house, i was the assistant to the president for international economic policy, during the asia financial crisis, so this was an interesting and intense learning experience about what can happen with the reversals of flows of capital in fairly short order. .

very fortunate that i got in position to collaborate with others in trying to realize some of those things. >> in is a question from twitter that i was also interested in. the question is, how does the fed evaluate costs and benefits

of equity capital requirements? how do you get to that number compared to where basel was? >> we did an awful lot of work on capital ratios, both the levels that seemed prescribed or needed in order to reduce e chances of financial instability but also the cost of the economy. we did a lot of that in collaboration with other basel committee members in a quite substantial exercise but we actually did a bunch of that on our own. so we actually formulated, i think, quite a good an lytic framework on both sides of that question and that informed our positions on baseliii and on the surcharges. in both cases we were in favor

of somewhat higher numbers and eventually came out and that was based in part on the analysis we have done. with respect to the leverage ratios, specifically, that gets back to the point that i mentioned briefly in passing it at the outset of our discussion which is that complementarity between ratios and risk-based measures. again, the object here is to have, in my mind, have several capital measures, each of which compensates for the inevitable shortcomings of any one capital measure. so to do that for risk-weighted capital, for example, the provide ratio needs to a floor that's not way down there but a floor that's rather closer to where the firms are actually operating. so what we tried to -- what we were frying to do with the -- trying to do with the dwrd of

beyond the 3% ratio was to try to maintain the rough relationship between risk-weighted capital and the verage ratio that had been part of u.s. regulation for sometime. now, the levels were too low precrisis. for both risk weighted and leverage, but the idea was to try to raise them and keep that relationship roughly comparable. and, you know, we'll take comment and see if people think we got it about right. but i need to underscore again om our point of view the basel 3 plus the leverage ratio plus the stress test that the fed is now doing every year, the fed-driven stress test every year are important -- three important components of a single capital regulatory regime. >> if you could change one thing about dodd-frank, what

would it be? >> i don't know -- i mean, kate's question earlier probably got to the issue that seems most with me and with uts on a daily basis. as -- with us on a daily basis. that's a good question. i tried to indicate i think in my academic of a tar i would want to withhold -- avatar i would want to withhold judgment. there are days when i said to myself, man, i wish i didn't have to coordinate with five agencies on this, six agencies on this, seven agencies on that. the interest of the american people do not coincide with my daily frustration in my life. >> we have a microphone if anyone here has a question for the governor. i think rob back there's got a question. you just tell us who you are.

>> hi. can you hear me? rob nichols. good morning, governor. thanks for taking some time. and i appreciate your articulation of all the things that the industry and the regulators have done to make our system more safe, more sound, more secure. another question on the leverage ratio. however, you've spoken to part of this. we just witnessed a several week-long debate in the derivative space and you saw regulators and legislators making the point we need to work in the spirit of cooperation with our international peers. similarly, on resolution, we're doing this, as you know, intimately we're working very hard to try to set up global, you know, resolution standard to make sure we could work together in a wind down cooperative fashion. so given that we're trying to do that, how do you respond to those who say on the leverage ratio the u.s. going -- departing from our peers seems inconsistent with that spirit of cooperation that we are

obviously trying to strive for throughout this whole debate? >> i think, rob, the most important thing is to look at the various basel committee agreements have said, these are minimum capital levels. i think it's a very dangerous -- and i'm not saying you're depog this -- but some -- saying you're doing this, but some have tried to characterize basel agreements as the ceiling and not the floor. from basel one -- the basel agreements have made sure that active banks have minimum capital levels in order to, again, provide minimal assurances to all of us around the world about the safety and soundness of financial institutions whose activities have substantial cross-border effects. indeed, if you look at basel ii, which as you know i have many concerns about, particularly the pillar one

part of it. but pillar two, the supervisory part of basel ii which is largely about saying there ought to be higher capital requirements in appropriate circumstances and there's nothing that says that national authorities cannot make a judgment that they want more. indeed, i think we've seen in switzerland and in the u.k. a good bit of debate and in some respects action in increasing capital requirements above what the basel levels would be. so for us in the united states, i think in the first instance, those of us who are regulators, those of us who are charged with financial stability of the united states need to make the judgment as to what levels of capital will most assure financial stability in the country without unduly affecting the flow of credit. and that's a judgment which we

are tmake by law which we will make. i think, though, it's also important there's an interactive quality to this. i mean, it's interesting. publication of our proposed reg, i have had calls from our counterparts around the world, that's interesting. tell me your reasoning about this, explain to me why you think 3% is inadequate. it's tapping into the concerns that exist among other regulators as i said the verage ratio, basel iii, the cifi surcharges were significantly and in other cases lower than what might have been optimal and i think people interest that are showing in additional measures. the final thing i would say, capital -- i think capital is central. area capital is a good

to set minimum requirements. i don't think you need to harmonize capital -- it's good to marginize others, for example, because the ash tradge can be almost instantaneous that's why we're working so hard internationally to harmonize the margins that part of noncentrally cleared derivatives. i don't think that's necessary in the capital area but it's also in part because the position of any firm in any country depends on the competitive position, depends on a lot of things, depends on capital requirements, depends on the accounting rules, depends on tax law, depends on other government policies, depends on other structural limitations so that competitive position is the the net effect of all of those policies and we're still in a period of flux, i think, among a lot of nations in thinking about how much more do we want to do. the vickers commissions,

discussions in the u.k., the continuing debates won the european parliament. i think it may be a few years before we see how the combination of measures in all countries kind of measure or stack up with one another. >> wanted to get to another uestion. >> governor, regarding the supplementry leverage ratio in a came out last week, the proposal that came out last week, not all of the g-sifis are created equally. some are engaged in the plumbing of the system, like the trust and custody banks. what are your thoughts going forward on the proposal -- of applying with the proposal uniformerly to all institutions regardless of their kind of risk profile? >> well, sir, that will certainly be something we'll take comments on.

as you know, there are a number of policies that doss distinguish even among the eight identified institutions of global systemic importance. the sifi surcharges being a good example of that. i think although by their terms, the liquidity coverage ratio and soon the net funding ratio apply equally. the fact is that the impact that they have may be different depending on the profiles of the firms. nd surely in our supervisory policies we distinguish considerably among them. my -- i think our shared sense going in has been that the leverage ratio, a single verage ratio is one of those policies that's probably close enough to having roughly comparable effects and comparable ghly

benefits for financial stability that it's one of those that can be applied to all eight. there were some discussions about the idea of varying them, by varying the ratios, by the systemic importance of the firm r maybe by other criteria. but that pot didn't seem at that was one practical as the six-five approach that ben mentioned a moment ago. >> we are just about out of time. i want to ask really quickly where you saw larry finx's comment that the ability to buy treasuries and therefore could impact your monetary side of fed policy. >> i didn't see the comment. but that is definitely a question and i expects we'll get comments on that in the comment process. >> three more pages of questions. we don't have a lot more time. the most important one is are

the red sox real, do they make the playoffs, do they win the world series? you're a big fan. what do you think? >> after last year, which i think was pretty disappointing for anyone associated with the red sox over the years, this has been a really good first half of the season. on the other hand, i think that we're now seeing what everybody said at the beginning, the a.l. east is the toughest division in baseball. >> daniel tarullo, thank you for joining us. great conversation. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2013]

>> the house is coming back in for legislative business in about 45 minutes from now. three bills on the agenda dealing with easing regulations on small airplanes and oil pipeline standards. later in the week, the house debates postponing parts of the new health care law. the house rules committee is meeting this afternoon on those bills dealing with the health care law. the committee will decide how long the bills will be debated and which amendments, if any, will be allowed. we'll have that meeting live at 5:00 eastern on c-span3. and the senate this morning moved forward with the nomination of richard chord ray to head the consumer financial protection bureau. this happened after a tentative deal was reached to divert the nuclear option, dealing with changes to filibuster rules on presidential nominations. "politico" writes under the proposal which the white house has not agreed to president obama would pull two nominees to the national labor relations

board. sharon block and richard griffin, and replace them with two nominees who could receive senate votes quickly. here's an exchange between senate majority leader harry reid and senator john mccain on the negotiations on the tentative deal that happened before the vote on richard cordray. >> mr. president, after debate we'll move forward with the cordray vote. i'd like to thank everybody on both sides of the aisle who have engaged in this debate and

discussion. i particularly like to thank all of my colleagues last night who engaged in a maybe long, which is our custom, but i think productive discussion of the many of the issues that separate us. particularly this impending possible -- what many of us think crisis in the history of the united states senate. and i want to thank both our leaders, senator mcconnell and senator reid and so many others who have been actively engaged in the conversations that have been going on. i look forward to the vote as soon as possible on mr. cordray. i thank all of my colleagues for an evening i thought was very important in our relations in the united states senate.

>> mr. president, we may have a way forward on this. i feel fairly confident. as you know that's why we need the time. so what we're going to do is go to quorum. i think everybody would be better -- would be well advised if they didn't talk a lot about substantive manners. if you want to talk about senator markey, that's fine. we have our i's to dot and t's to cross. i will speak to the vice president. we'll have a phone call with durbin, shummer and murray. mr. president, i will say that i hope that everyone learned the lesson last night that it sure helps to sit down and talk to each other. either stand and talk and whatever it is. it was a very, very good meeting.

it lasted four hours. people were still as highly engaged at the end of that four hours as they were at the beginning. so i think we seed a way forward that will be good for everybody. and i -- there are a lot of accolades to go around to a lot of people. nd i certainly appreciate my wonderful caucus. one of my senators told me this orning -- i don't mean this to -- something like this will give a person a lot of humility. that person said it doesn't matter what you ask me to do i'll do it. so i will hope that we -- this is not a time to flex muscles but it's a time -- and i'm no g to tell one person and e else how much i appreciate

their advocacy, their ersuasiveness, persistence and -- trying to think of a word that really describes this man. it's hard to find. i was told by another senator, do you know what this man did? do you know who he reminds me of? john perry. john mccain is the reason we are at the point we are. a lot of people have been extremely helpful. but this is all directed toward john mccain from me. no one was able to break through but for him. and he does his own peril. so everyone -- we're going to have caucuses today. we'll explain in more detail the direction we're headed. i think everyone will be happy. everyone will not be, oh, man,

we got everything we wanted. but i think it's going for something that is good for senate. think compromise and i we get what we want and they get what they want. not a bad deal. >> again, the senate has moved forward with the nomination of richard cordray to continue as director of the consumer financial protection bureau. this happened after the senators reached a tentative deal on filibusters of president obama's nominations. the senate in recess now is back for more debate on executive nominations at 2:15 eastern. republican senator rand paul today joined kristen gillibrand's effort to pass the law that would have the reporting of sexual assaults in the military outside the chain of command. she tried to pass a bill through the senate armed

services committee earlier this year but it failed. >> good morning. others will be joining us. they had different time commitments. we'll let everyone speebling when they arrive. i want -- speak when they arrive. i want to thank all of the senators who fought on this issue so hard. i want to thank senator boxer for her tremendous work on this issue and for being a tireless partner and leader on this effort. i also want to thank senator collins for standing firmly with us since day one when we introduced the bill as well as senator grassley for being a true champion on this issue. i just thanked you. i'll say that again. i want to thank senator boxer for her tremendous work on this issue and for being an amazing advocate, an unbelievable champion for victims and swrun who's worked so tirelessly from the very beginning. i also want to thank senator blumenthal, senator she ouston, senator hirono and senator mikulski who have been

working from the beginning as well. today i want to thank senator rand paul for being here, for deciding to taking a leadership role on such an important issue for taking this crisis head on. i want to thank senator ted cruz for his very steadfast vote in the armed vmbs committee and for us leading this new amendment going forward. i think both of them are going to add deeply to this extraordinary issue that needs dramatic leadership and bold action. i also want to thank senator grassley again for being with us on the first day, for being the lead sponsor amongst the republicans with senator collins. that early leadership made all the difference in the world. now our effort now is to build a very strong bipartisan coalition that is going to end sexual assault in the military. and the way we want to do it is create an independent, accountable military justice system that is not partisan, that is not ideological, that

can create the kind of accountability and transparency that our men and women who serve in the military need so that they can receive justice. our carefully crafted, commonsense proposal was written in direct response to what the victims told us. the stories that came from them. what happened to them. the fact that they didn't trust the chain of command. that they were retaliated against. that they didn't believe justice was possible. so this is not a democratic idea. it is not a republican idea. it is a good idea that meets the needs of the victims, creates transparency and accountability and creates the needed object tift that this issue de-- object divity that this issue deserves. i will turn it over to others and i'll speak to my colleagues remarks. we can now turn it over to enator grassley. >> i'm glad to be part of this effort to build support for military justice improvement

act. the status quo is not working and we need to shake it up. if we don't crack down on the corrosive culture that this sexual assault represents, if we don't crack down on the individuals who use sexual violence as a means of personal power and personal gain, then we'll create lingering institutional problems that will jeopardize morale and impact recruitment and retention of troops. the bipartisan legislation introduced by our colleague, senator gillibrand, will give members of the armed services more confidence in the military system of justice. the reform will do just to the u.s. military code of honor which is based on integrity and fidelity to the rule of law. sexual assault is a law enforcement issue.

when a young adult serves their country in uniform and put hemselves in harm's way to defend and protect america's freedoms, they deserve their rights will be protected, including access to justice and not having that access to justice intervened by somebody who for reasons unknown may short-circuit and not see that justice is delivered. thank you, senator gillibrand. >> thank you. senator boxer. >> yes. well, if we have one. oh, thank you. i think it's better if you can see me. that would be better. thank you. thank you so much, senator. oh, great. i am proud to be part of this bipartisan coalition for change. that's what we represent. change. change that has been coming for 20 long years, and i'm here to say i've been in the senate for that long time and so has

senator grassley and we know and we've seen every secretary of defense call for zero tolerance on sexual assaults in the military and every time nothing happens. i want to tell you a story. i could tell you many. each of us could. that reflects why we have to do this. stacy robinson at 19 joined the marines for every right reason. how much she loved her country and she wanted to put her life on the line for her country. she was asked out on a date by a sergeant. he took her to a bar. he drugged her at that bar. he took her back to the barracks and he raped her. he dropped her on the ground in front of the bar at 4:00 a.m. none of those facts are in dispute. i want to tell you what

happened to stacy robinson and what happened to her perpetrator. i'm told it's thompson. stacy thompson. what happened to her perpetrator. this stayed in the chain of command. the chain of command suggested to the perpetrator that he get his butt out of the military in order to avoid any consequence whatsoever. and stacy, she was investigated or drug use from that night. she after 10 years or more she's coming out to talk about this story which has scarred her forever. so do we need change? yes. and what happened in the armed services committee was some

good, good small tweaks of the system, which we strongly support, but the main change that was supported in that committee by senator gillibrand and her other co-sponsors here didn't happen. so i'm going to close just showing you quickly a couple charts. in no particular order. it doesn't matter. zero tolerance for sexual assault by u.s. defense secretaries over the last two decades. statements by secretary hagel. it's not good enough to say we have a zero tolerance policy. we do. but what does that mean? how does that translate? well, he should be supporting you. secretary leon panetta. we've absolutely no tolerance for any form of sexual assault. secretary gates. first of all, i have a zero tolerance. let's go to the next one. this really gets old very

quickly. secretary rumsfeld. xual assault will not be tolerated. sk william cohen, this goes to 1997. i intend to enforce strict policy of zero tolerance of hazing, sexual assault and racism. secretary william perry. this goes back to 1994. and for all of these reasons, therefore, we have zero tolerance for sexual harassment. secretary cheney, march, 1989, we have a major effort under way to try to educate everybody to let them know that we have a zero tolerance policy where sexual harassment is involved. it's enough with the words. it's enough with the empty promises. it's time for some real change and senator gillibrand is leading us toward that change to more -- much quicker charts. 90%. i want you to remember that. % of sexual assaults are not

-- underline -- not reported because they tell us, and as senator gillibrand said eloquently, we don't listen. they tell us they don't report it because they don't want to see it in the chain of command. and very last. look. this is not something the senator pulled out of the air. look at our allies. in israel since 1955 outside the chain of command. canada 1998. outside the chain of command. australia, 2005, outside the chain of command. united kingdom, 2006. so don't let anyone tell us this is some idea that is so out of the mainstream. we are in the main streel. the status quo is -- we are in the mainstream. the status quo is out of the mainstream. i am proud as i can be to be with a coalition like this to stand with the victims who are

waiting for justice and to our colleagues who are looking at us and deciding. please, please put your faith in change. thank you. > senator rand paul. >> you snow, i try to not look at issues from a partisan view. i'm sure i do sometimes. i try not to. as a physician i look at problems and i try to find solutions. i'm concerned, you know, about justice, and i wanted to -- want it to occur in the military for the victims just. justice is very important to me. both for the accused and the victim. i'm concerned that victims of assault, though, may be deterred from reporting their assault if they have to report it to their boss. i'm also concerned, though, about interposing too many lawyers in the everyday life of the military and them getting in the way of the military

mission. the vast majority of our soldiers are honorable and upstanding soldiers. we're talking about a very small percentage. if me commit crimes they should be punished. in finding justice for the victims, we must make sure, though, there's due process for all. some say which have no bipartisan cooperation around here, and i disagree. i think this is a great example of how people from both sides come together and are willing to work on a problem and look at what the problem is. so when i heard about this my first impression was a positive one. as i looked at the bill i asked and senator gillibrand asked to come and talk to me. i thought there were one or two things that were included in this that we should exclude from this. she was very open to the discussion. and it makes my support even stronger for this. there were a couple things we removed that weren't sexual assault, weren't murder. these were disobeying orders and some other things. we'll still leave that in the line of command. we'll keep serious crimes,

murder, rape, sexual assault, in here. and i think it's made the bill even stronger. i always thought the motive was good for the bill. but i think the bill's even stronger. i see no reason why conservatives should not support this. what's standing in the lane is the status quo. senator boxer was right. if it appears as if there is some deterrence to victims reporting the crime, why don't we fix it? so i see no reason not to fix it. i'm glad to be part of the process if i can. >> senator ted cruz. >> thank you. sexual assault is a grave violation of the trust and duty that we owe our service men and service women. when our sons and daughters sign up to defend our nation, they willingly anticipate cing hostile fire from enemy forces, but they don't sign up be potentially sexually

assaulted from their colleagues. the supreme court describes rape short of murder, the ultimate violation of self. now, every senator is opposed to rape, opposed to sexual assault and wants to act to prevent it. i tell you having spoken with a number of our commanders, i'm convinced that our commanders in the military want to see away. oblem go that they understand, they have heard the message and they are working to make it go away. but unfortunately this problem has persisted despite good faith repeated efforts, this has persisted. i have to say the process whereby this amendment has gone forward really jond scores the way the delend -- underscores the way the delib are a tif process of the senate goes forward. i went in this undecided. i thought there were good reasonable arguments by the chairman of the committee and by others about preserving the

chain of command, about keeping responsibility in the chain of command that i think have real force. i have to tell you, entering the committee hearing undecided, i was persuaded by senator gillibrand's exceptionally passionate and abled advocacy. and in particular there are two points senator gillibrand made in a moved me and convinced me this was the right and responsible thing to do. first of all was the point the most persistent problem we've seen is an unwillingness and an inability to report the crimes, that the victims of sexual assault for whatever reason have consistently remained reluctant, afraid to come forward and report the crimes and there can be no prosecution, there can be no deterrence if we don't have reporting of crimes. and despite all of the efforts that have been made in the past, senator gillibrand, i believe, made a persuasive case, keeping the reporting in the chain of command, as rand

said, having to go to your boss and raise the problem, the crime of sexual assault with your boss has proven in fact to be deterring victims from reporting their crimes. and secondly was the point that a number of our allies, including great britain and israel and germany, had implemented policies similar to this and the results in practice have been the reporting rates increased. i believe in following the data where they lead, and the fact that other professional militaries had been able to maintain discipline, maintain the chain of command, maintain effectiveness, maintain readiness and at the same time improve reporting and improve deterrence to me was persuasive. so i'm proud to stand with senator gillibrand, with all of the senators up here. i appreciate their leadership. and i'm proud to see the senate

working to fix this problem, to make sure that we protect every young man and every young woman who signs up to defend our nation, defend our liberties and make sure they have a safe, secure environment where they can trust their fellow soldiers and be secure from any threat of sexual assault. >> senator. senator hirono. >> you definitely see the political spectrum of support represented right here. i'm proud to stand here with not just the colleagues here but there are others who are very much concerned and want to take some specific action relating to sexual trauma in the military. yes, this has been going on far too long. there's no magic bullet answer. one of the responses is to remove the chain of command from making the decision to investigate and go forward. on the other hand, there are plenty of other things we need

to do because we're dealing with a culture in the military that has allowed this to occur for decades and decades. so the commander has a responsibility to change that culture. there's a whole huge prevention aspect that the commanders should take hold of. there are education opportunities. there are all of these other things that can happen. the navy is doing some of this starting in a small way where they address the incidents and the use of alcohol, which is very much a part of these kinds of crimes. so there are so many ways we can address this, but this is one very specific way that we believe will result in more of these crimes being reported, and we think that's one of the first things that we have to address. so i thank all my colleagues. and of course kristen's leadership. thank you. >> i'm very grateful for the leadership of everyone here and

the several other co-sponsors. i think we have close to 30 co-sponsors on this bill who've provided leadership. we all know that our military's home to the best and the brightest in the world. and there is such a small number of criminals within our military that are undermining good order and discipline, undermining command climate and destroying lives. those are the individuals we have to find. these cases must be prosecuted. and they must be held accountable. so i believe that when we look at this issue we have to look it from the eyes of the victims. that's what matters most, their stories. now for 6 % of those that reported of the crimes of the 3,300 that reported last year, 62% said they were retaliated against because they reported the crimes. of the 23,000 that didn't report, more than half -- about half said they didn't report because they didn't think

anything would be done. close to half said they didn't report because they saw someone else be retaliated against. close to half said they didn't report because they feared retaliation. and that's why this kind of reform is so important. to be able to have that objective trained military prosecutor be the decision maker. there may be less fear of retaliation. more hope of accountability. a greater belief that justice can be done. that's what this change is trying to accomplish. i'm just going to read the story of one survivor to leave you with. because you have to imagine these crimes happening to your son or to your daughter. more than half of the victims are male in these cases. until you begin to picture that in your mind, you are not going to understand the depth of destruction that's taking place in these victims' lives. one mother said, and she didn't want to divulge her daughter's name. she said, quote, i reluctantly supported my daughter going in the army fearing she may be a

casualty victim in combat overseas by some foreign enemy. i never imagined she would be a victim on u.s. soil from the very army she partnered with to protect the u.s. and our rights. she was sexually assaulted at the end of 2012 which is the case that is still pending. she's lost her love of life. she's become dependent on drugs to mask the pain. now she's being pushed by the army because the commander is derelict and failing to respond to her plight. she's revictimized her emotionally by exposing her to unsafe conditions, verbal abuse and total disregard for her as a soldier or a woman. help me, please. so that is what we are here to do. i want to thank all of my supporters behind me but also those who are not here with us for the press conference. we have to answer the call of these victims. thank you. >> any questions on the topic?

>> senator, senator levin said this morning his proposal to move these decisions further up the chain of command to the colonel level will take care of the problem of retaliation. what would your response be to that? >> i disagree with his assessment. just to be clear, i think senator levin cares deeply about this issue and putting forth his best effort on what will make a difference. the reason that change doesn't do enough is because of this. right now the commanders are putting forward cases that are reported and that their attorneys are suggesting should be prosecuted. the commander will say let's go forward even if the prosecutor does -- is not sure. if you start with 300 going to trial, if that commander's decisions being appealed if he says no, that's not the problem. in fact, the commander and his lawyer only disagree 1% of the time. so that's 1% of 300 cases.

it's a handful. that's not our problem. our problem is not the disagreement between a commander and a lawyer. our problem is exactly as general amos said, they don't trust us. they don't trust the chain of command. if the victims do not trust the chain of command they will not report these cases. if they witness other people reporting, being retaliated against, if they see others being shoved out of the military, they will not trust the system that the chain of command has put into place. our only hope by making the system more objective, that is not dependent on that judgment, the commander, they will have hope and confidence that this objective, trained military prosecutor -- and the training is essential because this set of prosecutors are trained for sexual assault in military. sexual assault and rape within the military. they know what the crime looks like. they know who the perpetrators are. they know how it's covered up.

they know how they're retaliated against. they know the law. they know whether they can win these cases. i want in a trained military prosecutor, not any commander. because not all commanders will have the determination that we saw the military pledge in the last hearing. not every military commander will understand that rape is a serious violent crime of domination. often not even related to dating or romance. more often related to dominance . d violence and power so you need someone who's trained and knowledgeable to make the assessment of whether these cases go to trial, create a system of objecttivity. that's why i don't think senator levin -- >> they tweaked the system. they've done some good things which we support and keep in the bill. i want to make a point.

people get confused. they sometimes think what senator gillibrand and we do is take the thing outside the military. there are some people that want that. we don't go that route at all. we keep these crimes in the military but with people who know exactly what they're doing. they're trained prosecutors, and they're objective. so i think it's an important point to make. >> i'd like to invite senator blumenthal to say a few words. >> thank you. gillibrand senator for her leadership on this issue. i've been working on it for sometime with proposals, such as mandatory punitive discharge, victims bill of rights, other measures that will greatly enhance the credibility and trust in the system which is critical to reporting. and none is more important than the one that she's been ampioning for separating the

prosecutorial decision from the chain of command. i'm very encouraged by the support we're amassing. i see it in the response among my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, as is demonstrated today. i think that we are making enroads all across the senate, including on the armed services committee, where i serve and she does, along with senator hirono. and i think that success is within sights -- sight, whatever the threshold of folks that are required. i think that a majority and even 60 votes are within our graps. thank you to senator gillibrand for your leadership. >> as senator hirono said quite a cross-section of the senate. senator paul, senator cruz, maybe you can give us a sense

of how you were convinced to sign on to this. was it meetings, was it testimony? >> you know, i think what's st so many times, there's no bipartisanship. senator gillibrand came to me on the floor and told me about it. i saw news reports and my impression was to be favorably inclined and i need to read a little bit more about it and i there were few things i wanted better. to make she was receptive of that. it wasn't a big deal to try to get the bill better. i think the changes that were made should bring more conservatives on board with this. i don't know. i really truly don't see things in partisan purpose. i really don't see them that way. i'm more than willing to go against my party any time or against the other party. we should go for what we any is right. this is an issue i think is obviously right and seems we're trying to get to a more just situation. >> and as i described, i was

really persuaded by the argument senator gillibrand presented at the armed services committee. i went in undecided. i have to admit that. cast my vote supporting this amendment afterwards i have visited with a reporter who was i think genuinely astonished and said, you mean every vote isn't decided before-hand and arguments can persuade? i can't speak for every time but i can certainly say here that, you know, look, i think all of us, republicans, democrats, and i think also the commanders in the military want to solve this problem and the question is what's the right olution that will fix it, that will prevent sexual assault but will maintain good order and discipline, maintain the integrity of the chain of command. i think senator gillibrand has worked hard with a number of others. i think the suggestion that rand made made the bill stronger. i was certainly supportive of those. i think this is a commonsense approach to fixing the problem,

to make our military stronger and make sure we can stand by d protect every serviceman and servicewoman. >> senator paul mentioned some changes made to the bill. the uniquely military crimes where an exception when the -- >> correct. >> has there been changes made to it since the last markup? >> as the amendment filed, senator rand noticed two additional crimes that he felt better dealt by commanders and i agreed with him. i have think his changes were smart and made the bill stronger. specifically, direct order, which for whatever reason was overlooked. if you are given a direct order by your commander, you're not going to call a lawyer to investigate to whether you responded or didn't respond. that wasn't an appropriate response. he was smart to recognize that and said that should be included in the 36 specific crimes that i believe and we all believe because we wrote the bill this way are military in nature. that aren't -- there's no

parallel in the civilian system. going awol is the most clear example. the military commander will be in charge, if you go awol, if you don't show up for duty, he will know what's going on, why didn't you show up, what's the appropriate response, to keep you in the military or to respond appropriately so he found two additional crimes that would be better determined by a chain of command. they were serious but military in nature. >> again, the i.g. put out a report that showed really serious problems with some investigations of sexual assault and rape. it was amazing discrepancies like not collecting clothing, interviewing witnesses. >> exactly. >> your bill looks at the prosecution. they seem to have bigger problems. >> well, as senator boxer said, this crime is -- this challenge is persuasive.

-- pervasive. it's a culture issue that needs to be looked at every step of the way. what question did in the armed services committee a number of bills authored by those inside the committee and outside the committee that would strengthen the process and help victims. for example, one bill that nator patty murray and kelly eye ott ensured that every victim had a victims advocate. in the base bill and passed unanimously. there's probably about a dozen really strong reforms that will help victims and help this process better. also accountability. punishments and whether you're sent out of the military if convicted. also better record keeping so we can find recidivists over time. if someone doesn't report we still have a record of the crime being committed. there's a lot of reforms. >> i think that's a very important question and it speaks to the need for a trained experienced prosecutor.

i was a federal prosecutor. i serviced as state attorney general. ultimately the prosecutor can insist on standards and excellence in investigations. he's ultimately in charge. he's the one that has to present the case to a jury and make the case. so this proposal is integral to the entire justice system. and i might just go back to the question, you know, how can people who normally disagree ?ome together on this issue criminal justice has never been a partisan issue at under any administration anytime. unites justice and criminal justice should not be about republican or democrat and certainly not about ideological issues.ces on other thoughtful people who come

together who disagree on other issues. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2013] >> a view outside the u.s. senate chamber. democrats and republicans are meeting in their caucuses right now where the leaders have said they'll talk about a tentative deal on filibusters of president obama's nominations. the senate is in recess for hose meetings right now.

coming back in session in about 20 minutes at 2:15 eastern. rights activists and church leaders and drugs and gun rights advocates have filed a lawsuit against the federal government to halt a national security agency electronic surveillance program. the lawsuit was filed today by san francisco's electronic frontier foundation. it seeks an injunction against the n.s.a., justice department, f.b.i. and directors of the agencies. the suit comes after former n.s.a. contractor edward snowden leaks details about n.s.a. surveillance programs earlier this year. and today mr. snouden submitted a request for temporary asylum in russia claiming he faces persecution from the u.s. government and could face torture or death. this morning "washington journal" talked to the reporter about this situation. guest: sarah harrison is the intermediary but it's career

clearly g -- asanged -- she's young, in her 30's. she accompanied him in moscow where he's believed to still be. it's not clear whether she's there or not. in the beginning it looked like wikileaks was trying to find a h limb but taken on more role and protecting documents and protect them in case something happened to snowden f a poison pill came out there. host: edward snowden asking him for asigh limb. he said we will stop if you stop political activities and quotes. do you know what's coming next from him and will he stop this? guest: no, he hasn't. he clearly said he has more coming out. glen grenwald said there's a

lot more out there that's going to come out there. it's interesting that president putin said he wants him to leave and just at the same time that snowden says he's asking for temporary asylum. this is a fascinating case and i am watching closely to see what happens next. host: we'll go to our first phone call here. michael in huntington, new york. democratic caller. go ahead. caller: hello. host: you're on the air. caller: ok. very good. i just wanted to ask you about the situation where the ecuadorian president's plane was denied flying privileges over several different countries in europe on the assumption that snowden was on the plane and of course they did allow them to search it and found he was not there. he's still obviously in moscow. but the point here is that weren't snowden's releases about the united states and who the united states was spying

on, didn't they include some of those european countries that had the transport and sent snowden back to the united states, doesn't that seem strange? doesn't it sort of indicate hat the c.i.a. is working with the other internal intelligence of other countries in such a ay that, say, for example, we're not allowed to spy upon our citizens, they're not allowed to spy upon their citizens but they are allowed to spy upon our citizens and we are allowed to spy upon their citizens, maybe they're exchanging this information so neither one of them is making the law? guest: that's a good observation. that's always been the case. there is a program which governments, especially the five i's, the united states, great britain, australia, new zealand and canada have all basically been very closely sharing information. if i can't spy on my own

citizens, you can do it and give me the information and vice versa. what i am reminded of in this case is the police commissioner from "casa blanca," i'm shocked there is gambling going on and then somebody comes over and hands him his winnings. espionage and intel gathering is going on. they're not shocked at all that the u.s. was gathering this kind of intel. i think they're more concerned offending the united states on the case of this importance and that's why if this is indeed what happened and i think it is that they agreed to sort of search the plane at the behest of the u.s. government. that's my guess. >> you can see all this interview on national security at c-span.org. senate leaders are close to a deal on executive branch nominees that would stop democrats from triggering a rules change known as the nuclear option. senate majority leer hardy reid said he'd update colleagues on the deal on seven of president

obama's nominees at a caucus meeting. the senate is in recess for another 15 minutes until 2:15 eastern so they can meet with their caucuses. "the hill" says it calls on president obama to replace pending nominees sharon block and richard griffin. and in return republicans will allow mark pearce, the third nominee to the labor board, and richard cordray, president obama's choice to head the consumer financial protection bureau to final up or down votes. and richard cordray's votes did advance in the senate with a vote of 71-29. the house is coming back in now for legislative business. three bills on the agenda dealing with regulations on small airplanes and oil pipeline standards. ker: the hou in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. eternal god, we give you thanks for giving us another day.

we ask discernment for the mbers of this people's house that they might judge anew with the clearest of principle, conviction, and commitment, lest they slide uncharitably toward an inability to listen to one another, and work cooperatively to solve the important issues of our day. give them them -- give them the generosity of heart and courage of true leadership to work toward a common solution which may call for compromise and even sacrificed on both sides. i pray that their work results not in solutions where some are winners and some louisers, but where all americans know in their hearts that we are winners. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof.

pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approve the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlelady from north carolina, ms. foxx. ms. foxx: please join in a pledge to our wonderful flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and .ustice for all the speaker: under clause 5d of rule 20 the chair announces to the house that in light of the resignation of the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, the whole numb of the house is now 434. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina ise? the gentleman is recognized. mr. wilson: the media reports it's being spun as a major

positive, that the economy is back on track. maybe the pundits should look at the numbers, which are abysmal. 125,000 new e at jobs a month it will take 11 months to get back to where we were in 2007. it's even worse when you consider all the new jobs were part time. the unemployment rate shot from 1.% to 14.3%. this isn't a solid jobs report, it's a crisis, end of quote. house republicans have worked to build jobs, building the keystone pipeline alone can rovide 100,000 jobs. in north carolina, there could be 300 jobs, in lexington, another 300 people are building engines at graniteville of akin county. we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism.

happy 40th birthday today south carolina attorney general allen willson. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> i ask -- mr. boehner: i -- the speaker: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. the speaker: we are working to simplify the tax code, expand energy production and hold the administration accountable for abuses at agencies like the i.r.s. that's why the senate democrats have done nothing while the house has passed a bipartisan plan to make college more affordable. that's why we will vote tomorrow to make sure the families and individuals get the same break from obamacare that the president wants for big businesses. over the weekend, the democrat leader in the senate said the president's health care law has, quote, been wonderful for our country. are you kidding me?

if obamacare is so wonderful, why are health care prices exploding? why are millions of americans getting kicked out of their plans? why are so many workers losing jobs or getting hours cut? the law isn't wonderful, it's a train wreck. you know it, i know it and the american people know it. even the president knows it. that's why he proposed delaying his mandate on employers. but it's unfair to protect big businesses without giving the same relief to american families and small businesses. the bills by congressman griffin and young will address this problem by delaying the employer mandate and the individual mandate. i hope democrats and republicans alike will vote to do what's fair and to protect all americans from this disastrous law. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. employers need more than a one-year delay of obamacare's coming train wreck. the president's flawed legislation must be repealed in its entirety. obamacare's already increasing health care costs, depressing hiring and destroying full-time work. waiting a year to implement some of its confuse, wrongheaded policies won't stop the damage or provide job creators with the certainty they need to figure out whether they can afford to keep their employees. that will come only when obamacare is replaced by competitive, patient-centered health care reformful the american people and the american economy deserve better than excuses for unworkable laws. they deserve health care policies that are transparent, responsive and focused on them. this week, house republicans will take action to protect every american, individuals, families, and those who manage or work with businesses from the president's costly broken law.

if the employer mandate is being delayed, so should the individual mandate. it's basic fairness. it's fairness for all. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, tomorrow marks the three-month anniversary of the fertilizer plant explosion n west, texas. mr. flores: this took 15 lives, injured hundreds and cost millions in damage. since that day, the state of texas and the entire community of west have been working tirelessly to rebuild and recover. fema originally denied texas governor rick per rir's request for a major disaster declaration. since then the governor has filed an appeal for the president to reconsider this decision. i'm pleased to be joined by a

substantial bipartisan majority of the texas congressional delegation as we urge the president to support this appeal on bhoof the citizens of west and mcclennan county. it is our hope that the president honors the commitment he made on april 25 to help the citizens of west recover, rebuild, and reclaim their community. we must help ease the burden this is community continues to fates through the recovery process. mr. speaker, i ask that all americans keep the community of west in their prayers. god bless america, thank you, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i with unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. some of the affordable care act's oldest and strongest supporters are now coming out against the bill. yesterday, three large unions in the country wrote a letter,

speaker pelosi, leader reid, to say the president's health care takeover would destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work of that is the back bone the american middle class. mr. burgess: their concern, my concern, is that it will force employers to move -- employers to move employees to part-time. while i wish they realized this before spending so much time and so much money on getting the law passed, at this point, i couldn't agree with them more. this week, it is very important that we pass the bills to delay he individual mandate, delay the employer mandate for a year. give us time to consider how to keep the affordable care act from destroying our economy. to quote the union's letter, time is running out. we have a problem. you need to fix it. the unintended consequences of the affordable care act are severe. further quoting, we can no longer stand silent in the face of the elements of the affordable care act that will destroy the very health care and well being of millions of hard

working americans, end quote. by passing these two bill this is week, we'll take an important step in minimizing the damage from the affordable care act. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on july 16, 2013, at 1:25 p.m. appointments, world war i centennial commission, with best wishes, i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir. pursuant to section 134101 of the health information

technology for economic and clinical health high tech act, blic law 111-5, i hereby eappoint mr. paul eberman of western massachusetts to the policy committee for a term of three years. thank you for your attention to this appointment. signed, sincerely, nancy pelosi, democratic leader. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12a of rule 1, the chair declares the house n recess

>> again the senate has moved forward with the nomination of richard cordray to continue as director of the consumer protection bureau. this happening after the senators reached a tentative deal on filibusters on president obama's nominations. the senate coming back in for more dominate on executive nominations, you can see live coverage on c-span2. about half of small business applications in chicago come from immigrants according to ayor rahm emanuel.

he was here on monday. he was joined by americans for tax reform, grover norquist, at that time a mid-atlantic magazine event. this is just under an hour. >> thank you-all for being here. i have a real privilege today to engage in conversation and later we'll include you as well. two people who are ostensibly two of the leading most powerful political players in america. and i think that -- both of you were telling me it was slightly an out-of-body experience being here. i didn't know whether to sit here and have grover and rahm right next to each other. of course rahm emanuel, former white house chief of staff, member of congress, now the mayor of chicago. we don't do advocacy forums here, frankly if you look around the city, around the nation at cities and their mayors and what kinds of things the chief executive of a city does, what

rahm emanuel has been putting is particularly with his building in chicago, looking at infrastructure, immigration, how you basically synthesize what the equation of your city will look like. it's a very impressive arena. prounstein at national journal has done a piece. and president grover norquist, president for american tax reform. i don't know whose idea the oath was, but it worked. and it continues to be a formidable issue in american politics today. and lo and behold i was with amy klobuchar recently. we interviewed her at the atlantic. she was telling us how grover was now getting hate mail from some his own base because of committee testimony he provided in joint economic committee that was positive s i thought today crossfire was coming back on cnn, it's predictible. you get two guys, men and women on different sides, and they bash each other without thinking.

i thought today we would have a thinking forum. people you would normally think on opposite sides and frankly their similarities. n you share with us a little bit -- forget your white house role. you were a big cheese in this town but we are in chicago and you are thinking about healthy equation with immigrants as part of it. as a mayor, how are you trying to change the game? >> a couple things that i think will be very helpful facts. not too different from what javier said on the national level. basically in the city of chicago, which is true in any major city, about 50% of all new business applications are by immigrants. that's why i have always said you cannot be pro-small business and anti-immigrant. the two go hand in hand. we have cut our licenses, business licenses by 60%. making it much easier for people

to start businesses, reapply for businesses. 50% or nearly 50% of all new business applications for new start-up business are by an immigrant. second, those who have come to chicago know michigan avenue, know the magnificent mile. it produces more sales tax in the city of chicago than any other one-mile stretch in the city of chicago and also the state. little village, hispanic area, city of chicago, 26th street, the two magnificent miles. it produces the second most amount of sales tax revenue for the city of chicago, and for the state of illinois. outside of michigan avenue, when you pull out, pretty high-end shopping, the most productive area from a sales tax revenue for the city of chicago is 26th street. and it's in a post people, literally -- it pulls people literally from all over the midwest. on the weekends you cannot find parking let alone a parking meter issue, near or around 26th

street. from as far as minneapolis to minnesota to columbus, ohio, people come in on the weekend to get things they cannot get in their respective communities that are reflective of their home country. those those two material facts in the sense of what's happening in the city for us. today i signed an executive order with the immigration office. we are creating what i -- what we call citizenship corners in every library and neighborhood library throughout the city of chicago. all librarians are being trained how to help people get their citizenship. we have kits, they can take them home and check them out like books, to promote the whole effort. i'll close by this one example if i can and then go on. a year ago we held a forum with robert f. kennedy, first time here in america, their foundation, and all the nobel peace prize wincer in chicago, theydid it in rome, paris,

wanted to do it in chicago. i happen to think chicago is the most american of american cities. we did it at von stuben high school. that's where my mother went to school. it used to be all jewish. we got it. your high school. my mother's high school may explain a lot about our relationship. but second is i introduced a young woman who is from yemen. to introduce gorbachev. he came to america, came to chicago, fourth grade. she's now at northwestern. full paid scholarship. this student body at von stuben is 126 different nationalities. that's a reflection of what's going on and she's fourth grade she came to america. she would never -- she would no more finish fourth grade in yemen than the idea she's on her way, because she was number one in her class, she did the interview with gorbachev, she's

on her way to northwestern on a full paid scholarship. how can that be against our interest? she has now decided she's an american. this is clearly in our self-interest economically and in our self-interest as a city when you look at all the diversity of von stuben and all the relationships that are intertwining that goes on bringing the world to chicago and chicago to the world. this is a huge economic opportunity for the city of chicago, clearly for the country. those are kind of three examples of what's going on in the city of rome. >> before i jump to grover, let me ask you to take off your mayor's hat, or as mayor if you were to be on a national tour, can you stop by celina, kansas. it happens to be where i was bending t's not case over backward to be welcoming to immigrants. what would you tell parts of the country, particularly those that have representatives right now that aren't exactly moving in a progressive direction on this, what would you tell them -- why

does that story you just share, sounds emotionally nice, they are listening to the heritage foundation and they say, this is not our story. it may be chicago's story, how do you reach them? >> that is -- that may be true, although do i think immigration is changing what used to be only an urban story is now becoming an intersuburb story. so i'm not so sure -- it also is quickly becoming a rural story. that has cultural impact. my appeal is one of economics. but nobody should dismiss some of the cultural piece of that, which can be disconcerning. it's not true for a city of chicago because my grandfather came to chicago in 1917, 13-year-old. a third cousin to get away from eastern europe. that's the history of chicago whether it's ireland or india, the middle east or mexico,

whether that's poland or pakistan. that's just the history of our city and that's also true of every big city in america. i think that also is the truth of any state. and has a history of immigrants and inflow of immigrants who have given opportunity. you have to find what i don't have in kansas and i can't provide it, you can't give them a national story, so there are anecdotes and kansas of their own history that you would have to weave in in a local way. i would not treat it disrespectfully. i could tell you a story about chicago 100 different times in 100 different languages. there's a story and narrative to kansas as an example that you have to find. if you are going to persuade somebody from kansas why this is in their interest, i can't give them a chicago example. they'll tell you go to chicago. you have to find a kansas example for kansas where they can find an opportunity in that story to see their future. >> it's a guy from kansas and oklahoma that came out of that environment. i think that story is

impliesity. i will go back to you. grover, the atlantic and aspen institute produce each year the aspen ideas festival. this year i was driving at 7:00 in the morning and going off to do one -- two early meetings we saw carl roaf -- karl rove walking by. the bus drivers are all hard-core left-wing liberals. they are donating their time. god, i'd like to take that guy on. i say, well, he's speaking at 8:00. our editor in chief will be introducing him. listen to the forum. i caught it with the guy and he did go. boy, that karl rove, made a lot of sense. and aw rove going -- basically from -- i should say your corner of the woods, somebody went out and walked into the lion's dense of hyper liberals and talked about immigration reform. i bet he got a couple of g.o.p. signups that day. i'm wondering given your role and the role of karl rove, george w. bush, where were all

of you a few years ago? isn't this just a cynical move by some in the party, in the republican party, to say now it's pragmatic, now we need to do it because we are a dead party if we don't bring in the hispanics. is there something deeper? >> if you go back in american history, the group that stopped all of it in the past, the china's exclusion act, samuel gompers, labor leader, thought this is a great idea. let's add the japanese to it. historically going up to the 1980's, every anti-immigrant impulse was driven by organized labor looking for a restriction -- >> the democrats. >> the modern democratic party. there has been movement all the way around. interestingly the business community did not get organized. 99 i was in a meeting, 12 people, 11 top trade associations in the country i was there as mr. taxpayer meeting with jim nicholson. sort of a checkup. what's important to you this year? 1999. they went around the room and

cut the capital gains tax, take the trial lawyers put them in a plastic bag, throw them in the river. everybody was in one of those two places. then he finished, thank you very much. got up and left. and the last couple moments of the colombo tv shows, the guy from the chamber said there's this other thing. what is it? we have never worked on it. what is it? we don't -- what is it? we are running out of workers we need immigration reform. around that table the truckers, retail people, small business guys, manufacturers, everybody said that's a bigger issue than the one given i talked to that i brought up. and they talked in terms of hundreds of thousands of people that they needed. and yet none of them felt comfortable or confident, they thought it was somebody else's issue. through, this time more than 2007, because it just didn't get organized in that way, the business -- every business group is for

legalization of the 10 million or 11 million who are here, dramatic increases in future flows whether it's low-skilled, high-skilled. i always get a kick out of low-skilled, high-skilled this generation. we'll see what happens in future generations. it can switch in a generation or two because you are bringing in talent and opportunity. the business communities, southern baptist convention has strongly endorsed comprehensive, national association of evangelicals, roman catholic church, l.d.s., mormon church, national jewish -- >> why are they losing? you got george w., bill clinton, rahm emanuel, you got -- >> the last two will not be very persuasive. >> generally when you look who is lined up on the reform side, i don't think i have ever seen an issue ever, ever where everyone was on that side. yet it doesn't seem to be

percolating. the greater boston tea party patriots, how did that go? >> april 19, up in boston, 2,000 people. interesting, law about taxes and spending, but every -- maybe 20 people speaking, radio talk show host, every said something very complementary about immigrants. all the way through. the idea -- >> it is boston, which helps. you talking about kansas. kansas chamber of commerce brought me out to kansas to speak with the governor. and the legislature with the leaderships committed to doing that, and the chamber was trying to make sure some of these immigrants, anti-immigrant legislators were thinking about doing something like arizona where were tammped down and they are probably going to move more alonth lines of utah which is the opposite of arizona. kansas, business community, communities of faith, very active in moving in the right direction. we have had -- this has been an issue where radio talk show

hosts have driven in to a certain extent on the right. you can get pretty wealthy in this country with 5% market share on talk radio. you can't, however, be elected dog catcher with 5% market share. you have had that conversation. all the major business groups and state groups, various communities of faith are all out there. take a look at the list of people who might run for president four, eight years from ow on the republican side. make friends -- >> why don't you stay focused. >> but scott walker, wisconsin, has come out strongly for it. rand paul has talked about -- spoke to a pathway to citizenship. before jeb bush, before rules committeeo. you are looking at chris christie, the leadership of the modern republican party moving forward is exactly where ronald

reagan was and where the traditional republican party has been which is one of being more open to immigration and what we had to fight. i have within at this for 30 years to go to these press conferences, jack kemp and some little old lady from the international lady garment workers union arguing with the afl-cio which was always the group we had to fight. when i was the college republicans, we used to do bipartisan stuff with the college deans and some of the leftist -- >> all this makes sense. >> let me finish. we do these groups. i thought here's one we can work on. let's sign this letter we wrote in support of snoweden leaving the soviet union. the union backed groups wouldn't sign it because it implied we might let them here. that's a huge shift that the unions have been willing to back off. they are still not there on future flow, on guest workers that we need. they build a law. but we are making progress. >> before i jump back to rahm,

the obvious question is in your tax work in which you have been so powerful and being able to maintain a caucus to veto a deal -- >> we got a deal. >> you have been able to do that. that many of those were motivated by pressure and what not from tea party voters. and it's many of these cases, same tea party voters, that are taking these positions. it raises the interesting question of whether this corner of this that has a veto ability that is driven by, i'll say it, racism, where if you look -- not because we are the u.s.-hispanic chamber of commerce, if you look at others that look at the assimilation rate of hispanics, it's a phenomenal rate. intermarnle, home buying, language acquisition, business start-ups, it is among all imgrant classes the lead. i'm just -- immigrant classes

the lead. i'm just wondering that empirical stuff begins to matter to jim demint. >> first of all 20 years ago and back from the 1920's to the china's exclusion, all that stuff, historically, not speaking to today, historically the anti-immigrant position has been colored with exactly that. that connected with restrictionist in terms of number of people working. but interestingly this is not a vote moving issue opposition to immigration. and as soon as people figure that out, that's why the republicans are moving away from the position they sort of got yelled at to by talk radio shows. when pat buchanan ran for president, 70% of republicans thought there were too many immigrants. we have thought too many immigrants in this country since the germans started sneaking in and franklin was yelling about it in the 1770's. second thought, i'm not against

it, and so pat buchanan ran, 70% of the people agreed with immigration, they got 1% of the vote. this was supposed to be a big issue in 2007. the number one republican outfront on immigration was john mccain. who did the republicans nominate in 2008? john mccain. this idea there is some deep-seated anti-immigration reform vote in republican party just doesn't show up. the two senators from arizona, john mccain and jeff flake, two of the most pro-immigrant senators in the senate. so it doesn't show up in the votes the way it sometimes shows up in the tongue wagging that you can get on talk radio. >> rahm -- >> this question wasn't directed at me but i would say that is all true what grover said, but the party has allowed itself to have a few voices describe and define its position. >> correct. >> to immigration which is where the political fallout has

occurred for the party that has if not averted, soon will have huge import for both local and national politics. not just national. that is all -- all those data points are true where the screaming is louder than the -- i wouldn't say sometimes volume does not reflect depth. that's also true in our party. that said, leaders in the republican party have allowed the screamers, or the voice that is have gotten attraction, to define who the republican party is and now has huge import to them politically just saw on the recent election. >> can you walk us through a little bit again from a mayor's perspective how you're trying to position chicago as the seengsly the friendliest city to immigrants? you have made the case of why it economically matters, but i think what's interesting, i don't even know if this paper i have is available to folks, but if you look -- there are 15 points, you largely put in place, that you think are game

changers for immigrants coming in, is your aspiration to try to create a template for other cities? one of the interesting things, i'm not sure how much you think d.c. has, but the mayor will create a template for bemavenor in other cities. >> d.c. has a huge impact but less an less. it's a declining impact which is unfortunate if you're trying to do other things which is another debate in another forum. couple things, the state of illinois passed the dream act. it was there when i got sworn in office on may 16, 2011. it was the only piece of legislation i called nor. i have -- called for. i have raised $250,000 for that fund privately. and we have a little over 100 people going to college that could not go otherwise using that resource. that's one example of where you can do something different. second, recently we passed what we referred to as the driver's license, giving -- there's four other states that have done t.

we passed it statewide, allowing immigrants, who don't have a legal status get a driver's license, allows them to get employment, kids to school. it has a lot to do with public safety and safety on the streets, let alone i think the ability to have integrated people come out of the shadows and integrate themselves into society. >> how do they get over their fear of being tracked down and deported? >> we have a sang two -- we are a sanctuary city. that number three, since you went there, we used to have it by executive order, i passed it by ordinance. the sang two warry status does not live by the whim of the mayor. fourth is i created an office of new americans. i put it in the mayor's office. and they literally spend all day going through different departments, different areas of the city, to say, ok, how is this going to impact immigrants? we have 79 neighborhood

libraries. they played no role in immigration, yet these are huge -- huge assets. they are buildings in every neighborhood. we have a big work force of librarians. we are the only city today, we signed an agreement with the immigration office, we are in the process, we have already done 50, we are training all librarians, we create add special room in a special section of every library has citizen water. it has kits on how to become a citizen, and the neighborhood library is now in the process of helping people become citizens. that office, my office on new americans, thought of that policy. today we signed the order and joint agreement between the immigration office and city of chicago on this process. they literally go through every regulation. they go through every office and it's not just is the website have english and spanish. important to do. and etc. but they go through every part of the city's government and

says what are we doing to promote immigrants? i think it's in the city's interest, i'll give you -- we focus on mexican american community. city of chicago, just met with a new counsel general from new mexico, city of chicago will be the fifth largest city of mexico based on the population. that's huge economic capacity when you think of nafta has created for the united states. but we are outside of warsaw the second largest polish city. bigger than krakow. huge amount of trade back and forth that can happen when you think how poland's growing. >> guy from the polish embassy thrilled rite now. >> that's why i did the shoutout. i know why he's here. you just give those type of sense of the size of the city. that's not going to be true everywhere, but based on the mexican american population, city of chicago, we are the

fifth largest mexican city in mexico. we are the second largest city in poland. just in chicago. that's part of our history, but when you think about remittance, trade, opportunities, you think about travel, tourism, at every level we have three polish tv stations, four radio, one paper. there are streets in the city of chicago that have english and poland together. also with spanish and english. that's a huge economic opportunity if we are looking for market and for a city which is still the headquarters of what i call the flat roof manufacturing kind of 50, 75, 100 that doesn't have an export strategy because these are family-owned businesses, the historical immigrant roots is a huge economic opportunity not just for what the city does, but for what it can export. that's one way we are going to grow. you can go on, but those --

>> let me ask you -- >> i need the federal government to change a process. short of that through the new american office, the library, driver's license, dream act we have done what we can do short of the federal government finally doing the final bit. >> like the president operating through executive orders. >> everywhere you can press -- the two, driver's license and dream act we have done through the state legislature. we have pressed the outer limits of what we can do -- there's a couple other things without the kind of final -- the dam breaking. >> let me ask you both the economic question since you have gone into that. jim demint and some of the folks in opposition to the legislative direction on immigration have said that the 50-year cost of creating a citizenship track and bringing immigrants is $6.3 trillion. the c.b.o. has argued and said

that's not the case. you look at illinois, as a state and i'm not sure chicago, but illinois has bond problems, not been exactly a leadership in solvency, but do you see -- >> boy, that was gentle. >> do you see steps terms -- he things will add to the economic bottom line. do you look at them as economically vital, or is there any validity at all when you look at infrastructure, education, health care, and all the other cost that is demint is arguing these are going to be ballooned out, do you see that? >> let me give one -- i think i have given that already on sales tax. let me say one other thing. why this would be in our economic interest. so much of the services we pay for in the city come from property taxes. you get a new group of people buying homes, i got another group paying property taxes. you pay for libraries that way,

schools, you pay for pension that is way. you pay for police that way. and take homeownership what would happen on property taxes. if all of a sudden people thought ok, i'm here, i'm now going to buy a home, just on its simple -- we pay or libraries that way. just at a city level all of a sudden people say, ok, i don't live in a threat to be comported, we can live in a capacity to buy a home. it's a game changer in a city, not only, it pays schools that way. we pay libraries that way, police that way. >> at the national level the reason why we are the future and japan isn't and europe isn't and china isn't is that we do immigration. i get a kick of people whether we should be pro-immigrants like asking for the united states

whether mcdonald's should shell hamburgers. it's been our success all the way through. it's not incidental. hen people say we are a nation of immigrants. it's not a throw away line. they are saying something. we need to full stop, wait a minute. that's true. what made us different from the rest of the world was 1777 we were paying 2% of our income in taxes and the brits were paying 20% for the honor of running us. and we had open borders. where we had a lot of immigration and lower taxes we grew faster than everybody else, people wanted to come here, they immigrated. because they want to be here. the idea people are coming from some cointry we don't like -- we don't tell the cubans we can't come because they are communist. we figure they are leaving cuba because it's communist and they want to be something else. they don't come from here sawed sad are not trying to set up shop like it was at home. they were happy at home if they liked that. people are coming here because they want to be part of the

american experiment. china can't do that. there are a lot of people in china right now, but they are getting older and pretty soon there will be fewer. they are going to have a declining work force and culturally they don't do immigration. that's why japan, which when i was in business school, was about to eat us, we were going to be finished, is disappearing in terms of relatively in terms of overall -- immigration is what makes us the future not europe, not japan, not china. and can we do it better, smarter, back on track to where we have historically been, we are significantly stronger as a country. economically, every city, every town. you to d ask any of come to the city of chicago, when you see -- there is nothing like the dedication of a child of an immigrant. in the sense of their studies and their purpose. they know in their d.n.a. that

they are here, they are lucky, and this better not get screwed up or your parents are going to kill you. but -- >> i head zeke's book. >> it has a lot of other things to it. i'll give you this young woman from yemen. came in fourth grade. she's now at northwestern, in her home, this is a unique opportunity, you can't do this anywhere else, do not mess this up, and that is rejuvenation of the american dream. people consciously left somewhere to come someplace because they can do what they could do only here in america that they couldn't do it here. and to leave is a big step. so something was motivating. there is nothing like a child of an immigrant trying to make sfing their parents' dreams. it's only possible here in america. and have to cycle out come back because -- >> whether von stuben, 126

nationalities, 126. and that is -- that's a gold mine for us. and i wouldn't trade it for anything. >> you're the best political strategist in d.c., i know, everyone's scared of you. he did win funniest poll of the year in the improvisation thing. that's coming up in september. so you'll get another chance. funniest celebrity in washington. imitatingariana last year. -- imitating ariana last year. >> c-span celebrity. >> you are so lucky it's a grade based on curve. >> does john boehner ever tell you and say, grover, i'm having -- this is a touch one to crack. any ideas on what we can do with the caucus? you're the strong man in the g.o.p. on so many of the issues.

you fought -- and you have fought admirably for inclusion of gays in the republican party, broad immigration, a lot people of don't realize this. do boehner and cantor call and say how can you help us elbow our renegades into this? >> i work with all of the nice republicans in the house and senate to encourage them to do what reagan did. this is the reagan republican view. this is not compromise, this is not moving to the left or something. the ability of labor, ability of teachl, this is what they you in economics for crying out loud. this should be second nature for republicans and conservatives. and the good news is we are making progress. we should do more. there is a lot to be done. but there will be progress for this.

>> you now had so many fascinating positions, congress, chief of staff, the white house, advising this president, and now mayor of chicago, given your perspectives and if you were to be asked by the white house, what would you put on the table? what do you think democrats need to do that they are not doing today to make this a more salient or get more traction than you have now? >> first of all this is really not a problem or issue for democrats. that would be that advice. this is really an issue that someone -- not someone, it's in the republican party. -- n't think this notion of members of congress are running in specific districts, a few will pop their heads up and think about the party's future, really they are thinking about their own. they are talking past each other. >> there is this kind of cynical thing if you never get a deal, the democrats sort of permanently get the hispanic vote, right? no progress.

>> that's a very cynical view. but i actually think there's two parts to this conversation and only one part is being engaged. it's very important to have grover talk radio, religious community engaged because there is a group that do need a permit slip to say yes. and no democrat's ever going to create that. the idea go to the white house, how to create a permission slip for a republican member of the house to vote for something is like a dumb idea. that's number one. that's really for leaders in the republican party talk radio, religious individuals like grover and their organization. that's one. the other part of the conversation i would engage, i think can you have some impact, that's how to persuade somebody go from here to a yes. there is how you can also, which is how legislation -- i think where boehner's problem will be and more possibility, is how you

permit a vote and don't expect people to vote yes. they allow a vote to happen without -- they can individually vote no, they don't mind becoming roadkill. in the process to immigration reform. part of this whole discussion is how to get somebody to go from here to a yes column. there is another part which is not a conversation publicly, but how you allow people to allow a vote to happen even though they are opposed to it. that part is not a public conversation. that i think if you ask me is where democrats, i won't say the white house, can be helpful in creating a space for that to also happen. both of those have to happen. >> one of the things a lot of people are not aware, we have another board, in canada -- border, in canada, the one to the north -- >> we don't have to be instructed on that. we are ok with that. >> in canada, the conservative party, carries the majority of

each of the minorities. they do the outreach and they win those votes. were attacked by the left party for promoting more immigration to get more votes. so the free market -- the more ree market, low tax had an example of how you win those votes. they have done it in canada and we have had that historically. we should have that again. >> trfplgt let me open the floor. ted, council on foreign relations. >> thanks. i wanted to ask grover norquist. >> make it brief. >> this motion that immigration is second nature for the republicans. you and others in the party spend a lot of time persuading voters government doesn't do anything well. not effective, wastes money. you have this big bill now that requires the government being

really effective. it's got to secure the border, verify employment. for every workplace. it's got to weed out fraud. how are you going to persuade republicans that the government is capable of doing that and therefore they should vote for this bill? >> that's one of the challenges. i would argue what eisenhower did with the guest worker program, he took us from 800,000 people getting arrested down at the border down to 40,000. and organized labor and the democrats killed it in 1965, the guest worker program went back to a million people. we know how to police the border guest worker program at a minimum. that's not more government, that's less government. >> i have no question. i'm delighted that -- i knew there would come a time when i agreed with grover and it has come. >> do you feel better now? emma green. you must have twitched your nose. green in the pack.

-- back. >> emma green with the atlantic. mayor emanuel you said your city is a sanctuary city and in that way chicago stands somewhat in conflict with federal policies on immigration. are you hoping your policies in chicago will move the national dialogue on immigration? >> let me say this. i'm a -- what we do in the city of chicago i do because i think it's in our self-interest. do i think as somebody student of government and politics, what happens to the city and happens to the state does have ripple effects as people look to it? yes. i did do -- i took -- we always had a sanctuary state but it was done by mayors by executive order. i said that's not good enough. i don't know what elections tomorrow will bring. if somebody wants to change that i want them to have to repeal it rather than not sign it and re-authorize it. but i do think what we have done is the right way for our city,

but as an example, a bigger example out of both the dream act we passed, go meet these 400-plus kids now going to college. go see what they are studying. it's impressive. and tell me that's not in our interest. i happen to think as a city. number two, i'm the driver's license. allow people, parents to take their kids to school safely. allow them to get to employment, church. and i think those are examples that have huge -- and they are all -- driven, especially the last one, is all about safety on our roads. there is nothing morse than driving on a road you with someone you think donne have insurance. -- doesn't have insurance. >> margaret. margaret karlsson. >> you are on a first name basis with everybody. >> pop quiz, steve. grover, as opposed to mayor

emanuel, you don't really have to do anything. you can flip from issue to issue. you're not really accountable, yet you hold the hill enthalled - enthralled with your pledge. you must feel powerful, but at the same time you have more power than many people in the senate and congress. >> the taxpayer protection pledge is a commitment that elected officials, candidates, signed to their voters not to me as senator harry reid sometimes misspeaks, but to their voters. the tax issue is a powerful issue going back in history to the forming of the country. and so when they make that commitment to their voters, they tend to keep it. now on the republican side we've got ivory soap percentages of republicans sign the pledge and take it because they want to it and they intend to keep it. republicans sign the pledge

because they don't want to raise taxes. it's not that they don't want to raise taxes because they signed the pledge. the pledge highlights that commitment to vote. the power always remains with the voters and they have spoken very harshly to people who break the pledge. >> is there a methodology -- you have rooted the sort of tax pledge in the tax revolts that were part of the united states, but also part of the founding of the united states were lots of different people from lots of different religious, aligning themselves under a contract, is there some methodology of grover norquist that can be a pride to the immigration debate we are not seeing today that create a binary yes or no punishment for those on one side, reward for those on the other? >> when you talk to people who think they are against more immigration, or immigration at all, they'll give you the drill down, series of different issues, there are people who worry about the entitlement system, for every dollar joe

puts in to medicare he's going to get $3 out. therefore we should have fewer immigrants. that's not an argument against -- that's an argument against having children. everybody has that differential. people that don't like the extensive welfare program think immigrants can go on welfare. most of the people whose lives are damaged by welfare were born here. they tag immigrants with something else they are focused on, including education. gee at our schools they don't teach american history. i went to one of those schools, i was born here. they don't teach it very well. it's not just the immigrants getting the strong a public school system as we'd like. a lot of times when you talk, if you can explain to people what is it that bothers you? let's go reform the welfare system as clinton started to do. let's reform entitlements. have school choice. that's the way to fix things not to yet at 3% of the population and say it's their fault. >> i don't know -- you do have a

question? jim actually has a question. i see john harwood here, he always gets a question. john, you're next and then we wrap up. >> most viewers in this room and probably many watching the atlantic site would agree with the proposition that all three are advancing, i firmly believe, that immigration -- >> i'm just probing, not advancing. >> i'm advancing that immigration is what makes the united states different from other countries, strong, vital, etc., etc. i bet -- >> most people peal about your proposition, that g.o.p. votes are not significantly -- is the evidence you can show us, people moving on this issue within the republican party and becoming more accepting? >> before we get to grover, do you have thoughts on that, rahm? you have dealt with both parties? you are not just a democrat. had you a deal with republicans in moving legislation. >> i went back onboard? >> aren't there republicans in chicago? there have to be a few

republicans in chicago, right? a couple? >> let me not answer that question but use it for what i would like to say which is, you got two major things going on here. at a cross. when ronald reagan was president republicans had a lock electorally on the map, and democrats had a lock on the congressional map, and cultural issues worked on the republican side and against democrats. the cultural issues are shifting to democratic strong suit, democrats i wouldn't say close to a lock on the electoral map presidentially but beginning to slowly but surely show if you look at the history of how states are going, look at where florida, for example is today, where it was 10 years ago, and where it will be 10 years from now, true about arizona, blah, blah, blah. then you have what i think is really been a detriment to the

country and that is on the congressional side it's not the republicans have a lock, but the system is set up for the voters to pick their representatives and we now have because of technology, representatives pick their voters. and that has changed the politics. so while the cultural issues have shifted and the national map has shifted one way, we are trying to have a conversation in your party's interest and basically people are going to be republican members of congress immune from that argument, which is why i think at least on this argument is to pass immigration reform deal with a host of other issues, there has to be a permission slip to allow something to happen that you can oppose. that's a different discussion as long as the map, which is the map, is going to exist. >> interesting. >> grover? >> you have seen a lot of shift. most of my life i fought organized labor which was againsted more immigration, against allowing iraqi translators to come here because they were being threatened over there because that was immigration, that was bad. .

wages should come up and we should solve it. >> thank you. > grover and then --

>> you get more growth. people are in assets. the argument that it depresses wages, people have children, it depresses wages, there are more people. eople who talk like that -- he was off on his predictions. there are anti-people. how do you argue with people who think that people are the problem? and that's not something that sells as well. i think a more open and freer economy at all levels, including labor, makes the country stronger, the economy stronger, makes everybody better off. if we grew at 4% a year at reagan levels instead of 2% a year at obama levels, that's $2 trillion. that's a huge shift. more growth and having more open immigration, a bill like

the one they're looking at, would increase growth at about 1%, the c.b.o. got it. that's a lot of economic growth. that's a lot of opportunity. that's the e -- step in the correct direction. and i think arguing for let's not have a vote are doing so because they understand that every day the republican caucus is moving towards, yes, the last conference they had, they're going to a yes vote, they're going to do their own border thing, their own h-1-b thing. ey are not going to take things from the house. this is going to play out. this will be done through regular order. i think that -- boehner is making this move forward. >> mayor emanuel, your final thoughts. >> i think to john's question and it's hard to take that off

the gra fewties hits on boim and so my d.n.a. is kicking in. i can't wait to get the flight out of here and get back home. the fact is that i think that i'm optimistic for a different set of reasons why republicans will get there. and get this issue i think dispensed with. i don't think they think it's in their self-interest. i think it's a lot of party interests that are coming at the members because the members were there. they would be there already. you could have the vote now. and so i understand -- i think they're going to get there for a series of different reasons of internal republican caucus politics. i did not -- i talked about on small business and sales, but in illinois one of the number one computer, science and engineering schools in america, i think 40% of the patents comes from immigrants. so it is a classic example of at both on -- go with your

point, there's a lot of people trying to look at small businesses and set up their new family business, whether it's a restaurant or whatever, and there's a lot of high tech entrepreneurs who are here and it's not purely this -- you bring immigrants in and shove wages down kind of economics. there are a lot of entrepreneurs, a lot of inventors, a lot of people with startup capacity. and there isly a lot of -- we did this one example. micro lensing, people that were starting businesses that were too small without any background, without any history for banks and financial institutions. all of it almost all the applicants all immigrants just in the microlend really space. those are businesses that become a second restaurant or another dry cleaner. i'm telling you. there is a huge amount of entrepreneurial energy. the notion this is depressed upon wages i would see it as one of the great stabilizers for neighborhoods in economics.

>> in conclusion, i had our team at the atlantic scan hundreds and hundreds of policy i shall tuesday and we think we may have found maybe one. we have to talk to them. maybe one or issues where these two might agree on something. >> do not tell anybody we were here together. it would not work back home for me. sand it won't work well for him in washington. >> ladies and gentlemen, i want to thank the hispanic chamber of congress, also the folks from the mayor's office who helped put this together today. thank you so much. grover norquist, americans for tax reform, mayor rahm emanuel, good to see you. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> the house is coming back in at 5:00 eastern for a debate on a few bills dealing with easing

regulations on small airplanes and oil pipeline standards. later in the week, the house debates a couple bills postponing parts of a new health care law. the house rules committee is meeting about those bills this afternoon. the committee will decide how long the bills will be debated on the floor and which amendments, if any, will be allowed. we'll have that meeting live at 5:00 eastern on c-span3. senate leaders reaching a deal this morning to preserve the filibuster in exchange for senate confirmation of president obama's first director of the consumer financial protection bureau. as well as other nominees. we see there the flag flying over the capitol as the senate his morning voted 71-29 to begin debate of richard cordray who is the acting director of the bureau which would last up to eight hours. mr. cordray would only need 51 supporters for approval. here's the exchange between senate majority leader harry reid and senator john mccain about the negotiations on the deal that happened before the

vote on richard cordray. >> there are president, after the required amount of debate we'll move forward with the cordray nomination which has been held up for some period of time. i'd like to thank everybody on both sides of the aisle who have engaged in this debate and iscussion. i particularly like to thank all of my colleagues last night who engaged in a maybe long, which is our custom, but i think productive discussion of the many of the issues that separate us. particularly this impending

possible -- what many of us think crisis in the history of the united states senate. and i want to thank both our leaders, senator mcconnell and senator reid and so many others who have been actively engaged in the conversations that have been going on. i look forward to the vote as soon as possible on mr. cordray. i thank all of my colleagues for an evening i thought was very important in our relations in the united states senate. >> the majority leader. >> mr. president, we may have a way forward on this. i feel fairly confident. as you know that's why we need he time. so what we're going to do is go to quorum. i think everybody would be better -- would be well advised if they didn't talk a lot about substantive manners. if you want to talk about senator markey, that's fine.

we have a few little i's to dot and t's to cross. i have to speak to the vice president. we'll have a phone call with durbin, schumer and murray so everything is doing well. mr. president, i will say that i hope that everyone learned the lesson last night that it sure helps to sit down and talk to each other. either stand and talk and whatever it is. it was a very, very good meeting. it lasted four hours. people were still as highly engaged at the end of that four hours as they were at the beginning. so i think we seed a way forward that will be good for everybody. and i -- there are a lot of accolades to go around to a lot of people. and i certainly appreciate my onderful caucus. one of my senators told me this orning -- i don't mean this to

-- something like this will give a person a lot of humility. that person said it doesn't matter what you ask me to do 'll do it. so i will hope that we -- this s not a time to flex muscles but it's a time -- and i'm going to tell one person and no one else how much i appreciate heir advocacy, their ersuasiveness, persistence and -- trying to think of a word that really describes this man. it's hard to find. i was told by another senator, do you know what this man did? do you know who he reminds me of? bob kerry. i hope that doesn't disparage john mccain. john mccain is the reason we

are at the point we are. a lot of people have been extremely helpful. but this is all directed toward john mccain from me. no one was able to break through but for him. and he does his own peril. so everyone -- we're going to have caucuses today. we'll explain in more detail the direction we're headed. i think everyone will be happy. everyone will not be, oh, man, we got everything we wanted. but i think it's going for something that is good for senate. it is a compromise and i think we get what we want and they get what they want. not a bad deal. >> "the new york times" writes out of the deal on filibusters struck during late-night talks, meeting between senators charles schumer and john

mccain, they allowed on a nomination of mr. cordray and for ide two nomination the national relations board. replacement nominees will be confirmed before the end of the month. our live senate coverage continues on c-span2. senate armed services committee chairman and intelligence committee member carl levin was a guest at a breakfast for washington reporters hosted by the christian science monitor. he remarked about using the so-called nuclear option to change the senate rules for executive nominations. this is just over an hour. >> here we are. i'm dave cook from the monitor. last visit with the group was

in january of 2012 and we appreciate his willingness to come back. he's a graduate of harvard law. after graduation, he practiced and taught law, worked for the michigan civil rights commission and the apell ate public defenders office -- appellate public defenders office. he became the president, later served on the council until his lks to the senate in 1978. he's the longest serving senator in michigan history and his current term in 2014 will be his last. so much for biography. now to the popular process of the program. we're on the record. no live blogging, tweeting or filing while the breakfast is under way. there's no embargo when the session is over except that c-span has agreed not to use video of the session for at least one hour after the breakfast ends to give those of us in the room a chance to file. as many of you have heard me say ad nauseam, if you'd like to ask a question, send me a

subtle nonthreatening signal and i'd be happy to call. i'd like an opportunity to have brief comments around the table. thanks for doing this again, sir. >> thank you, dave. out you, all, for coming this morning. my legislative director is with me. i thought i'd start off with a couple of minutes of remarks about what the senate is embroiled in at the moment. dave mentioned their words ever popular before the word process. and that kind of goes to the heart of the matter. but the senate is debating -- what the senate is debating is process. that's not the least bit

popular. there's irony in his words. there's no irony in my words. process is not something that the people care much about. they care about results. how you get there is not much in their minds understandably. and when you folks report on it's not of issues, very much in the front and center of your reports. understandably. he public wants results. but the senate has a process, and the question is whether or not that process now is going to be changed by a majority of the senate. hat is the fundamental question which will be decided later this morning is whether or not the rules of the senate ill be changed by a majority

of the senate. can the majority change the rules whenever it wants like the house of representatives? the rules committee. every day they adopt new rules. they can change the house rules by a majority in whatever they want. e senate by its rules says that the debate -- this is where the subtley comes in but it goes to the heart of the matter, the debate on rules of the asts until 2/3 senate ends the debate. and so for shorthand you and we 2/3 of t now it takes the senate to change the rules. technically that's not true. it's a majority that votes ultimately if there's cloture's invoked or debate has ended, it's a majority that changes

the rule that votes on the change. just the way on a filibuster on legislation or on judges' nominees, it takes 60 votes to end debate so we sometimes say t takes a supermajority to get something passed in the senate. that's only true to end debate on an issue. not on the issue itself. now, the reason that distinction is critically important is that process is important in any legislative body that has any protection or the minority. and the senate has protected the minority with a process. that process has been abused. that process has also been used by the likes of me, a democrat, and by members of my party to

stop some things from happening which we believe very strongly should not happen. we prevented the confirmation of judges who we thought were rigid ideologues who could not be objective judges. we have prevented -- and this is just in recent years -- the prestrixes on reproductive rights of women. we didn't have a majority, but we had 60 -- we had 41 votes. enough to stop those changes from happening. we were able to prevent a -- an amendment which would have inflicted on all of our states -- in es of other states other words. if my state -- my state's a bad example, but if a state has a law that says you can't carry a concealed weapon, there was an amendment in front of the senate just a few months ago which said, but if a visitor to

hat state comes from a state which allows you to carry a concealed weapon, then that person, that visitor has a right to carry a concealed weapon when visiting the state. we stopped that. we didn't have a majority. we had a minority of more than 40 that was able to stop it. and so the issue before the senate, the issue before the senate is whether or not a can ty of the senate effectively change the rules at will just the way the majority of the house can change the rules at will. and i just want to end here by quoting a michigan senator. many years ago arthur vandenburg, republican from michigan, was facing a similar situation.

this issue, believe me, has been debated over the last century at least. there were civil rights legislation in front of the senate. he favored that civil rights legislation. he was a strong proponent of civil rights. it was being filibustered. and the question was then hether or not the senate would by fiat change the rule relative to cutting off debate. in this case it was on the egislation itself. and what he said, and he voted substantive wn provision, what he says applies today. if the majority of the senate can change the rule if at any ime, quote, there are no rules except the unregulated wishes .f a majority

so do i favor changing the rule about executive appointments getting a vote? you bet you. i believe the president -- and i believe a majority of the senate believe that the president ought to have his or her nominees voted on and not filibustered. i believe that. but t to change the rule not by fiat, not by breaking a rule which says that it takes 2/3 of the senate to end debate on a rules change. so this is longer than the few minutes i planned on talking. it's at the heart of the issue today. not whether we change a rule so that presidents are guaranteed

they can get votes on their nominees. again, i favor that change. rule and u change the whether or not the majority of the senate can become then the -- determiner unilaterally, whether they can change the rules, whether it's today on nominees, tomorrow on judges, the day after tomorrow on legislation. we're going to go to trisha christina. you will get a lot of questions about the nuclear option. let me ask you about two other subject areas. one about sexual assault in the military. as you know there was a "new york times" story over the weekend talking about the impact of president obama's comments about sexual assault saying they should be

rosecuted, stripped of their positions, court martialed, dishonorably discharged. military defense lawyers cited that as command influence. question, how badly did the president mess up in terms of placing obstacles in a prosecutor's way? >> i'm going to let the courts decide that. i'm an old defense lawyer. if i were representing a defendant i would probably make the same argument. i will not decide that on who wins that argument. the president was not referring, i don't believe, to any specific case so the argument i guess would be on the part of the prosecutor. there's no command influence in this case. these are generalized comments of a president. the president, of course, is he's the commander in chief. if the jurors, whoever those jurors are in that court

martial, i think would have to be asked by the defense counsel, are they familiar with them and does it go through the usual process of questioning jurors and then if there is a finding of a guilt in that case, then there would be an appeal to the court of military appeals. there is a process to resolve that issue. and i'd rather not comment on it because maybe then, because i'm chairman of the armed services committee, my comments could be viewed as command influence. >> let me ask you a related conference. as you know there is a press conference later this morning whether senators paul and cruz are going to be join with senator gillibrand in her effort to get, you know, votes to take sexual assault cases out of the chain of command. the political story this morning saying she had 32 votes before-hand. what's your take on the way this issue is moving?

do you see -- what do you see? >> well, the armed services committee on a bipartisan vote adopted major changes in the rules and laws on sexual assault. the problem is being dealt with, has been dealt with in our legislation in many, many ways. the most important thing we do is to make sure that the victim or the alleged victim of an assault has an opportunity to work with a special counsel that will be whose ethical obligation is to vet the victim . and there's major changes which has to happen. the problem is that if you remove the chain of command, you're taking away from the command, their chain of command, the club that they need to change the culture which is the club of being able to prosecute somebody. if you take away -- and we've

had testimony from the commanders here, including a number of women commanders who say we've got to change this culture. we need that club. from us ve that club which is the ability to prosecute, because it is that which helps us change this culture. we commanged it relative to race. -- we've changed it relative to race. we've changed it relative to sexual orien fashion. we commanders command, order changes. by the way, the military in some respects was the head of the country when it came to changing discrimination against african-americans. they were ahead of the rest of the country because they had commanders which finally said it's going to end, it's going to end here. and we're going to enforce it. if anybody opens their yap and makes comments of people of other races or ethnic groups, we're going to deal with it as commanders. behind them was the force being able to court martial, prosecute. so the commanders are telling

us we will weaken their ability to end the sexual assaults and the other types of sexual misconduct. if you take this out of the chain of command. i don't know where the votes will be on that issue when it comes to the floor, but on a bipartisan basis, including a number of republicans, male, female, democrats, republicans, by a pretty sizeable majority in the armed services committee felt the last thing we want to do is weaken the -- not just the power but the -- we have to have accountability on those commanders. accountability for their climate. and we do that in our bill as ell. we add accountability for the commanders if they fail to change the climate inside of their command. >> trisha. >> good morning, senator. i was wondering if you could talk about what's going on with

getting aid to egypt right now. there's been talk that the ited states has a lot of options to continue giving aid even though there is a decision it was a coup. what options might you be able to have? what's your position on that issue? >> i think we ought to suspend the tade which the law says needs to be suspended which is is by military aid which its own terms, the law's own terms, must be taken away, suspended in the event there's either a coup or where the military by decree is operating. the word coup is in the statute as a grounds to stop the aid. again, this applies on the nonmilitary side. the president has on military side to do the same thing. we ought to follow that law.

we ought to follow all of our laws. i don't know of anything new in this area. people have expressed their opinion on it. my hunch is there is not the votes. the nonmilitary aid is required. we believe, as rurd by law. i think all of us hope the military will live up to what they say they'll do which is to move to a constitution which protects the rights of all egyptians of all faiths and backgrounds and ethnic origin and so forth. we hope that the military lives up to their commitment to then have elections following the constitution. if that's so the aid could always be restored. i think until the actions take place rather than just to the statements of commitment that we ought to keep that portion of the aid suspended. >> christina. >> could you explain a little bit more about, you know, the

suspension of nonmilitary aid versus military aid? i read the law and 1.3 billion that is military aid -- if it were determined to be a coup, i am confused on that part. >> i believe that the law , not to the aid portion the military assistance portion, but the aid, the economic aid part of the assistance program. i'm pretty sure that's true. you could check it out. either way it's not all of it. i may have them reversed. i don't think so. you can check that out. as far as the portion that's not bound by that language, the president would have the authority of course to do that without being required to do that by law. >> will we then go ahead with the f-16 transfers? >> i don't know -- >> regardless it's a coup or not?

>> i don't know what the president's decision is. that's within his discretion. >> sorry. i have a second question. >> go ahead. >> i heard you speak last week at carnegie. you eloquently stated the risks of inaction on syria. what are the risks -- the real risks of getting further involved in syria and the usage f standoff weapons targeting assad tanks and military action, how can we do that? > how do we weigh the risks? >> how can we use -- is it reasonable to use standoff weapons to achieve our goals in syria? >> i believe it's reasonable. are you saying is it feasible? >> feasible? >> it is. depending on the targets. there are targets which standoff weapons can reach, including some air fields,

including airplanes that are on those air fields. including other targets, command, control targets. there may be some -- i got to be careful here. there may be some missile sites, scud missile sites that can be reached. there may be clusters of artillery that can be reached. you can make a -- you can have a significant impact without violating syrian airspace and israel's done that, by the way. israel has done exactly that. from all the reports. >> and the risks of getting involved? it might be a -- end up being a step to getting in deeper instead of supporting

the syrians, which is what i think we ought to do, that we can somehow become more directly involved. i don't think that's anybody's intent. nobody wants to put boots on the ground. and i think the folks, like me, others, senator mccain and others who want to raise the military pressure on assad wrant to help the syrian forces, the opposition to do that, in terms of training and equipping and considering at east some kind of a standoff move against targets which are people.ed to hurt the a million people so far that have been hit by this regime and the slaughter continues in homes. this regime doesn't avoid

collateral damage. it's goal is collateral damage, to terrorize innocent people out of their homes. it bombs neighborhoods, villages, wipes them out with refugee creating flows. so the outcome here it's got a huge impact in the region. almost every country in the region wants to get assad out of there. if assad survives this, hezbollah will be strengthened because they are at his side fighting. as a matter of fact, those foreign fighters are making a difference for assad in terms of shifting the momentum in his direction which has been the case recently. so in terms of training and equipping the syrians, not alone. we can't do this -- we need to be part of a renal national group, and that's -- regional group and that's why senator

king and i came back from jordan and from turkey about a week ago now we urged the president to convene a group of countries that want assad to be removed. that's motion of the countries in the region. to plan on increasing the military pressure by helping the syrian opposition to become stronger. they are in the -- they are in the clear majority, by the way, in syria. we help to - if provide the weapons and the training and consider at least going after some of these targets which would weaken the a position outside of syria without even invading or moving into syrian airspace, we can make a difference, but we can't do that unilaterally. we shouldn't make a mistake going into iraq.

a double mistake going in. the second mistake was to do that without the support of the region or the international community. we can't make those mistakes again. >> we're going to go next to jerry. mark, anna, john, paul and michael. jerry. >> [inaudible] talked about changing the culture. it reminds me over time the culture has changed a lot in the military. there was a time when the idea of gays in the military was strongly opposed to commanders. when women in combat was strongly opposed by commanders. do you worry that the culture will change in a way that will push the military towards senator gillibrand's point of view on this? or is this issue fundamentally different in a way that will prevent the military and congress from ever agreeing to take this responsibility away from the chain of command? >> first of all, cases can be

prosecuted now civilly outside of the chain of command. right now. that power exists. by the way, there are many cases, many, many cases where civilian prosecutors, just local prosecutors have refused to prosecute but were then the military did prosecute. i want to repeat that. ok. right now civilian prosecution is available. the victims can simply go to a local cop and say i've been assaulted. it will be investigated. local prosecutors can and have prosecuted cases. that is available right now.

the experience is that in many cases we don't have an overall total statistic but in dozens and dozens and dozens of cases where the local prosecutorses have decided not to prosecute, the military has decided to prosecute with success. so i don't know if that answers your questions. all i can say is this. the military commanders have been told we're going to -- we're ending don't-ask, don't-tell. make it work. i will never forget the commandant of the marine corps who before our committee said don't make us do this. don't repeal don't-ask, don't-tell. it's going to be a problem. and general amos stated what he believed. he said the following -- if you do change, marines will make it

work. we take orders. we will make it work. we don't think it's the right thing to do, but if you make the decision it will happen. couple months later he said we are making it work. he thought again about the decision. he said it probably was the right decision. we made it work with race. and it's commanders who make it work because they give orders. they discipline people who violate those orders and that's what you want with these -- not just obviously sexual assaults but with the climate which ultimately leads to sexual assaults, you got to change that climate. everyone agrees to that. commanders are the winds that change the climate. so you not only want them to have the power to discipline, to implement their orders, you also got to hold them accountable. that's one of the things our bill does.

and should do. hold commanders accountable when being judged -- being judged on their own performance. to be judged on climate, inside their units. and it's -- ok. >> al. >> two-part. -- two part question. i gather that there is no progress made towards avoiding confrontation from last night at your meeting. >> a lot of folks said we should avoid this and urged the leaders to find a way to avoid it. a lot of people spoke. myself, i indicated, as i said here, i cannot support this. there may only be a few other

democrats when this comes to a vote -- i guess when, not if -- late they are morning. i was clear with my leader on this. i was clear when the republicans tried this five years ago or eight years ago. read those speeches. read those speeches. they're there. i think you can punch a button these days and find out what ted kennedy had to say about this subject or joe biden. or harry reid. so now the leaders are in a position of flipping their positions. the republicans were threatening it eight years ago i guess it was. 2005. on judges. and we spoke against it. i spoke against it. i can't just say now we're in the majority. so now it's ok for the majority

to change the rules of the senate whenever it wants at will? as arthur vanderberg said. i don't know if i answer your question. let me ask you a question. if i didn't answer your question, please repeat it. the answer is -- there was no specific progress last night but hopefully the seeds of progress were planted that a whole bunch of folks, including a whole bunch of democrats, urged our leaders to find a way to avoid this. >> second part of my question. you said most people probably don't believe, care much about progress. i suspect that's true for the people of detroit. and n't you agree that you senator stabenow, including your brother, would be better off devoting most of their time to helping detroit avoid its

likely fate as a failed city which it appears to be? >> most of our time? >> sorry? >> would we be better off spending -- >> better off spending most of your time -- >> my time? >> yeah. >> i spend a lot of time on that subject. i live in detroit and always have lived in detroit. i'm an old local official. my wife and i raised our kids in detroit. we live in the city so i spend a lot of time doing what we can to help detroit come back from this perch. not a perch from this position. perch sounds like a -- anywrace. and that's in lots of ways we've done that. on the transportation side recently. on new kind of light rail transportation. our river front development in terms of getting a whole new beginning of river front development, on the automobile industry which is critical to the future of my city and my

state. time on d a lot of the future of the city and the future of my state. ironically, my city's coming back. it's coming back strong. i know counterrin tuesday tif to folks. -- i know it's counterintuitive to folks. google the word shy nola -- shine hola. you want to see one thing going out of hundred things going on, google that word. guy from texas -- detroit is on its way back. i say this from someone that knows almost every block of my city. there are parts of detroit which are devastated. you not only see pictures, i wish you could go take pictures the parts of detroit that are

coming back strong because young people are moving into the city because they want to be where the action is and the action right now is going big. -- owns guy who is quicken loans. moved dozens of jobs downtown detroit. he believes young people want to work and live. we got probably 20 vacant buildings downtown half of which i worked in as a lawyer 50 years ago that have been vacant that are now danny gilbert's -- one guy. there are a lot of other things going on besides one guy. i mention the word -- i mentioned the word to you shinola to you. this is probably i'm afraid a daveiation from your schedule, but -- daveiation from your schedule. deviation from your

schedule. you see the pictures which are real and painful and maybe bankruptcy is what's going to happen to remove a bunch of debt which is there which is dragging us down. the other half which is going on is an amazing story. one guy from texas which owned some furnishing place. fossel. there may be guys around the table. highly successful thing. sells his company for $400 million. guy from texas. he uses that to bring manufacturing back to america. he focuses on detroit. so now he's investing in detroit. now we're building bicycles in detroit. top of the line bicycles. hard to buy them, by the way. but i watched them being built downtown. we're making watches. great shinola detroit watches. you remember that super bowl game where chrysler said

imported from detroit? remember that? kind of shocked people. well, people are getting over their shock. we're coming back as a manufacturing country and as a state and as a city we're coming back. the sburel spirit in detroit is amaze -- the sburel spirit in detroit is amazing. we have hundreds of young people that are involved in stuff i don't understand quite frankly. you know, creating apps for every damn thing in the world. hundreds of them. are you can't get -- you can't buy a condo in detroit. danny gilbert's turning these vacant buildings into condos. you can't even buy one they're so busy. that's the other half of detroit. so to answer your question, yeah, we spend a lot of time. part of it is trying to turn around the image of detroit to make sure people see the half i just described as well as the blighted half which is real. it's real. believe me. i know how real it is.

i get carried away by my love of detroit. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to circle back again to sexual assault in the military. you described the state of problems as if it is an event when reality it has been an epic. earlier in your career, halfway through your career there was aberdeen. for the past several years of your career this is lackland air force base. this has been a persistent problem. it gets back to what the military legal scholar says. the job of the commander is the health and welfare and well-being of his troops. but he's got a soldier with appendicitis. he doesn't take his appendix out. in the same way this pernicious problem needs to be dealt with like appendicitis is. why isn't he right after decades of this problem? >> because it's been proven in the military you want to change

things you got to have commanders who are held accountable to change things. bad things got to be changed. they've been changed in the military. in some cases like race, frankly, faster than our own society. i'm an own civil rights lawyer. i was attorney for the michigan civil rights commission when it came into existence in 1963. i know how tough it is to change racial attitudes. i know how tough it is. but the military actually finally after all kinds of near riots inside the barracks during the vietnam war, they finally did something. they decided they were going to use affirmative action and they were going to -- that's number one. number two, the commanders were going to put a stop to it and they were going to be held accountable. you have to hold commanders accountable for changing the culture. that has not been done yet. it will be done under our law. commanders are going to be held accountable for the climate inside of their units. so that's the difference.

i don't know about the appendicitis thing. the best i guess analogy is. if you want to anational the gentleman is recognized racial prestigious or sexual misconduct to appendicitis -- that's your analogy, not mine, take it out. how do you take it out? the commander is the right person to get at racial discrimination, gender discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination. it's been proven. the problem is with -- in this area, the commanders have not been held accountable and they will be held accountable under our law. our bill. our bill. there's 20 provisions or more in our bill on sexual misconduct. we're going to hold commanders accountable and they need to change that climate. but you know what, it's interesting because gillibrand approach doesn't do anything in the area -- moving the decision maker on prosecution, that decision maker is now a colonel.

with 3,000 to 10,000 people under his or her compland. that doesn't -- that doesn't change the behavior at the lower level. victims here are intimidated. they don't report or are ashamed. the decision by panetta's decision changed the decision maker on whether to prosecute, to higher up in the chain of command, to get away from any kind of buddy system. so now it's a colonel. -- by the way, what we do what we do in our bill, we say if there was an allegation of sexual assault, one of four crimes, if -- if there's an allegation, if that does not the o a prosecution, decision then is bumped up to a

general officer. now that's never been done before. that's in our bill. i think i said it accurately and clearly. it's a very important change in our bill. how we -- how we're going to hold that colonel accountable who decides not to. and if the j.a.g. officer for that colonel recommends prosecution and the colonel says no -- this is rare but it's happened -- then the head of the department, secretary of the army, secretary of the navy will then have to make the decision. you talk about putting -- bringing about change but we do this without doing something which doesn't relate to the problem. the problem is the prosecutor, the colonel doesn't make a decision to prosecute, no one is showing that as a problem.

the problem is at that lower report, the fear to the pressure at the lower level, intimidation. god, you'll mess up things in our unit if you report this. that's the problem. we got to change that and do change that in some very powerful ways. >> senator, james clyburn has been accused of lying to congress in his testimony. do you feel he's been held suitably accountable to lying to congress? >> i'm troubled by that testimony obviously. i don't know how he's tried to wiggle out from it. i'm troubled by it. -- how do you hold him accountable? i guess the only way to do that would be for the president to somehow or another fire him.

i think he's made it clear he regrets saying what he said. i don't want to call on the president to fire him, although i'm troubled by it. so i'll leave it at that. >> can i ask a follow-up question? you serve both on armed services and the intelligence ommittee, as anna's question implied. o you feel fully informed? on what the national security agency is up to? >> on this issue i was adequately informed. not at the beginning where only the leaders of the intelligence committee were brought into it before it happened. but later on down the road -- and i don't remember the exact years -- we were informed about an issue. i don't think we were informed other half of the

problem. i forgot the exact name at the moment. he prison issue. i don't want to duck responsibility that way. i just think i feel adequately informed. do i think this is an issue which has got huge ramifications? it does. technologies have opened up capabilities which have been unthought of until now and we got to deal with that issue. in principle it's not much different, frankly, from when i was born i think probably there operators who were connecting long distance calls. so operators would keep a record of long distance calls and you would be billed on it. so the telephone companies had the billings in their records. and then comes a totally

different age where now it's all computerized but now if those records can be put into a -- kept in a form where they can be accessed instead of going back into paper records in principle is this much different than going back into paper records and phone calls? maybe not in principle but i tell you in practice it's a heck of a lot different to be able to punch a button and find every call, if you meet the cry tear combra that are in the -- criteria that are in the law to know every single call i made, it's got to be looked at very, very carefully to see if this technology now has the greater potential, the greater potential -- and it does. i shouldn't say if. this technology has a greater potential to invade our privacy, period. they can't look at the substance of my conversations, but they can find out a heck of

a lot about me what phone calls i make. and that capability, that technology is something we need to think through because there are pluses to it in terms of catching bad guys and there are minuses to it in terms of abuses. j. edgar hoover, if this technology were in the hands of j. edgar hoover, would i feel comfortable? no. but on the other hand, i wasn't comfortable with j. edgar hoover with his technologies. >> there is a report that the n.s.a., c.i.a. provided hezbollah with rovings information provided attacks on of al qaeda against hezbollah within shiia neighborhoods. it raised question, there are a lot of al qaeda elements working with the rebels in syria and the sharing of information, it seems to counter a little bit.

does this raise concerns for an that we're getting awfully close working with al qaeda? >> it's a weird place over there, i tell you. i won't comment on reports for two reasons. number you're telling me about classified reports now it's third hand, without -- without to demand the numb of hands you've got, it may be second hand, but whatever it is, even if i knew it i wouldn't tell you because it's probably classified. i don't know any more than what you've told me and i'm not going to comment on that. >> sharing information about hezbollah, generally. >> sharing information with your enemy because your enemy is dealing with a worse enemy at the moment? is that complex? of course it is. but -- if it happens. in general. but you know, i'm not going to -- i can't comment on whether or not it's appropriate because i don't know the circumstances and

if i did i couldn't comment on them anyway. >> we've got about 13 minutes left. we're going to go to paul bedard and others. >> so aye got about 10 seconds to answer? >> you just keep answering. >> i'd like to talk about how hagel has done in his first couple of months. what's your view of how he's done but more importantly are you disappointed prince fielder didn't repeat as home run champion? > yeah, it's coming back despite the short-term setback. when we knock the yankees out to when the pennant, that's proof of it. we don't have to win the world series, if we beat the yankees to the pennant, that's more important than the world series, as far as i'm concern. i think i've lost about half my audience here, at least.

the -- i'm sorry. hagel, i think he's doing great. i mean if you ask me to give you examples how he's doing great, i'd say he's -- >> you can see all of this after the house goes out in prime time tonight here on c-span. the senate is expected to approve richard cordray as head of the banking commission. here are comments on this. >> it really was her idea and unflagging support of the cfpb that's brought us to this happy day where we're a step closer to confirming richard cordray, which is a giant leap forward for consumer protection in the united states. i had the prive lem of working with chairman johnson and others on the committee, including my colleague, senator durbin who is a majority whip, in making sure that this provision stayed within the mark and we were able

to come to a successful conclusion with dodd-frank. but today is a day in which we really are sort of on the verge of standing up and fully authorizing the cfpb. it took us a while to get here but with a permanent director, we can regulate financial progress from nonbanks, including debt collector, payday lenders and check cashers. one point, this is going to even the playing field, no longer a regulated banking sector and unregulated nonbank bank sector that could pull in the opposite direction. e're going to have, we hope, consistent regulation that's going to be thoughtful. i believe that's going to be the keas. we have new mortgage rules, stronger oversight of wall street, and also the cfpb was organized really to play a major role along with our other regulators in preventing financial fraud, protecting

responsible financial institutions and ensuring fair competitions. most of all and particularly it was created to protect consumers. protect them by educating them, protect them by regulating financial transactions and doing that in a way that would provide for transparent marketplace that would benefit both consumers and businesses. financial education has been one of their key areas of concern. they have been given rule making powers to not only educate the public but also to preempt and head off unfair, deceptive and abuse i financial practices and products. it has already returned, more than $425 million to consumers. six million consumers are benefiting from the cfpb already. i'm particularly pleased because i've worked to incorporate within the cfpb, the office of service members affairs which is led by holly petraeus, and we

are paying particular attention to the plight of men and women of the armed services who many times find themselves, because they're away from home, at the mercy of financial operators who aren't as scrupulous as they should be, i learned that as a lieutenant and captain in the 82nd airborne division, counseling troop, trying to rite letters to people dunning them for loans they never should have been given in the first place. that's one thing i'm pleased to see take place. we are going forward with director cordray to not only seek input from the public but also from financial services industry. one of the most refreshing things has been the reception by some business leaders to richard cordray saying he's been fair, he's been transparent, he's listened to us, he has made appropriate changes and that's the kind of regulatory

environment we want to continue. not only has this bureau shown it to be effective but basically what it has done is demonstrated that a transparent, competitive marketplace is good for consumers and it's good for businesses. so we're very pleased today that we're moving forward on the formal confirmation. with that, let me recognize the visionary who prodded us, inspired us, cajoled us and her we should recognize vision, senator elizabeth warren. >> thank you. thank you, senator reed, i am delighted to stand here today with senator reed. it was nearly four years ago when i first came to see him with nothing more than an idea. and a great sales pitch. how about you take on some of the most powerful lobbyists in order to build an agency that

would help a lot of families across the country. and senator reed said yes. and he was there from the beginning. he was there from the beginning in the design and there from the beginning in fighting to get it through in the dodd-frank bill. and he also rightly pointed out, it was his idea, to put in an office of service member affairs, that's one of those little lines in a bill sometimes that you don't pay a lot of attention to, it turned into something amazing. holly petraeus now runs it. it has gotten homes back for service members who were cheated out of them. it's done a recent recovery for service members tricked on car loan, getting about $6.5 million back. it's been out there advocating and educating, providing a place for veterans, active duty folks to learn about their right, learn better about what that

financial marketplace looks like. it's got a strong advocate in holly pe troy treyus and that's all there twhifes leadership of jack reed. so i'm just delighted to have a chance to say publicly how grateful i am. i also want to say how grateful am to senator johnson, chair of the banking committee, who so carefully so patiently, saw through a big and complicated dodd-frank bill and protected this consumer agency and made sure that we would get the strong watchdog that the american people deserved. t's been two years that rich cordray has been waiting for his vote and now he's going to get -- we've got one more vote go but it's clear, the consumer agency has survived. it has survived. this confirmation means that the consumer financial protection bureau is the law. it is here to stay. this confirmation means that the

american people get the watchdog that they deserve. they get a watchdog that will help push tricks and traps out of the financial system. help get rid of the fine print and help hold large financial institutions accountable. this confirmation means that big change is possible. here in washington, sometimes goliath loses to david, and that's what's happened this time. so i'm very pleased to be here with you. senator reed -- i'm very pleased to be here with you, senator reed. i'll take any questions. >> much of the debate over the last few years has been focused on republicans demanding three ignificant changes in the cfpb to consider a nominee. now that that's been put aside, is tre any interest in making

ther changes now that that intractable debate is set i side? >> i'm going to ask senator war ton comment also but any time we can approve an agency we should do that but the design of the cfpb was similar to the financial regulatory agencies where you have a director, their operations are essentially funded not through the appropriations process but through the assessment process, and as a result what you have is the ability to -- and the independence -- to operate in the best interests, in this case, of consumers. so i think the overall design is something we feel very, very strongly about but if there's can be le issues that -- textual issues that can be improved we'll be happy to consider them. >> to add to what senator reed said, he's right, of course, you want to consider any improvements to any agency and

the consumer agency is no exception. but we built a good, strong agency and no one is looking to weaken it. and so i think we'll just stand firm there >> can you describe if there was any comments last night that moved the ball forward or what it was like in the room? and then what's -- how are things for the cfpb different today for consumers or for their customers, for the banks work cordray confirmed? >> i'll let elizabeth comment on that. >> you can comment on -- >> the spirit of the room was a candid discussion which discussed publicly would undermine that spirit, i think it's a good spirit that we should continue not preempt. so let me then ask senator warren to comment upon where the vis-a-vis where it

was yesterday. >> any cloud of uncertainty hanging over the consumer agency has disappeared. the consumer agency is here to stay, here to stay in a strong form. >> and i would add too, something that i think elizabeth knows better than i, but this is an extraordinary individual. a great public servant. someone whose hadder -- who has earned the respect of everyone who has had the privilege to deal with him and endeed in the financial industry also. but we have someone who i think can build a strong organization based upon his skill. so i think we're doubly lucky, one we have a director but two, we have richard cordray as director. >> what about legislation to create a dedicated inspector general for the cfpb, is that

something you'd object to? >> i think that's something we should look at. i mean, i don't have a predisposition either way. i think first of all, what we want to do and i think again, i i'm next to the person who was the architect but i think our notion was, in order to have the kind of sort of fwrave it's a and also effectiveness -- gravitas and also effectiveness like the other banking regulators, they have to be built along similar lines. so i'd be curious tooze what is the situation with the inspector general's o.c.c., etc. but that's something that's in the process of a hearing we can asily undertake. that's the kind of data we'll look for. the senator is a very thoughtful

individual, someone who is very serious and whose proposals have to be considered seriously. >> i think senator reed said it all. >> when you look back, what do you think the catalyst was for this to get decided right now, being that it took two year for senator warren. what do you think led to this moment? >> i'd put it with two parts. one is, i think we've made the strong case for the consumer agency. or i'll put it differently, the consumer agency put a strong keas for the consumer agentcism it's been there two years, doing the job, recovering money from -- for families that have been cheated, providing a complaint hotline for people who have been tricked, protecting our service members, our seniors, o students. it's been out there doing the job and riched orray has been

doing the job. o years ago, when he and i stood next to president obama in the rose garden, he was known for his terrific background, for having been a strong attorney general in ohio, but no one knew what kind of director he would be for the consumer agency. we've had two years of rich being a terrific director. and so i think that has been a powerful part of this conversation. i think it's faferse -- fair to say that not only as the industry praised rich, the cent unions have supported him, consumers groups all around the country, but here's part of it. both democrats and republicans have said that he is doing an excellent job. so i think that was a big part of getting us to where we are today. we now have information. we have facts, we have seen it

work. it has worked. >> a final question. >> do you think that there's more that the agency and potentially richard cordray have more credibility because the nuclear option wasn't used to get him confirmed or does that not matter? >> i think what matters, and in many respects i'll echo what senator warren said, they'vest tab learned credibility and legitimacy, fairness, with not only the consumers and american peculiar but with the financial industry. when you get comments from the industry that they were sort of surprised at how open-minded, how thoughtful, how attentive they were to, you know, making their rules effective and efficient, that's a good sign. and then, you know, $425 million being returned to people, that's a practical benefit. i think basically echoing

again elizabeth, the record that's been established, this is an agency that works. now it's going to be, you know, fully the ployed and unquestioned in terms of its authority. that's a good day for everyone. >> it is. actually, i'll add for that, forgive me for two seconds being extra dorky here. it is an interesting point, right in the heart of this, when commerce passed dodd-frank three years ago right now, there was a real concern among some about would the agency be able to do what it aspired to do? we knew what its intent was and built a structure we thought would work, but would it really take off? and so congress took the sition, the senate did, of let's put a belt and suspenders on this, we'll build the consumer agency and give them authority to write the rules on mortgages going forward. remember, this economy was

broken, one lousy mortgage at a time. so the question of what to do in the mortgage market was probably the most central consumer issue of the moment. to put a set of rule into dodd frank saying, if the consumer agency doesn't come up with rules, here's what controls. here are the new rules. these will go into effect automatically. rich cordray led the agency through the process of developing the rules for issuing new mortgages. they have been so widely applauded by consumer groups, by industry groups who say this helps us get to a cleaner, more honest mortgage market, a level playing field, and senator reed that senator reed said, essentially everybody wanted it. if you don't go back to the dodd-frank rule well, like what this agency is doing. that's one more example. it partly goes to answer your

question too. the agency proved itself in multiple ways and on the hardest task it was given. it proves within two years it could do a darn good job on behalf of the american people. >> thank you all very much. thank you. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> we just heard from senator the set he helped lead up of consumer financial protection bureau as an assistant to the president. we want to let you know the house is coming back in in about 40 minutes from now at 5:00 eastern for debate on a few bills dealing with easing regulations on small airplanes and oil pipeline standards. late they are week, the house debates a couple of bills postponing parts of the new

health care law. the house committee is meeting about those bill this is afternoon and we'll have that lye on c-span3. sense moving forward on the richard cordray nomination, they're moving through up to eight hours of debate with a final vote expected today. under a deal last night, the senate allowed a vote on the nomination of richard cordray but set aside the nomination on two acomponentees the president appointed during a senate recess. but they were aloud to have replacement nominees. here are the senate republicans and democrats after their weekly party meetings where they talked about the deal on filibusters.

>> good afternoon,ern. --ern. as you -- good afternoon, everyone. as you know, we have reached an understanding of how to go forward. just to give you a history of my recommendations on this issue, i recommended back in january that the president send up two new nominees for the nlrb since obviously the two nominees who ere currently on the nlrb were unconstitutionally appointed according to a majority decision in the district court of the district of columbia. a couple of weeks ago, i renewed the conversation with the vice president and sugg scrested that the way out of the -- suggested that the way out of the dilemma that seemed to be heading our way was to send up two new nominees. so i'm pleased that the

administration is going to send up two nominee, senator alexander has been in discussions about thousand process those nominations in the health committee and we anticipate that the regular order will be followed. hearings, markups and the like. and there will be an effort made to get them up for votes before the august recess. we are also moving forward to try to reach an agreement on a ay to process the additional nominations the majority is interested in. the understanding is that none waived, i ts will be mean, for example, 60-vote thresholds on controversial nominees will still have to be achieved. so in a sense that's the regular way that we handle business here in the senate. and we are pleased that the majority decided not to exercise the nuclear option. we think that's in the best

interest of the institution. i would say about our meeting last night, it struck me that it was unique in the sense that first of all virtually everybody was there on a borne basis. it went on, as you know, for three and a half hours. almost everybody was able to say , who chose to say something, was able to say what they thought. i thought it was really good for the institution, for us to be talking to each other rather than at each other and i think led to a constructive outcome and opportunity to get back to normal. we had actually had prior to this threatened blowup a pretty good year from a senator point of view in the sense that we had followed regular order on three major billsing members have been able to have multiple amendments and bills at the end of the day like the farm bill and immigration, very controversial measure, ended up passing the senate, that's the way we used

to do business around here. and hopefully we can continue to operate that way in the balance of this year. thank you. >> i'm glad that six months after senator mcconnel asked the white house to withdraw these two controversial nlrb nominees who were unconstitutionally appointed that they've decided, the white house decided to take the nuclear trigger out of senator reed's hand and withdraw -- out of senator reid's hand and withdraw the nominees. i'm glad we are where we are but more importantly i think it gives us an opportunity to pivot back to the people's business and to deal with the things that my constituents in texas and i think people around the country are most concerned about, and that is slow economic growth, high unemployment, how to we get america back to work, how do we deal with the evolving train wreck that is obama care -- and that's in the words of one of the chief architects, a democrat, the chairman of the senate finance committee.

what's the next step? you are pro-obama care or opposed to obama care, it is failing before our eyes. what are we going to do to make sure the american people have high quality access to affordable health care. that's the business we ought to be about. >> while i, like my colleagues, am pleased that the democrats have desaied to pull back from a move that would have been very destructive to the workings of the senate and like my colleagues, i hope now that we can focus on the people's business and the things that people across this country really care about. you know, i think the democrats like to have these discussions about process because it distracts people from what is important to people across this country and it distracts people from their record and policies which are harmful to jobs and the economy. most americans care about jobs and the economy if you listen to

any public opinion poll more than they care about just about anything else. the democrat policies with regard that to those issues have given us this chronic high unemployment, sluggish growth, and less take-home pay for most ordinary, middle class americans. just this week, on sunday, senator reid went on one of the morning talk shows and said obamacare has been wonderful for america. wonderful for who? you've got lots of families seeing their premiums go up by as much as $2,500. you have lots of people across this country who are having more difficulty getting access to health care. you've got lots of people across this country who are worried about their jobs, 40% of the employers have said that they are not going to hire people, another 20% said they'll cut employees as a result of obama kear and then just yesterday, you have the major union leaders in this country come out with a letter saying that it would shatter their employees'

benefits and create nightmare scenarios, were the words they used, the impact of obamacare on the people they employ. so this really is a train wreck and i can see why the democrats would rather talk about something else but the fact of the matter is, these policies are very harm to feel many americans. wore pleased that the president has decided to delay, at least for a year, the employer mandate but we believe that rather than create a partial delay for some, we need to have a permanent delay for all americans so that other americans besides those who -- those small piss impacted by the employer mandate were going to be harmed by the effects of obamacare have some relief as well. >> i'm pleased that the democrats decided to not break the rules to change the rules. you saw senator reid on the morning talk shows on sunday talking about this issue but you

heard him make his statement where he said that obamacare has been wonderful for america. he may not have yet had a chance to read that letter that the senator referred to because it came from jimmy hoff fa and the teamsters union and two other large unions, it was to nancy pelosi and to senator reid. the letter says you promised us, you promised us if we like what we have, we can keep it. we now know that doesn't look like it's the case. lots of reservations. they also mention the fact that this is undermining the fundamentals of a 40-hour work week in the united states. and we've seen that in small businesses across the country, we've seen it in communities, school districts which are cutting back employee hours to less than 30 hours per week because of the mandates and the unintended consequences of the obama health care law this

health care law is unraveling and we need to repeal it and replace it so people can get the care that they need from a doctor that they choose at lower costs. >> hopefully now we can focus back on student loans and other things that need to get done and need to get done this month. but you know, i served in the house, i like the house, i like the house a lot better in the majority than i -- than i did in the minority. and there's a constitutional purpose for the senate and one of those purposes is to represent the rights of the -- the rights of the minority in our society, the rights of another point of view in our society. every state, big and small, got the same number of votes. jefferson and adams when they weren't agreing on much else, this is a long time ago, this is in the shadow of the constitution writing itself, said you should never let the senate become a body that doesn't honor the rights of the minority because that's an important part of the process

that was designed in the constitution. hopefully we can maintain that process that the rights of every senator matter, that the part of the process that is protected by the senate continues to be so we don't just rush from one side of the spectrum to the other, as you can see, the house do, and the house does by design, but part of that design was the senate wouldn't let that happen without an appreciation for the rights of all of the discussion and hopefully the senate this week preserved that for a while onger. >> the gang of 14 agreement had an extraordinary circumstance rule prospectively. this deal has no such rule at all. you have your right, senator reid has his finger over the button at the same time this seems temporary. >> i think it's a step in the right direction that the

majority chas -- has chosen not to exercise the nuclear option. we feel good about that. ic they feel good about it system of i think that crisis has been averted. we still will be dealing with controversial nominees in the way that controversial nominees inevitably produce a great debate and all the options available to the minority remain intact. but i think if you look at the nominations of this administration, many of them have been noncontroversial. ou know, penny prisker the new secretary of transportation. the secretary of state. but the ones that generated controversy, generated controversy. so i think our reaction to these nominees will depend on the quality of the nominees and how ontroversial they are. >> on the timeline of the nlrb nominees are you concerned about

that? >> i think i indicated what we anticipate having on the floor of the senate sometime before nominees. are two new and we anticipate being able to devote -- being able to vote on those before the recess. >> what role, what confrontation did you have with senator mccain when he was negotiating this deal and did senator mccain go around you to cut this deal? >> well, a lot of senators over the weekend, senator mccain among them, were involved in discussions. we talk to each other, they were talking to others, i think there was a pool of senators on our side, senator mccain, senator corker, senator hogan and others, who were interested in not giving up on the prospect of working this out. and i also think that last

night's discussion was critical. as i said earlier, and let me repeat it, we had a situation where a huge number of senators on both sides addressed this issue. senators actually had to listen to each other. i think the arguments made by my members obviously swayed at least some on the other side that maybe there was a solution to this short of pulling the nuclear trigger. so a lot of my members were involved in this over the weekend, last night, they were all helpful, senator mccain was certainly helpful as was senator corker, senator portman and thers. >> do you feel since last night's discussion there's less of a chance of ending up back in a situation like this? or did it just help you out of this particular jam? >> i don't know. but i do think in spite of all

your best efforts to rain on an outcome here, i congratulate you for your best efforts to try to snatch victory from -- snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. look, i think i'm safe in saying, a high level of collegiality on a bipartisan basis was achieved as a result of last night. and you can pick at it if you want to but i think it was an important moment for the senate. coming on the heels of the fact that we did three fairly significant bill this is year, on a bipartisan basis, that were open for amendment, that's pretty extraordinary in the last couple of years. so put this down as progress in the right direction and the best possible atmosphere to go into the balance of the year when we have much tougher issues to deal with down the road. thanks a lot.

>> one of the people i've learned to listen to and listen

to closely is barbara mikulski. we came to the senate together and served in the house together. here's the advice she gave all of us a few minutes ago. direct quote. colleagues, no gloating, maximum dignity. so that's where i'm coming from. our final caucus here was very good, we have done everything but dotting the i's and crossing the t's, to have seven qualified nominees receive a vote for nlrb. a full functioning nlrb. it would have gone out of business at the end of this month, it won't go out of business. but this is not just about these nominees. this must be a new normal. qualified nominees must not be

blocked on procedural supermajority votes. i am here, been here a long time. i know there will be times when they feel they must do cloture but i accept that. we'll be able to work our way through that. e first cloture vote says it all. richard cordray. what a good man. he called me this afternoon, after having ate eat -- waited and waited and waited. here's a man who is so well qualified, university of michigan, honor student. studied a couple of years in england. university of chicago school of law. that's why this very, very brilliant man was able to go to work for judge work. -- judge bjork. we had a long conversation about

bork. justice kennedy clerked for him. what has he done already, what has the agency done already? already, they've collected for the american consumer $500 a billion, because of credit card companies cheating consumers. that's what the agency does. tens of thousands of people now every day have the opportunity to call a hotline and get information, tell this entity, how they think they've been cheated. military families are getting their homes back, having been foreclosed upon illegally. $6 million recently returned to consumers from car dealers cheating people when they bought cars. this is a watchdog of wall street for the american

consumer. that's the vote we just had. presidents, at democrat or republican, deserve an up or town vote. and that's the area we're working toward. but to be very, very clear, we think, i believe, there's tissue because of what's gone on the last few days, including the joint meeting we had last night, there's a feeling around here, now feelings don't last forever, and i understand that, but we're not -- they're not sacrificing their right to filibuster and we damn sure aren't filibustering our right to change the rules if necessary, which i am confident it won't be but i want it made very clear. i am very encouraged by discussions we have had over the last few tais. both sides understand each other

better, we have taken great sides to restore the comity and cooperation that used to define this great institution. it was a good day for ed markey to come to the senate and to come to this caucus. the senate could be in a place where we engage in spirited debate and get things tone for the american people. so i'm hopeful and confident this agreement will prove a major step toward achieve that goal. there are lots of people that deserve credit for progress we have made and focusing on how the senate doesn't work very well. i've asked two of my junior colleagues to come and give you their opinion as to what's happened the last few years. fers of all, tom udall, and after he pleats his remarks, jeff murkli. >> thank you very much. great to be here with you.

let me tell you about last night. i think that set the stage for what we saw happen here. senator reid -- senator reid, as we call him, leader reid, played a true leader role in that 3 1/2 hour meeting last night. fers of all, it was structured in such a way, it was just senator to senator. but senator reid was tough and resolute and he stood up and said, remember, about every half-hour, he said, remember, we are going to vote tomorrow. and what flowed out of that meeting, what flowed out of that meeting is the result we have today and i'm proud of that result and i think it realy moves us forward. these agencies can now do their job. they play very important roles for the american people, and i think it's -- it's a good day

when we have very well qualified people take over in agencies and be able to do their job. my father, who senator reid had the opportunity to get to know and they had a great visit before he died, used to always tell me that one of the most important things that he felt as secretary of interior in order to get his job done was to have his team in place. it happened in two weeks. and he owls said get the team in place. he had his team in two weeks. we've today given the president a team so he can move forward with his agenda. i think that's a tremendous -- i think that's tremendously important. the other issue that i just want to talk about a -- talk about a second is what senator reid

mentioned at the end, and this isn't meant in any way as a threat, but we're hoping that what this is laying the groundwork for is a positive harbinger for positive things to come. so we're looking at moving in that direction. but the leader has not given up his right to work and change precedence if the situation comes around to that. so we're all going to stand strong but we're also fwoning to work with each tore see that we make this a more pozzive place as the u.s. senate. i thank you very much, leader reid, for allowing me to be here and stand with you today. >> it's a real pleasure to be standing here with these two partners, tom u udall, when he came into this body we came in together. immediately began to know how

important it was to have a regular process to restore the tuck of the u.s. senate and certainly for now, several years, we have been working toward a senate that is not at this dysfunctional point it is right now, restoring the functionality of the senate. during that course we have had occasions to be in leader reid's office brainstorming about how to make that possible. i must say that in january 20 11, january 2013 -- in january 2011, january 2013, our leadership, leader reid, made clear a commitment to bipartisan dialogue, a commitment to restore the social contract that made this place work in the past. what has occurred in the last few days is a reflection of how difficult that has been to achieve. but now we have a very significant moment. really, a milestone on the path to restoring the functionality of the senate.

we have an agreement that says that these important executive positions will get an up or down vote that is extremely important. and it's important because it makes a real difference in people's lives. the national labor relations board is the referee for both the employer and employee for fairness in labor fworkses. that's extremely important. the consumer financial protection bureau really isn't fully in place until we have a confirmed director and a few hours from now we'll have that confirmed director. a cop on the beat, fighting predatory practices that take advantage of working families. if you believe in family values you've got to believe that predatory practices that strip wealth from families rather than creating wealth are simply wrong and must be countered and we'll soon have an agency fully equipped to be that tough on this -- to be that cop on the beat. it's said that jefferson an washington were in conversation and washington described the

-- as a cooling off. it was once described as the world's best or most deliberative body. we haven't been a cooling deep , we have been a freeze. today is an end to the deep freeze and putting us on a functional path to take on the big channels america expects us to address. thank you. >> i'll take a few questions. >> yesterday you said that it was necessary to restore the senate and the time and history ictates this change. you do not change the rules of the senate, what have you tone? >> we got a yes.

>> members wanted to cheage the rules for its own sake. >> i'm sorry i didn't understand. >> a lot more members in your caucus wanned to change the rules on the filibuster for etc. own sake feeling it doesn't work anymore. what changed inside the room that people who -- people like the senators who have been if favor -- in favor of changing the rules decided this was a better course? >> you have the answer already. that is, the purpose of thall is not a question of changing this rule or that rule. the focus of what we have done, the three of us and others we worked on is restore the ability of the senate to function and you know, i've been here a long time now, i know how the senate used to work. these two men with me have had a lot of experience in government, they know how the senate should working they're students of what's happening in the senate. we've been able to accomplish that. does that mean it will last forever? i don't know about that.

but we have a good feeling with the democrats and republicans, i think we should as senate mccullskey said, not gloat but just be dignified about it. we have a new start for this body and i feel very comfortable with it. i'm -- i don't know how i could be happier. we also have other things we ant to get done. student loans, we were talking in our caucus, we're very close to getting that done. we got an energy bill we're trying to get to for a number of years, we're moving to that as quickly as we can. got an appropriations bill, got a -- an issue that -- i can never remember the name of senator tester pushes regard. we've got a lot of things we need to do. and don't forget, everybody, immigration is still ahead of us. it's a big, hard bill. and we need cooperation over

here to to we're going to get something done in the house and we're going to have cooperation on immigration. we've not lost anything on immigration. we've gained. and a multitude of other issues. >> does this mean you're open to more joint meetings? >> we have tried to do joint meetings and for reasons we need not go into here, they weren't done. wore going to do more meet, they won't all be meetings like last night where we have a subject to talk about but i can envision a numb of things we could be doing that would be extremely good to get us together and talk to each other rather than talking about each other. i think it would be interesting if i had, excuse me, i haven't asked them yet, but i think george mitchell, democrat, trent

lott, republican, i think that would be a great opportunity for our caucus to talk about how they view the senate. so we're going to have more joint caucuses. we're going to try to talk to each other rather than past each other. >> senator mccain worked on this, could this have been done without him? >> maybe. john mccain and i have worked ogether for a long time. i've worked with him for 31 years and we've had some pretty difficult times together. but in the 31 years we have worked together, there is no one i have ever worked with that is more a man of his word or person of his word than john mccain. so maybe we could have gotten it

done without him -- i've answered the question. >> are you confident we'll get an up or town vote on the three nominees for the d.c. circuit court? >> they'll take those one at a time. we're talking about executive nominees, we -- those are going through the process and we'll see. >> [inaudible] >> i could give you a few others. but we're going to take these one at a time. we feel comfortable where we are, i think there's a way of moving forward, i think there's a good feeling here in the senate. the best feeling we've had in a long timeful that's how get things dope. that's how we get things done. this was a very, very difficult issue for a lot of people and the one thing i always had going for me, i always had going for me, is i had the votes. and there's no need to do any

more than what we've done. this is -- we took yes for an answer. which a lot of times around here it's hard for people to do that. one more question. >> [inaudible] >> when are we going to have a vote on the new secretary nominee tom perez? i don't know for sure. post cloture there's a lot of time. what we're going to do is at the ght time we will vitiate cloture on all nlrb nominees and hopefully as early as late next week or early the following week we'll move all five at the same time. and then -- so we should be able o get that in a day or two >> [inaudible]. >> during what period of time? >> during these negotiations.

>> i've had a call or two. [inaudible] >> the house is coming back in in a few minutes to debate a few bills dealing with easing regulations on small airplanes and oil pipeline standards. until then, we spoke with a reporter about what happened in the senate today. >> thanks for being with us. >> good to be here. >> outline the framework of this deal, what happened between last night's 3 1/2 hour closed door session, the discussions overnight and what we saw just over two hours ago on the senate floor? >> well, what appears -- a couple of things, steve. members on both sides of the aisle were telling us this morning that following the nearly four-hour closed door session in the old senate chamber, there was a pretty

broad consensus that nobody wanted to mess with the filibuster rules because of fear about where it could lead the chamber in terms of making it more like the house of representatives which votes along majority rule lines. number two, they were worried, i think, about what it was going to heen for the chamber going forward for the rest of this congress because there's a number of things that republicans and democrats want to try to get done legislatively and this was likely going to ball all that up. what they've agreed to do is allow mination votes and most of the nominees that the president wants on the national labor relations board, the consumer financial protection bureau, that's the cord ray vote, and -- that's the cordray vote and other posts the republicans weren't going to

filibuster anyway and what the republicans get is that the two nlrb appointees apointed in a disputed recess that one court has ruled unconstitutional, those will be replaced and to satisfy democratic concerns that the choosing could take up to six months or more, they're going to fast track it, possibly by the end of the august recess. and finally, there's some ways in which richard cordray may agree to work with the senate to try to satisfy some of the g.o.p. concerns about how the cfpb is run according to how that agency was put together under the dodd-frank legislation. >> let me put on the table the two nominees scheduled, the two nominees for the nlrb, sharon block and richard griffin jr. at this hour, david trucker, senate republicans meeting -- david drucker, senator republicans meeting and senate

democrats are meeting, what is going on behind closed doors, based on what you've heard from senate colleagues over the last couple of hours? >> any time you've got a situation where, for instance, on the republican side john mccain and a few other talking to a numb of republicans and democrats thorninge democratic side, you had senator schumer talking to senators on both sides of the aisle, you have reid and mcconnel doing similar things. at some point you have to get together and outline every aspect of the deal, register any complaints from your members, maybe sure everybody is heard and then everybody is ok with this fwoning forward,s the senate which means anybody can go to the floor and start jamming things up if they want to and these can be fragile. the wail this -- the way this came together, there's one no resolution to the issue of filibustering executive branch nominees, or threatening to go gow ahead with the nuclear option which the democrats have

the votes to do if they really want to. and that was a key part of this deal, simply shelve the biggest problems, that's how things get done around here but it was probably the only way to really get this done. so the next time the president nominates an executive branch nominee other than judicial nominee, which of course is no republicans if feel there's a big problem with this nominee, they reserve the right to bill fust -- filibuster him or her. if democrats feel the filibuster is unreasonable and unwarranted, they have the right to change the rules through a 5 -vote margin even though the senate rules call for rule changes with 67 votes. >> did one party or the other have an upper hand in gerkses -- in negotiations? >> depends on how you look at it. the democrats had the votes, and they're the majority. they could just go ahead and do this and you know get the nominees they wanted.

but the downside for them is that republicans responded, at least for some period of time, by jamming up the chamber, making it difficult to do anything else and you know, for the senior democrats, not all, who he senior democrats, remember what it's like to be in the minority, they didn't want to be in the minority, which they will be some day, they'd like to reteen the power to launch a filibuster against a republican president's executive branch nominees. a lot of people didn't want to see, for all the opinions of congress as a dysfunctional body and its low approval rating if you watch the senate on a day-to-day basis it's amazing how much more comity there is in the senate than there is in the house. that's by design. i don't think anybody wanted to feel responsible for doing some type of irreparable damage to

the way the chamber functions. >> david drucker, have you had a chance to talk to senators about the meeting last night, what transpired, what the mood was, what the debate focused on? >> i talked to, a lot of tuss you can -- of us talked to several different members. i got a few conflicting reports because on the one hand, one republican senator told me that the democratic attitude in the meeting was, we're right, you're wrong, you should give us everything we want. and you shouldn't get anything. on the other hand, members on both sides of the aisle, on the record, said that the meeting was very helpful, they should do this more often they spent too much time in these caucus lunches which are scheduled on tuesday and wednesday and thursday. in some fashion. and not enough time just talking to each other and the airing out of their feelings, it was almost like a big shrink session, the airing out of their feelings

left them understanding the other side better, understanding that maybe the other side doesn't necessarily have horribly nefarious motives but just that there's a lot of frustration and senator mccain was saying just a few moments ago that this fight over nominees for the nuclear option, it really is about the larger frustration, at least on the democratic side new york his opinion, democrats have felt over filibusters on legislation and judicial nominees and everything else and republicans told me that they're frustrated because often harry reid uses the parliamentary tactic if their point of view where he closes off amendments but that also requires the filing of a cloture motion and then he calls that a filibuster and blames the republicans and therefore the view is, if you wouldn't do that so often, allow us our amendments, we didn't crea