself. but he was satisfied with the responses he got. this is how the process ought to work. this is how it has worked for decades. you try to get answers to questions. you try to engage in some kind of prediction as to how somebody might operate in the future. what the majority leader has been saying all along is, he wants the confirmation process to be speedy, and for the minority to sit down and shut up. he believes that advise and consent means sit down and shut up.

confirm these nominees when i tell you to. now, the reason he is taking a lot of heat over this is because he has broken his word to the united states senate, given last january, that we had resolved the rules issue for this congress. even know for a fact, though he may get his 51 votes, there are a lot of democrats who are not happy with where you are. and they tell me that. the republican i expect they would be least likely to want to tell that too. i know what is going on here. they have been hammered into line. this has been personalized by the majority leader. you got to do this for me. and what is astonishing here is, you are saying you have to do this for me, as you have to help me break my word, go back on everything i said in my own

biography just a few years ago. you have to help me look bad. you have to help me break my word, violate what i said in my own biography, create unnecessary controversy in the united states senate, which has done major bills on a bipartisan basis all year long, and have begun to get back to normal -- this is really hard to understand. this is why my members are astonished. they are scratching their heads. who manufactured this crisis? we know who did it very -- we know who did it. the guy on my left. this is a sad day for the u.s. senate. if we did not pull back from the brink, the majority leader will be remembered as the worst

winter ever. the leader of the senate who changed the body. it makes me sad. all of my members are angry, i am more sad about it. it is a shame that would've come to this. i hope democratic senators are their member -- are there on monday night. if we sat down and try to understand each other, many members on the other side are hearing a different version from the fax. it is a largely -- it is largely unrelated to reality. i note my friend the majority leader will have the last word. the difference between being a majority leader and a minority leader is that he gets the last word. i will yield the floor and listen to the last word. >> mr. president, the majority leader. heno matter how many times

says that, he tends to not focus on what he hasn't to the senate. as i indicated earlier, there is lots of time. we know it is replaying the record how he said that there would be no filibusters, only extra. circumstances -- only extraordinary circumstances. the only person i know who thinks things are going fine here is my friend. the american people know the institution is being hammered hard. he does not have to worry about me rick i have not taken any heat -- i do not -- he does not have to worry about me, i have not taken any heat. we heard from out of my 54 senators, we have heard form -- from either 2425.

the attendance was not perfect. mr. president, i do not went in to feel sorry for the senate, certainly not for me eric -- for me. i will continue to speak in a tone that is appropriate. i guess it follows a demagogue theory that the more you say something, it is also. mr. president, it is interesting that he thinks that richard cartwright, who no one says there is anything wrong with this man. goodparties say he is a guy. he has been waiting for seven to four days. -- four 724 days. this is the secretary of

defense, 292 days. monetary governor, 169 days. nlrb, 573 days. the average time winning is nine months. mr. president, as far as reshuffling the votes, he wants to have the majority of this nlrb to the republicans. i do not think that is a good idea. we are going to have a caucus monday. i have tried to had them before, and i found him addicted to them. i'm happy to do that. my friends of the process works. the process works? the status quo is good? i don't think so. >> mr. president, republican leader. >> the nlrb is not republicans.

i mentioned to the administration on several occasions to send us up two nominees who are not illegally appointed. we cannot seem to get that done. twotank attached to the nlrb nominees and to mr. cordrey is that they were illegally appointed. the agencies have not been at a disadvantage. they are waiting. he is not waiting to do the job, he is in office. the question is -- do we respect the law? thateral court has said two nlrb members were illegally appointed. mr. cordrey was appointed on exactly the same day in exactly the same way. is it the senate completely

lawless? do we not care what the federal courts say? i am just stunned at what radar. -- at where we are. all of the other nominees are likely to be confirmed. the it comes down to is majority leader is owing to break the rules of the senate to change the rules of the senate in order to confirm the 51 votes, three illegally appointed positions. the federal courts and told us there unconstitutionally appointed. that is the rationale for the option. that is why i say it is a sad day for the senate. also a sad day for america. >> the majority leader. >> illegally appointed.

of americannter progress were here read is about to speak about those appointments. the meeting was requested by senate republicans. senator reid says that he has the votes to change rules, lowering the threshold to approve the presidential nominees. we expect this to get underway in a moment. live coverage on c-span. >> morning, everyone.

i am the president of the center for american progress, counselor for the center for american progress action fund. it is my distinct honor to welcome senate majority leader reid to discuss reform of the senate. heree thrilled to have him today to discuss this really important topic, critical topic. hassenate majority leader really balanced interest of the minority and majority in passing sweeping legislation from dodd- frank to health care reform to the recent immigration reform. but it is the case today that inaction is the norm, and action is the exception, and that is part of the reason we're here today. let me start by describing someone who was here last week, to discuss the issue of the

meaning of inaction in senate. let me tell you her story. michigan, ker, from and she worked for a few years at a bakery. she did not have health insurance and her husband had a heart attack. basically had to choose between paying for medication and paying her rent because her bakery did not act -- are for her health insurance, panera bread. so she did what she was supposed to do in these challenging situations. she spoke to the other bakers, talked about the problem with health care, and organized. they went through the whole part -- a process and were able to form a union. she said at the end of that struggle, that she would be able to get health care.

but what really happened was, the company is fighting the termination in court, and while the nlrb and originally ruled in her favor, now her case is stuck in limbo because the nlrb does not have members on it, and the courts have ruled essentially, until it has members, they can do anything. so is the case that her courage and conviction might be in vain because we cannot get simple action of confirming board members to a part of the government has responsibilities. it is not just her case. gina mccarthy at epa. widespread inaction on nominees theuse a minority in congress come in the senate, refuses to do the basic function of governing. that is why we are so excited to have senator reid here today to discuss this issue, why it is so

critical, and i have to say, issen, others who rely on the federal government to work, could not have a stronger champion in senator reid. if anything, he has been a fighter for progressive issues throughout his life, a believer that the government should work for its people, that consumers should have a fighting chance against special interest. that is what is at stake this week. it is my great honor to have senator reid come to the podium. [applause]

>> thank you all for being here this morning. a corporate always to start your presentation by saying something funny. i am the most unfunny person you have ever known, but i would start by telling you something that happened in my family not long ago. i have five children. my youngest boy has four little girls, beautiful little children. he was a gifted athlete, our entertainment until he was 22 years old, played on three national championship teams, in richmond, va., and he was looking forward to coaching his voice so that they could be like him, but he has four girls.

they are all athletic. but he and his wife decided it would be a good thing if those girls have some responsibilities around the house. so they sat down with all four of them and said, we will need this much money every week. they did not like what they had to do. help with the dishes, pickup toys, a make the beds. kidsa list of things that are always required to do. it went fine for three or four months. while, oldest, for a would not do anything. so her mom talked to my son. she said, when you get home, you have to have a talk with her. she will not do anything, it has been that way for weeks. so my son sat down with her and

started with this long conversation. he said, your sister's are doing everything they are asked to. you are not carrying your load. why, what is the matter? she said, that, i do not need the money. [laughter] started with this long at least a few of you left. havingciate very much the opportunity to visit with you. this is something i worked on for some time now. john, i appreciate the work for having this organization. jobare doing a great filling in for john. congress is extremely unpopular for a couple of reasons. any poll you look at indicates they are unpopular for two reasons. 1, grid lock. two, not getting things done. that is really true.

congress --to actually, the first time i ran for the senate, we were approaching 50%, the congress. not that way anymore. the last gallop had us at 10%, and not going up, but going down. so why is that? of course, we all know we need to pass legislation, it does good things for our country, especially the middle class. what do you see the vast majority of the time? nothing, blank screens, a quorum .alls we are wasting time, hour after hour, day after day. let me give you a picture of where we are coming from, me and my caucus. johnson was the majority leader

for six years. in that time he had to overcome one filibuster. i have been a leader for about the same time as he has. i do not know the exact number, but it is around 420 filibusters. so things change, yes. they sure have changed. under thenows constitution we have a responsibility to give advice and consent to the president on his nomination, but all we have from the republicans is not advise and consent, but obstruct and delay. that is the truth. my conservative friendsactuallyn always talk about the constitution. so let's use that as a frame for my presentation to you here today. the constitution is very what requires a

supermajority. impeachment, treaties, and in that same paragraph where the founding fathers talked about supermajority, they mentioned presidential nominations, majority. the founding fathers wanted an up or down vote, and that is for,we have been crying for years. i believe this, whether it is one of the new bush's to be president, maybe a new clinton, maybe hillary, maybe the daughter, but whoever is president, they should have the ability to pick their team. i feel strongly about that. for, for years. many here follow the washington

nationals. it is great that we have a team here. i have had a number of our paternities to visit with davey johnson, one of the great baseball heroes of all time, played on national championship teams, played for the baltimore orioles, tenet teams. he has been selected as manager of the year many times. let us assume that, this year, davey johnson has his team together, and he gets a call from major-league baseball. they say, i know if you have worked hard to put this team together. i am glad to see that zimmerman is back, he can throw better, we know that he has been a gold and you can have him, but not until the first part of

june. that contract he signed recently, la roche, you can have him, but after the all-star break. how would that be for his team? multiplied by 100 times, and that is what is going on here in washington. we have a situation where republicans have created gridlock. and it has consequences. it is not only bad for president obama, it is bad for the country. the status quo will not work. during the time we have been a country, during the time we have been a country, until barack obama became president, 20 executive nominees for filibuster. -- were filibustered. during the four years that president obama has been president, he has already had 16

of his nominees filibustered. think about that. done is juste really unbelievable. and my republican colleagues, they're on tv yesterday, they ask mitch mcconnell, what are you going to do with napolitano's replacement? rather than say, we will move forward on that. he refused to tell david gregory whether or not he would allow an up or down vote. think about that. what they have done, what they have done to the u.s. people, they have carried this to the extreme. i do not do committee work anymore. i sat for hours in committees.

during those committee hearings for a nominee, what we do is you ask questions. sometimes it goes for a few days, but it has been traditional after those questions are asked, one senator could say, could i send you a couple of questions in writing? sure. that has been carried to the extreme. wants to be secretary of labor. put his weight through school as a garbage man. about 300tted to him questions in writing. he had to respond back. , jimhe champion of this mccarthy, a long hearing on this -- gina mccarthy, a long hearing on this. she had to respond to 1100 questions.

my friend, the republican leader, and others come to the floor and say everything is going great. we approve this% 97-0, another person 98-0, but that is the point. there is nothing wrong with these people, nothing wrong with their qualifications. they simply want to stall what goes on. those people that they voted 97- 0, some of them we have waited four months. some of the people that we talk about today have been waived for more than two years. time is nineaiting months. do they have an objection against richard cordray, his qualifications? of course not. was a clerk for judge bork. he was a clerk for justice kennedy. he was attorney general for the state of ohio.

there is nothing wrong with his qualifications. they just do not like his job. they do not like someone whose job, based on legislation we have passed and signed into law, that takes a look for the consumer against the greens that happen on occasion on wall street. to do with the tournament -- two nominees to the nlrb? senatorof them was kennedy's council. these are good people. they do not challenge their qualifications. they challenge their jobs. sinceas been in existence the great depression. it works, it protects workers. not union workers, workers. been, thepoint has last few months, on all these people, on the secretary of

labor and two nlrb folks? do you think there is something in that message to the american people? we are going to do everything we can to make sure business is ok, but we're not going to make sure that everything is ok with american workers. now, there have been hughes and i and my caucus -- to really hurt the american senate. years we have changed the rules by a simple majority 18 times. i have done it. we always do it. if you look at what those changes were, people were just trying to the vexatious and create problems. we did this a little over a year ago. after one of,

those rare occasions to stop filibuster, some of the republican senators came up with this big, great idea. clotures are over with. they would file motions to set aside the rules. it took a two-thirds majority, they knew none of them would pass, but they wanted my folks to have to vote on amendments that had nothing to do with the bill that the cloture that had been invoked. i put up with it for awhile. they had two or three of them. timekes huge amounts of and it was a waste of the senate's time, so we changed the rules. you cannot do that any role -- any more. that was done by a majority rule. that is but we're doing here. it does not affect lifetime appointments. it allows the president to have his team. this president and those in the future, and that is the way it should be. ,y friend, senator mcconnell

and this is not mcconnell versus reid. my caucus is concerned about where the country is headed. said -- i am not making this up -- he is the proud guardian of gridlock. those are his words. week,ook action last forced republicans to either to go throughople that and stop the filibuster, or we would have to change the rule. as i have indicated, there is no single objection to the qualifications of any one of these people, and we need to move forward, we need to stop

blocking this president and future presidents from having the qualified team that is what he thinks he needs. this is in the constitution. this is not about democrats or republicans. making washington work, regardless of who is in the white house. it is clear,that we should all understand, the senate is a unique institution. it was created that wayblockinge founding fathers. traditions are important, but also is an evolving institution. it has always been that way, that is why we changed the rules 18 times over the last three decades. among those traditions is protection for the minority, and that is the way it should be. minority is now threatened in the institution. know, frank lautenberg passed away recently, a fine man who loved the senate. her 1100rthy, after

questions were answered, republicans refused to have a single republican attend, so it only way to get things done work for the democratic senators to be there. frank lautenberg was dying. i called and said we had to have him here. literally, on his deathbed, he came down here, unhoped the stop keeping him alive, came down from new jersey, and walked in to make a caucus. everyone was there from the democrats and epa committee. we should not be doing stuff like that. that is not what it is all about. you cannot reward bad behavior over and over and over again. time in history of the country, they filibustered

the secretary of defense. this wide-eyed liberal from the rest of, -- nebraska, literally, a war hero commended for his heroism, and among other things, on the battlefield, saved his brother's life. i went to his office when he was here as a senator. he has a picture of him and his brother on an armored personnel carrier. in vietnam. that, one of the loyalty questioned his to our country in a public hearing that day. , filibustered director of the cia. so my efforts are directed to save the senate from becoming obsolete, to remain relevant and

effective as an institution, and to do that, the set must evolve to meet the challenges of modern day america. this is a moment in history when certain senses dictate the need for change. minor change, no big deal. remember, all we want to do is what the constitution says we should do. are not part of the constitution, that is something that senators developed on their own to get legislation to pass. now it is being used not only to get legislation from stop passing, but to stop nominees. this is a moment in history when certain sense of dictate the need for change. it is time for a course correction, that compels the two parties to work together instead of against each other. the gravity of the challenges facing our country demands that we do what is necessary to save

this institution of the united states senate. i love the senate. now, the senate is broken and needs to be fixed. i have a vision of the set is again and responsive and effective advocate for middle- class families. it really troubles me when my republican colleagues stand and say, but we passed the farm bill, we passed an immigration bill. keep going. not much else. those are not again and responsd things that we should be saying -- we were able to do that. i am really proud of the democrats and republicans that work together to help us find a pathway to immigration, but that is what we to do all the time. compromise is what we're all about. legislation is the art of compromise. want the senate to work again here with your support, i am

willing to take actions to make that happen. thank you very much. [applause] >> i am going to ask a few questions and then we will turn it over to the audience. reid, referenced, senator the fact that what is tying up a lot of these nominees together from the consumer credit protection board, the national labor relations board, in parma protection agency, these are agencies that protect consumers. they faced great opposition. issue which ishe

sort of new with the consumer financial protection board, that over 40 senators basically said they would not confirm -- they were opposed to any kind of confirmation. in some sense, are we facing a new issue in which the senate minority is using the power of the filibuster to basically nullified the affect of laws themselves? the national labor relations board, consumer protection, it is hard to get them to operate properly when they do not have nominees, they do not have commissioners, or directors. thingse are a lot of that have happened since i have been here, that have been pushed for by republican presidents, congresses, that i did not like, but we do not have the ability -- we should not, at least -- just because we do not like a lot, we cannot fill the positions to see if it will work.

dodd-frank, not one republican voted for it, but we did it because wall street had ruined -- temporarily, thank goodness we are making our way back, but not as much as i would like, las vegas, nevada. they do not like us. elizabeth warren came up with the idea that we need someone to protect the consumer. that is not an outrageous idea, and the do not like it, consumer, i believe, needs protection from wall street. they do not like it. i got a letter from 44 republican senators, and it is about the same issue with health -- and youny other know, the cordray issue, we

solve a problem. we do not have to treat the money for that. but also drives them crazy. that happens automatically. >> obviously, a lot of progressive groups have been pushing for filibuster reform for a long time, and brought the speaking, why focus on nominees, and why now essentially? >> because that is now where the big plug is. you could look at many different pieces of legislation and look at the 60-vote threshold, how it can be changed to a lower number -- that is something that we can deal with later. right now that protect progressive groups and conservative groups. look at the gun thing, for example. the gun legislation that i believed in for background checks, to stop people with

serious mental problems, or criminals from buying a gun, i believe in that strongly. i did not believe in the fact that because they have some -- tried to be as nice as i can -- crazy, an absurd rule in idaho or utah, basically you could carry a gun anywhere you want, i do not think that would be good to have someone fly into las vegas armed to the help because of some of what they have in idaho. women who are very concerned about protecting their rights with just a simple majority. i am not anxious to change that. , i am comfortable with what you're doing. we will see what happens, but i am very comfortable with where we are now. i am not trying to spread this

to other places. >> people who want to ask questions. theepublicans have raised specter of possible using a simple majority vote when they have a majority. it could come relatively soon. it is about nuclear waste is that something you are willing to accept? >> how silly. about to have a 50- vote majority if they or anyone else's in power. that bothered me about as much as the color of your tie today. [laughter] which does not bother me at all. majority, they had a they could not come up with 51

votes for that issue? >> that is not the issue. if they want to change the role by simple majority, more power to them. i think they would rue the day they did it. we're not going to do that and they are not going to do that. .he sky is falling asked barbara mikulski who is as quick witted as anybody. is a slippery slope and she said that is why they call it slp opes. in 2005, you said that changing these rules would be a black chapter in the history of the country and were run our country and you should not be able to change the rules willy- nilly of the senate. isn't this a little hypocritical? >> you don't understand the right questions. i was not talking about changing

the rules for nominees for it was talking about changing the rules for judges. it is a new era. since then, as i've indicated, we had approximately 420 times we have been filibustered. we have a situation where we have people who have been .aiting for nine months b e two nominees for the nlr been waiting for two years. cordray has been waiting for two years so it is a totally different world we live a was not the leader at that time but anyway -- that's what i said and this is how i feel now. different situation. are you concerned at all is by putting these in place that when the next president comes in, you will be able to create a situation where there is no need for any bipartisan cabinet where the fcc be stacked with

republicans who are pro-campaign finance reform. it would make it difficult for any of the government to function? >> look at what is going on today rather than have some hypothetical for the future the president of united states cannot get the people to work for him that he wants. that is what we should focus on. it has gone so far, for the first time in the history of the country, you filibuster the secretary of defense? what used to happened is submitting six or seven questions. you now do a 1100. treasury.ecretary of let's talk about the problems today not some hypothetical in the future. if people really have a concern about that, let them change the

constitution. that is what the constitution presidential, is to be a simple majority for it has worked for a long, long time and that is why, during the time from george washington-barack obama, their only been 20 filibusters' a presidential nominations. >> over here? meetingre having this tonight in the old senate chamber but it sounds like you have made your decision. what is this meeting about tonight and are you open to any kind of compromises that would let these nominees to go forward with some proviso that the so- called constitutional option be taken off the table for now? >> it is a simple solution. it is so easy. the sky is falling and they think it's falling, let them stop but the filibusters.

let the file cloture. we would have up or down votes on these people and golan with the business of the day. that seems pretty simple to make. --is also quite fascinating we are having a joint caucus. i tried to do that in the past. mitch mcconnell would not allow us to do it. the only time we were able to do it was when i can of the idea to have john mccain in closed session with centers to talk about his experiences in vietnam. we tried to do joint caucasus. now, no matter what reason there is for having one, we are having one. i hope that sets the tone for the future but i repeat -- if they want to stop was going on, don't filibuster cordray or ginain, bloch, hochberg,

it's ay, perez that, good way to stop all this. assuming this rule change goes forward, you mentioned gun- control earlier -- are you open to potentially making this change for legislation as well? the'm sorry cannot hear all answers. i answered that question. i have no intention of changing the role for legislation zero, just like i told this man from the national journal. same answer, question. >> questions from the public? >> if this nuclear option is supposed to mitigate grid lock in the senate, what other roles would like to see changed to make the seven more effective?

>> nothing rainout. remember, the senate is an evolving body. we change the rules in recent years 18 times. i gave you one example. i went back and study to be other reasons. it is the same thing as this. somebody gets the bright idea whether democrat or republican. something just to bring the senate to a standstill like we are now. the rules were changed and i'm sure they will change in the future. >> other questions? >> another interesting idea that has been proposed -- >> are you from? >> i am from the university of southern california. >> that was a disaster. cannot buy you college football players. toyou make me want to switch

the other party. one of the more interesting ideas i have seen proposed is to shift the burden to the minority to sustain a filibuster rather than the majority to overcome a filibuster. i am interested in your view on that proposal. >> jeff merkley and tom udal havel suggested that and we can look at that in the future. we have traditions here in the senate. maybe sometime in the distant future, we can take a look at that merkley annual have spent on tour hours and hours working on this. remember, i want to say this -- this is not me marching down the road on desperate my caucus is supportive of me because that is where they want to go to change this rule. >> i want to say as a ucla bruins, i appreciate your remarks. we have time for two more

questions. right there, there is a microphone coming to you. >> mitch mcconnell has made clear the recess appointments is what is most concerned with and you have votes to start votescordray. and a circumstances you can see to delay that? >> talks on what? what?on they have a proposal, bring it to me but otherwise, we will vote for it if they have a proposal, bring it to make it the easiest to wait to do with this is to simply get rid of these filibusters'. logically, why would they hold up? this is one of the most interesting things -- they created these recess appointments. we didn't. they created them and they would not allow us to have them. what is barack obama supposed to do? nlrb goes out of business august

1. it is gone. they are using -- they say we're doing this illegally. it has only happened because of them. the president would not have recess appointed these people. with these courts, they said you cannot have a recess appointment. it has gone to the supreme court and we don't have time to wait and see what justice kennedy will do. maybe we should just call him. >> another question? can't you give us more specificity on how this might go this week? cordray is first and maybe you don't get all seven. maybe republicans let three go with an agreement for four. is there wiggle room between seven and zero this might be

averted? are you supportive of the possibility of a gang forming which would circumvent you on this that could easily happen with eight senators? forming have been gangs on this issue for a while. my caucus supports where we are. i am not concerned about gangs. that is a little paswse, frankly. >> is there wiggle room to get three of these nominees? >> no. or nothing?n >> no one questions their capabilities, their credentials, their integrity. they are doing it because they are trying to hold up things. it is a delight. we want to make a simple change. as i said, it will apply to

whoever is the next president, democrat or republican and will apply to barack obama. they should be able to have -- does that mean they will be approved automatically? of course not. democrats and republicans were together to stop nominees from going forward. you did not have to filibuster. >> that is all the time we have today and thank you so much for being here and a great discussion this morning. >> thanks, everybody. [applause] host: [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> the u.s. senate meets today at 2:00 eastern and they will begin the day with general speeches and senators are likely to talk about majority leader harry repass plan to change the filibuster rule regarding presidential nominations for all senators will meet behind closed doors this evening at 6:00 eastern to talk about the plan. senator reid says he has the 51 votes needed to change the rules. republican leader mitch mcconnell calls it the nuclear option because it passed, it will slow down legislation. this is what they said yesterday on "meet the press. "

>> the changes we are making are very minimal. what we are doing is saying shouldn't present obama have somebody working for him, the 15 people we filed cloture on him -- on them? they have been waiting on average of nine months. is that good? do we want to continue that? we will make a simple change. we will say that in the future, just like the constitution outlines, the constitution is pretty specific. if you want a supermajority vote, you can look at nominations for the founding fathers said simple majority. >> what is the problem here?

the president has had 1540 of his nominations confirmed, only four defeated. he has not lost a single member of the cabinet. he is getting them faster than president bush was at the same time in his second term. the majority leader needs to bring these nominees up and most of them will be confirmed. it comes down to three appointments that the federal courts have told us were unconstitutionally recessed appointed. two members of the nlrb and the cfpb. we need to talk about that and we will talk about that at a rather unusual joint session in the old senate chamber on monday with all senators agreed we need to start talking to each other instead of at each other. senate minority leader mitch mcconnell request of the closed- door session to talk about changing filibuster rules for

all senators will meet this evening at 6:00 eastern and we wille a mera ready in case any senator wants to talk to the media after word spread that meeting will take place in the old senate chamber in the u.s. capital which is much smaller than the current senate chamber. there is a look at the historic rumor that meeting is taking place. -- room where that meeting is taking place. ♪ enjoyed being in the old senate chamber of the day it reopened. architectureel of and engineering, a marvel of american can do spirit. it must have been such a

startling contrast to everything around it, everything else in the city, so muddy and dusty. everything else in the country, a country where most people lived in log cabins. the incredible temple to legislative process, marble columns, imported italian marble caps, wall-to-wall carpet, luxurious draperies -- it must have been a stunning sight. >> architecturally, the room is just spectacular. the art work in it was just wonderful to have a portrait of george washington by rembrandt. it was there from the 1830's until 1859. it is george washington rising up into the heavens. it is an apotheosis image of our first president. underneath him are the words "

father of our country." washington is encased in a port call of the oak leaves and above him is a symbolic head of jupiter just like washington, he was a god-like figure. it is a great symbolic image and has become associated with the senate in the old senate the eagle and shield above the dais are great american icons here in the building in this room above or the vice president would have presided and where the senate would have met during 1810-1850. of newiam henry seward york, henry clay of kentucky, stephen douglas of illinois, hannibal hamlin of maine, daniel webster of massachusetts who was cast from michigan, john c. calhoun of south carolina and john huston of texas and that is just the beginning. this was the very apex of the

golden age of the senate. visitor goes into that chamber, everything is clean and fresh-smelling. if you were to bring back a senator from the 1830's they would probably double over in laughter. like the floor of the stock market merchandise exchange before the closing bell. it is the only place where people had a place to work. there was paper everywhere. epicenter's desk in the senate chamber was his office. there was no other place to go. noimagine, no electricity, heating or air conditioning. there were spittoons here as well. >> those pristine, cleaned new carpets would not have looked like that for very long. looking at those spittoon sitting in the senate chamber tells you a lot for every

senator had a spittoon. every senator proudly disregarded trying to get the spittoon so there were patterns all over the floor of expectorant. >> you all know was charles dickens was, a famous writer. said if he dropped a pencil on this carpet, he would not use a glove to pick up. you can imagine it was pretty dirty. their arguments that led up to the sobor that took place in this chamber. >> this is the room where the senate became the senate that we know today. when the senate first moved in here, it was a pale reflection of its modern self. it was the rubber-stamp for the house of representatives, not a lot of major ideas came out of the senate in that period. of a sudden, 1819, 1820, the major issues before the country can slavery. the great orators and thinkers who were in the house of representatives began to decide

that the place to decide these things were in the senate. this is the place where the union was defined. is it a group of states or something greater than a group of states? >> people used to line up at dawn to get into the senate chamber to hear daniel webster speaker he had an eloquent manner about him. everybody felt that even if it was not the greatest speech they had ever heard, they could tell their children and grandchildren that they heard a great daniel webster speak. he could speak for days on an issue. they somehow were able to get to the nub of a what the issue was and remember him today not for the length of the speeches but for ace -- but for certain telling phrases. >> henry clay is to sit in the back of the senate chamber. people ask why he did not move down toward the front as a got more security?

henry clay never wanted to turn his back on his enemies or friends. he became synonymous with compromise. he represented the west and was trying to reconcile the interests of the north and south. he was able to keep control over the senate. people charged him with being a dictator. he said i am not a dictator. i'm just one of the member senate doors. whenever john c. calhoun came into the chamber, there was a buzz in the gallery because he was a dramatic-looking man. he resigned from the vice presidency to become a senator. he started out as a nationalist and came back defending such as against anti-slavery forces and for people who wanted to change the way of life. in his last appearance in the senate chamber, it took two weeks to deliver the speech he had written and sit and listen as another senator stood and read it for him. he was dying of tuberculosis. the man's life was completely

absorbed in the united states capitol in one way or another. it would have been remarkable to actually see him in action. the senate of the 1850's was duelingferred to as a ground, a brawling pit, a beer garden where contestants came in and not physically but verbally took on one another. member is carried a loaded pistol into the chamber. they did not do that for no reason for it they did it because the atmosphere in the senate chamber and the house chamber as well was explosive. >> it was during the coming of the 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. charles sumner, a very distinguished senator, elegant, arrogant, educated, wonderful speaker -- he got up and gave this address called the crime against kansas. >> in the process of making the speech, he attacked a few senators verbally including stephen douglas of illinois who called a -- who called him names. it also called andrew butler a senator from south carolina who is not present in the chamber that day. the relative of ander butler came to the senate chamber a few days later and beat the living daylights out of charles sumner with his cane and nearly killed him. this is 1856. was very symbolic because this form of deliberate debate had turned into a brolin room. the civil war was not far away.

>> the history of webster with calhoun -- it has become a shrine. it is an important space in the capital. the senators recognize its importance when they come into this room. they remember those great centers of the 19th century. it is important to not just think about its past but also its importance to the current members of the senate. >> senators will be meeting in the whole senate chamber this evening at 6:00 eastern to discuss changing filibuster rules on presidential

nominations. had of that, the full senate will gavel in for legislative business at 2:00 eastern today and live coverage will be on c- span 2. they plan to begin the day with general speeches and we expect to hear lawmakers talk about the closed meeting in the old senate chamber. >> someone touched upon the idea that women -- that women could not really predict their roles in entering into the white house. i found one political observer who commented at the 1860 election that mary started with mr. lincoln when he was a poor young man with no more idea of being called to the presidency than of being accountable. [laughter] however, i try and lay out in my book an educated guess that mary lincoln would not have let a little thing like human sacrifice, between her and her goal because she was a very determined woman. she talked about mr. lincoln's role perhaps of entering the white house of she was someone

who was a true political partner. >> as we continue our conversation on first ladies, we'll hear from historians and authors. the first role of lady and how it has changed along with our nation of 9:00 eastern tonight on c-span. >> we are very bullish on cable. huge access to the home with multiple services. broadband ande voice and rolling out other services on top of that like home monitoring -- it is home security plus so it could be your poole managing heater. ou could have a nanny cam their new services rolling out on the platform that would just issued an annual report and what

we found is consistent with his that the average price of extended subscriptions continues to go up about 6% in the last year. the price per channel has actually gone down in recent years. consumers are getting more channels but they pay more for the package. it is not our job to report whether it is good or bad. >> more on the cable industry from this year's annual cable show.. ate communicators" tonight 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. the young america's foundation recently held their national high-school leadership conference outside of washington, d.c. the president provided keynote remarks on the conservative movement and he talked about the role of government, political stability, the ira's targeting of conservative groups and changing filibuster rules. this is about one hour, 20 minutes.

>> i want the maximum participation from you and this presentation and will get to questions and answers as early as possible. i appreciate it and i missed some of the speaker's earlier in the conference, many of home, all the ones i know, i have tremendous respect for. i am sure a number of them have mentions the conservative movement and want to talk today, with your help, about what the conservative movement is and what of the attributes of that movement that may compel you or may be a rationale for you to be involved with it for many years to come. as we explores that from your on answers, you will find a lot going forward.

one thing that is certainly part of the battle in washington today and in the country as a whole is the labeling battle. the degree of civility in our public arena -- when there is an incident nationwide such as the shooting of congressman dubie giffords in arizona, the president of united states would come out afterwards and call for much greater civility. you oftentimes hear these themes in washington about how the washington community is much tougher, much less forgiving, and the political arena, public policy is much more divisive today than it has ever been. how many of you have heard those type of themes in the past couple of years? almost everybody. then you probably know why i would focus on that at least initially the assumption in a

more civil society where there is more agreement, the healthier for america and a healthier for individual laws. there is a lot of historians that would point out that our country was much more divided and was much more aggressive and forms of disagreements and washington. -- in washington. some of you went to gettysburg as a reminder that the country had a civil war that we lost 600,000 lives. has plaguedissues this country from its founding. there has been much more muchperiods american history. in terms of your age and your future in the united states, how do we bring about a more civil society? how do we bring about more general agreement? one of the themes that i would leave you with is what the left today is pursuing as policies by

its very nature is going to make our society less settled and find areas of your agreement and more divisiveness in the days to come. how is that possible? a left often claims they are the ones that are most concerned about insensitivity or tolerance from different points of view. it is woventhat into the character of the left to create divisions and exacerbate those divisions that affect your lives already and will affect your lives for many generations to come. that is because today, the left wants government to control everything grid want to make almost every decision in your life. the trends in the last 50-60 years is ever-growing government making more decisions over your life and you having fewer freedoms to choose how you want to live your life yourself. i can give you a few obvious examples. you probably already know in

your paychecks or working part- time that the government takes a healthy chunk out healthyfica taxes and medicare taxes. you might decide to spend it otherwise for this is the government saying bennie to put money aside for your retirement or you for your health care when you are 66 or 67 or older. they say they need to start doing when you are 16 or 17. because you will spend it on something else for the government did take the money out of our paychecks for a number of years but they spent the money on something else. they did not put away in a true trust fund. the very reason they say they could not trust you with the money earned, they violated the very same principles. you probably already knew that you had restrictions of freedom in that area. what you are starting to realize is you'll have restrictions in freedom over choice in your health care now and in the days to come. as you grow older and become

more successful and have more financial success, you will realize there are endless lines of politicians here in washington that want to pick your pocket and tell you how you should spend your money. ronald reagan said the person who earns the money should have the most to say over how to dispense. that is not the way people in washington think. they think you earn your money and they should decide a lot about how it will be spent as. government decides more and more of what is going on in your life, you have to come to washington to fight for your fair share of the back. that leads to divisions. before 1973, it was not the federal government that had anything to say about the right to life one way or the other in terms of abortions in this country. after the 1973 intervention in the supreme court in an area were known anticipated, that issue has been very divisive for the country ever since. oft is just one more example

government intervening in certain areas that in the past they've left to state governments, local governments or individual citizens to make the decision rather than have the federal government decide that for everybody in their life. the latest example of that is when the federal government intervened in the california decision in prop. 8 to defend the traditional definition of marriage between a man and woman. if washington is going to decide everything, people are going to fight for their rights in washington. people are going to disagree over what is going to be done. by the very nature of giving more and more power to government and more and more power to washington, we are going to have a less civil society in the years ahead because so many of these are zero sum battles. we have an obligation to help our fellow man but would have no obligation to do it by reaching into the pocket of somebody else and taxing them.

we have an obligation to do it directly in our individual lives. you don't fulfill that obligation by taxing somebody else pre-dawn fulfill that obligation by foisting on people a federal program that does not work. i think it is important to talk about civility first in the sense it is being lost by the very policies of the left, the policies of our government, but it is lost in labeling for the left like to put labels on conservatives and other people that they disagree with. they want to define those labels themselves. i would be happy to call them what ever they want to call themselves. if they want to call themselves liberals, that's fine. if they want to call themselves progressives, that is fine but they want to decide the labeling. not only for themselves but for us. they probably will not respect the fact that someone who calls himself a conservative -- almost every major revenue on america's foundation, we never use the term other than conservative or

libertarian in defining young america's foundation. they inevitably put another label on it like right wing or right leaning or some other little like that. you can go back to the peace in "time magazine." there's a new book. we would use the term conservative but the term the left would try to pin on us. you see it on issues like the right to life for the right-to- life movement groups are called right to life for the left will say that they are anti abortion rights groups. at the same time, they would insist they are -- they are pro- abortion groups would be called prochoice groups of there is a degree of intolerance the labeling the left uses and academia uses, your high-school teachers use and certainly the media. today, want to draw upon your to give us a firm definition of what the conservative movement

is. what are the values that we believe and and what do they mean to you? let me turn the question over to you as the audience in this case, please give your school and -- your name but in this particular exercise, just feel free to give me the answer. what is one of the core principles of conservatism that might have made it attractive for you to study? yes? personal responsibility. i am tripping on wires. i hope i did not disconnect anything. personal responsibility. what else? yes? limited government, a very core concept. when i talk about government making endless decisions for us, that is contrary to the

conservative core principle of limited government. we want to make as many decisions in our own lives as possible and leave the government -- lead to government only the things government can do. yes? free enterprise. very much connected with this. free enterprise -- entrepreneurship, right? the left tries to call it capitalism, sometimes conservatives picked up the the term of entrepreneurship and free enterprise has a much higher approval rating grade capitalism involves the exchange of capital and control of capitol. even marxist societies have capital. yes, ma'am? freedom of religion. very central to us. why is freedom of religion so important to conservatives? anyone? yes?

>> [indiscernible] they knew there would be a lot chaos that there wasn't? >> i think you're right on that but that's because they respected religion. got was central in their lives. i would say that there is an understanding -- daniel webster put it this way -- he was probably considered the greatest speaker in america. he was asked what his most profound thought. he said at the end of life, there is an accounting. he said there is a divinity, it got, an accounting for a freedom of religion is important because, for many conservatives, leaving a god- centered life or religious life or holding true to religious values is fundamentally important. other aspects of conservatism? >> [indiscernible] >> respect for other positions

and other issues? >> intellectual respect? >> as far as the opinion >> free speech and free ideas? let's go with free-speech particularly on college campuses and high schools. free speech. the left believes and speech codes, tolerance coats, restricted areas of free speech, not allow students if they so choose to meet with rotc and defense recruiters. conservator's are pro-free association on campuses. you had an earlier point on what else is involved with conservative ideas. >> individual freedom about individual freedom which i think is part of limited government, free enterprise but freedom. freedom, i think, is the word most used by conservatives as really the central theme of conservatism. it is individual freedom but it is freedom of a free society.

milton friedman was probably our greatest economist. it is court -- it is a core conservative concept. >> right to own property? >> that could be part of free enterprise. property, real property -- without excessive government interference -- the government says i cannot have a cookout in my backyard. if they say that we will have an easement for your property or they take the property away because they can get higher taxes from someone else -- that is an infringement on freedom. >> because we are focused on freedom, we have to defend its what is strong national defense than a strong national defense. do you think the left does not believe in a strong national defense? >> i think that depends on different people.

i feel like conservatives are more for this than liberals. >> some liberals are split for there are probably some that would argue they are for a strong national defense. we'll come back to that. family values. i would put that somewhat consistent with god-centered but absolutely, family values. a life more geared around family and religion. hillary clinton says it takes the village people to raise a family. no, she says it takes a village to raise a family. conservatives would say it's a family to raise a family. we understand the operate in the community but the decisions for family are first and foremost parents and family members. yes? >> adherents and respect towards the traditions of the constitution?

>> the constitutional principles. that is tied with limited government. constitutional principles -- is embedded.nment constitutional respect. thent to deal with constitution for a second. this is a fundamental divide between conservatives and liberals today. the president himself has said the constitution is out dated and it is a flawed document there are many justices on the supreme court that would want to report as the constitution. the big debate on that front is really two key points -- the left would suggest the constitution was fundamentally flawed because, in the early days of our country, we had slavery. they would suggest the founding fathers were slave holders. the signers of the constitution, i believe 20 relatively small

minorities were slave holders. however, in the constitution itself, it began the process of eliminating slave trade including outlying it in this city by 1818. what they could not do is free themselves from great britain and form a more unified government which they wanted for trade and other purposes without giving some compromises on that. does that make the document itself fundamentally flawed? if you are moving in the direction of freedom, however slowly, we as conservatives would probably say you are moving in the right direction. the left also says we want a living constitution. ages and times differ and we expect a society of 3 million people would be different than a society of 350 million people. therefore, the constitution should be and can be rewritten.

that is the line you will hear from the left that you probably already heard from your high- school teachers. the answer to that is easy. or founding fathers indeed has a tent to tell 3.5 million people how to live for the founding fathers included towering intellectual figures. there was people like washington, jefferson, madison, john marshall, john day, a very long list of very distinguished thinker street they did not have the arrogance to think that they could make decisions in a relatively uncomplicated world for 3 million people. how do you jump from those conclusions to have leaders like our current leaders and make the decisions for 350 million people? i would say the fact that the country is bigger makes the idea of limited government and you

making those individual choices far more important than government making them for you. it is far more important and so, a living constitution is kind of like a living 10 commandments. reinterpreted or is the value of the 10 commandments that those are principles -- good principle to live by throughout the ages? the idea of limited government is timeless. i wanted to spend a little time on the difference between the left and the right when it comes to conservatives and progress as and when it comes to the constitution's but other parts of conservative philosophy? >> i think because we have some much freedom and there is a big responsibility with that, the virtue and morality is a key element. >> virtue and morality, self restraint -- personal responsibility. some of that is already captured here.

by one of your colleagues. it is well worth building on. yes, sir? fiscal responsibility, fiscal restraint, that comes with limited government. why would you want fiscal restraint? >> [indiscernible] >> as an individual, why would you wanted to? why would you what the government to be fiscally restrained? >> [indiscernible] to lower taxes so you could decide more for yourself, right? fiscal restraint so you can make those decisions. that ties back to freedom. yes, sir? power of the individual and individual rights, absolutely >> the right to bear arms and not have that right infringe upon. >> what you have with freedom of , the constitutional

values of freedom of speech, is protecting the bill of rights and the basic freedoms in the constitution of the there probably should be bigger work up there. it is part and parcel of it. >> educational freedom? >> freedom of choice in education, not having government decide where you go and how your money will be spent they have some of the same choices that the president of united states as a trick he senses children to theell friends, not to local government school. the right to life. others tried to leave as much from up here for right to live as possible because i think it is absolutely central. sometimes, i work and a bigger white board than this. the right to life -- ofis an absolute core part the conservative movement. inspecting -- respecting human

rights present roe v wade in 1973, we have a boarded 50 million children. it is a central issue of our time. transparency and accountability? >> yes. do you think liberals believe in that? transparency and accountability. the irs has not acted that way recently, have they? i did nothing wrong, i take the fifth amendment. >> [indiscernible] >> pursuit of happiness and living the american dream but i would put that right up there with today's version of that called freedom, i believe. >> [indiscernible] >> right to own a small business as part of limited government the right to own property but to open up a business is free enterprise.

the right to privacy is also embedded in the bill of rights. that is where we define the core privacies. low taxes - we kind of hit that in fiscal responsibility and the limitation -- is the left for on the taxes? pretty much, right? every problem they say, the solution is to pick your pocket for more money. >> [indiscernible] liberators -- most people miss this and it is understandable in your generation. many believed in their own strong defense, so did richard nixon. the major difference between them and the modern day conservative movement is they believe that we had a strong defense because if we held the line and, as and, if we contain

the them was the term they use, their society and our society would eventually converge. they thought our society would become more socialist than they would become more free enterprise. could do was contained them. that was their version of anti- communism were strong defense for there were differences about how much to spend and go about it. barry goldwater and ronald reagan had a fundamentally different approach. behind1 billion people the iron curtain or bamboo curtain. famousoldwater wrote a book of which ronald reagan took those principles and believed in liberation. it was almost the first thing he did as president of united states in an address given from the reagan ranch santa barbara was the call -- was to call on people's solidarity and rise up and oppose the soviet empire and eastern europe that was oppressing the polish people.

he went on to support freedom fighters in central america. he eventually called for the berlin wall to be torn down and gave the soviets a direct verbal confrontation to lead to more freedom. these are the steps that prior presidents were not willing to take. even president nixon just wanted detente and containment. ronald reagan and barry goldwater did not want 1 billion people living in slavery for most of their lives. they believed in liberation. at that time, the left attacked conservatives as or madras and they would lead the world to war and that was the constant refrain if reagan got elected president. instead, we had worldwide liberation. at least 500 million people in eastern europe suddenly could leave and move from country to country and enjoys some freedoms that we enjoy.

he gave great -- you gave great answers. this and these are the principles of the modern day conservative movement. when someone talks about the conservative movement, these are the values we're talking about. these are values worth fighting for. these are values that ensure that you have freedom in your life and potentially freedom and the lives of your families and fellow citizens. the left no longer even says that there should be free exercise of religion. they use a different terminology. i hope you never forget desperate both president obama and former secretary of state hillary clinton in all the public speeches say they believe in freedom of worship. does anyone want to speculate on the difference? worship means what?

>> you can worship anything. like an idea or something? it might not have to be an actual god. that's a possibility. i think what they mean is you have the absolute right to go to synagogue or go to church for an hour or so per week and we will not interfere with that. the use the term freedom of worship. free exercise of religion involves more than that. it may involve saying prayers before a football game or it may involve the president of united states invoking the blessings of god and our country. that is not in a church and that is not worship in the narrow sense. watch when they change the terminology. there's a reason they do so. labeling is important. these are the values of the modern day conservative movement.

before i wrap up, i want to give you two sets of arguments. i was meeting with foundation- relate to people elsewhere when you introduced yourself for this is the first time we've had a conference where i missed your introductions. i find it to be the most interesting and compelling part of the conference. what brought you here, was going on in your lives. i have missed what probably some of you may have said or may have thought and usually it shows up in our high school program and that is, people want ideas and arguments or ways in which to convince fellow students of their ideas to support this in some sort of persuasive way. let me give you two sets. one is on redistribution of wealth for the left talks a lot about wealth and redistribution. they believe in it and we believe in property rights and limited government. we believe in fiscal responsibility. they would say that people are

born unequally. and people were born in buffalo and some in chevy chase. let's help the poor guy born in buffalo. life is unequaled. . they constantly point that out. this is something you could use with your teachers and students that will resonate with them i guarantee you. if i was giving this class grades and in the grace to get into college and to proceed, i would give this first broke an a, cause they have been paying attention and making notes and most of them raise their hand may be because they were under my nose. , theycond road here probably deserve a aor b +, there are probably paying attention but they did not ask many questions. back here, maybe a b, pretty good, maybe a c here. you guys were paying decent

attention. anthony look like he was going to fall asleep a little bit. [laughter] back here a d, you guys were wandering in a little bit. there were some good questions from the back two rose. they would be f's. somebody would say that is harsh and unfair to the students. we all have to get into college really want to continue to advance their careers. hy cannot we just eliminate these marks? that iso from b + to c-, fair, that is the liberal point of view. these guys in the front row might have gotten in the room first. their parents might have told him to grab the front seat. those of you and the back rows, you might have been slower or maybe you had some ailment.

they just got in here before you did so did not have as good a chance pretty soon, somebody says, why do they need to be pushed. maybe we will take away the d and move them up to c + and eventually we will have an equal rate for the whole class. why don't your teachers use the system? why doesn't the system work? yes? --then there is no motive then there is no motivation to do anything. >> you're not going to quit completely if you are an a student but there might be times when you want to do something other than study. you might do a little less. yes? >> does not currently reflect efforts. >> and you want to reflect efforts, why? >> to show that you are invested in something where you want to learn more and be a part of something. >> it could encourage greater effort. if you take that away, you might

not have motivation. you're not learning anything? what difference does a great make? i'm still teaching here. >> here. random answers are not learning anything. >> there is no incentive to study and learn. yes? we deserve.ng what >> not getting what you deserve. yes? >> [inaudible] >> and it worked for society as a whole. yes? >> [inaudible] >> that is what socialism is. your teachers know it. even though they may preach something different, they know it and reflect it in the grading system. i will give you one other set of arguments that you may not have thought about. one of t