tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN January 2, 2015 5:30pm-7:31pm EST
reed o,ound setis ov n tisthnon avagsag outth vildsw on ib lds fe hoinreitn h neut teod xllasuldnd sok ouhirbrghupin vey intheit f ceaiy aant abe. i lien i ard pn te oisf e pele wasti wh eoehave me inlibcoibio t huny ut d be shouofth proes lfetmiti a die acss t oprtits r ccs. i fela ep a powful corensn te maite dcmiti trmuieve fa i hasboe dtrsselae miio opelef lo thugutisry.
arhi or euatynd alinforpounie atsul e hrht iconin ac, manel ereor pormtnd he edor tua t and unrsndg. lef inspednd inigat by airm mmme wowe stgeer. iav n lynteio toorcse w yto me apoivecon bu a dere ak nctepsfoar d imem amnt prch erion etenhe sveigib ndthfedaleren ibalatnsouilo adsemaup ennd wo n leed the delovnmt
coditicomtt an reid tirfo po acet rndio oirong del ncreonand ied tottd d ita tathathes wi srve sid sis fbuaioas we e to in hetssat urvo abrt c sha tat prves f oo ny victsfm cmirwd anto ui the exply rkei deo elu trn t agnstxuavien. ere so eanngo wk prottchdran di cntesxod o vien. inth taisenla yrhe skfoce sm imanprre d it diuieddvor coite chrs.
e tkorov eathwe wicoin to coorna cse th feraearsoupp astngeneo beg d ouo tba la. e ve het olboti ach regdlck o tt ensocea ur o cionor cas. 20 tb mistoneaed ot sttme acla tiawui ru counngndianemt th d en peinf5 yes. ce torth yr uned stes h ted81 edy regnedtralai ttgn dtoeces ligaonnd pvin er$2biiono ib.
setemtspledo nsn eu fu anavure iesen d oner onicnittis d frtrtu a t ens serce taisd ocur predesorimovg counatens at n e furweca mo ecivy llore rel ue ou d lg-ruin ligaonmo bad w vewkeo ottwar gh d atloues on ibalasnd hve mpv cpeti wi inanandoshe coint di ctil iig in vonmealee ibl ns fr cstt co. od. a n aoune ar lsiase enroenl treg-- pldi]
is admniraon stdi u ril traloveity lfovnmt,ndelf por. emthe prtis d rmthre ow icerces w do vethg r weto or kehe wi bece an. lt iouede usceertntil drt new aten inplguiectins wea inorin wth edal nidinan tres deledin ltionit tbe eanto cdi our inntn e s a pro bu a panend itialeur e to ioratnsps fo the in jti ysm, a reivy ott . amo to ayit i
mptens tke fe. ppudg] iwi svesauidefor erniraons e se tbld a e ec ioanjuotya evivuaderv. esaceven a val d thg orof brkit regne t loevy oucolimes pe t lyonth srenhof r onvti thate ily d lngss oswhers bud onhe prre s mio rverhig acev so far gre de of imrtt,ifchgi wo rai tbdo. th wh ttmt ofuic coied ppudg]
foednd uecss silaonndprv tanketen naiv cd ei couny atase t eqeny ved iam pasannnc the dme ojtieis lanc ewniate omcoliceit thinanchdwear ac wki tti idti steouas erthunedstes fiefopin nessy d lel mol id cldn he mies tbalomits. - [alain earearerg thhe pame oth ierr d aldhun sakre al osvaleothe feral gerenar ud orbh plnce whismpanl dill oin itthedeptmts an tbe a elre zaonacsshe trto lo ting,
prmoin toth iortn ouwre ndn ildwearis begysmacay oledan tak prrie rgn mkesuhe xt nat oearsan oup ie a vi honfse wi pud adioof iianulre ttheldnreest eng grtemiofour patnrs usth w ll ap benit ouooi w cng wea rk tetr thugshed eranngan mireme tbrg out ison anre ve stnaon. i ink avai d enri unti a w stiv tomwe invialnd gve em
arirew coitntil b unrianncbl po andernetha is tac o wk oth notn grndeang colimes ha derid hior decaontoarehi. ltugtiihi adnitrio wloonome anndwe ve mmme t ibusce a now illoin laf paurilalwse ouofthduri siveancoabe laipe veut e-chgi veompet cpled thkn eoogse veeg. it is nc op t htoof t dertntiswritt teiowi bp t r colimes tacngwith tri oernd rs ian t u ou paio pserae a
[ilcoeatns lieangelen, plom ryof agcuur ma seety jct a iacores-ee plse aso omou deto an cos [applai >>escttralads, emrsof o pel good morning. i am the chairman and president of the national congress of american indians tnk nkf bng he f tmo poan pi t ppo i ex o veme tgornnt retnspsenhe del d ib gornnt onmieloe
exndupartrsp,nd ritiz erts. wi th i wian ersecta o rilte tick f opinrerk >>ha y a iisn notoe reitalof e alearss el mceaesn he bit. we are vuh omitte toimpro enoc coitnsn di uny eeptm of rulreas ben at roeswi a a do ymntf $0 lln ecomc pounie inudg 2,0,2,0,0 paed usg pounie rohl50ilonan wte d stat pn iromes,0 lln sissevopnt exndglecrind 9 lln iong rondccs.
hued $ mli instntomnytart th us arol nd sian. hee ar dion urs ovanbeyon wh tgoveren h aiblfoprjesn iiacont. lsontockwlge d ncdeita coitn the impotat leulray d oniclyhaald reon gupca pay w arcoitd omtt trngo ndpouny d ce cly pdud od eouge ofsialprra eougeheseofour cao iniave exndpptuty fo the olioof al od whh e trrdary poan th cultra d onicontis nd thheth e clen
bpremts we tv tnsogaman acoplofndiacotr coniescrscou. hiatht,hen t abt e iraruurdeci arnd th cotr er n acth flshamo tn di un. tymisi an omison at th.o. tdryth an tclsea inasucre i lllo wh ein oi. ha cantgus, wlmt or eh cf es ommcesna fig oow fu a paforapoatyte vell were gin finrsve ba isaple cog maon tram ju taedbo wl leon t b as onges th o. its y tknothe pridt ang
coitntoin ct d r psa ae inasucreecd t adesthwaclf a opos aldo gr era ac paf attheact ulddo ulactlly case he tralanorti pgr cowchs a 0 li tayr hefour tth program wod be 38 illio we would also do morenvestments to ensure that we were building broadband in rural areas for example using the opportunity when we build roads to did want to get fiber optic laid out in rural communities so folks can have access to the 21st century economy. [applause] so which tha w want e rof tolio pt t wapee elane cnne t te ery
bipartisan opposition bipartisan opposition to what happened in novem by changing the rules that govern this place with a simple majority, she broke something. he broke something. but our response can't be to sit back and accept the demise of the senate. this body has survived mistakes and excesses before and even after some of its worst period it has found a way to spring
>> dogs have a great privilege of experiencing the american dream here in this country born in kansas you know my parents actually came to this country in the very early 50s. my parents came from mexico with no money and very little education and my dad had an eighth grade education my data fifth-grade education. yet they believed in the promise of this country and they were seeking better opportunities for their children. they worked really hard and sacrificed so many latinos and
hispanics have done in this country because they wanted that better future for their children and they believed in the promise of the country. they were taught important values that have been our guide for our lives for me and my six brothers and sisters. they taught us the importance of family, faith, community hard work, sacrifice, honesty, integrity. all of those were values that we share with us. >> recently the hudson institute held a discussion on the role of the legislative branch and can't additional powers of congress. speakers included hudson institute distinguished fellow christopher demuth and former republican senator from oklahoma dog nickles. there is a concentration of
power in congress needs to regain its delegated powers. other topics include president obama's immigration executive order, the affordable care act and the keystone excel pipeline. this is an hour and 35 mins. [inaudible conversations] >> well, good afternoon. i am arthur herman, senior fellow at the hudson institute and i want to welcome those of you in the audience here at hudson and also welcome the audience at c-span two what i think is a fascinating and i would venture to say unique event taking place right now in discussion about the president
past and future of the u.s. congress. i've almost all of you know in this room, the big buzz has been in the last couple of month and a half has been about the prospect of the gop dominated congress coming in january. everybody who has an office in this town has ideas about what the office gop should doing as their shopping list writing about it. i myself have been one of those in a couple items i would like to highlight that. we don't have any current members of congress with us because our purpose here this afternoon is starkly different. our purpose here today, what we are going to talk about is what
the next congress does is adds import as how and why it does it and what it is involved to be in a sense part of congress to be the legislative ranch in today's political, cultural value. just to set the background slightly. in 1932 something happened in american government in the history of american government. that was the election of frank delano roosevelt. with that election, a decisive shift began under way of power accruing to the executive ranch from the other two competing branches. as you all know the three branch system, legislative
judicial and executive were seen by the founding fathers assays that of countervailing interests in terms of discussion and the way in which the government in a south governing republic such as the united states would take place. starting in 1932, more and more power began to accrue to the executive branch. the argument being that the executive branch and the agents had more information have a quicker response time to crises like a great depression and were therefore in a better position in order to carry out policies and implement policies that would tend to the nation's welfare and also to its future prosperity. that accrual of power to the executive branch accelerated with the world war ii where again the assumption was that only the executive branch has
this to speed with which to respond such as the outbreak of war and deal with issues of maintaining america's security and also to maintaining peace around the world and in support of our allies. that process then became increasingly twofold in the 1940s and 1950s. now, there were some voices that spoke out against this sort of tricky power to the executive ranch. figures like for example robert taft political scientist wilmore kendall who reemphasize in the 19 to these the importance of the legislative branch as the main focal and for a south governing republic like the united states. by and large the political scientists policymakers with
district of power towards the executive ranch was not only inevitable but also desirable. if you look at the figures that talked about american politics leading figures and discussing politics in the 1950s and 60s, james macgregor burns richard newsstand, all of the attention and focus was on what the executive branch was able to do in the ways in which to expand his power. in fact the entire kennedy school of government was founded as a way to enhance this role of the executive ranch and its powers and potential to use as a part of the american political system. the time may have come with the abominate ministration to re-shift the balance of power within the united states government. and ask the question about whether the growth of power in
the executive has been a good thing or a bad thing overall and what are the steps necessary to if not necessarily were per se, to reassert the power of the other two branches. and in particular, the power of the legislative branch. that is what we are talking about here today. the person who has put his cards on the table his conceptual cards on the table in this regard is my colleague ben distinguished scholar at the hudson institute christopher demuth. christopher demuth as far as i know from his biography has never worked in congress. his only surviving thread however christopher demuth with his two years looking for white house says and his years as president of the american enterprise institute is probably
this town's leading expert on regulation and regulatory reform. but also the ways in which it's encroached upon aspects of american society and government and what to do about that. we'll have to ask is if this is the process involved. in the united states government particularly by executive branch agencies my colleague asked himself why is this happening and the answer was what congress thought to be doing and that is going to be the starting point to understand what it is restoring the constitutional congress says in that particular
topic. >> let me start by saying that those in the christmas party in the lobby. that is not here so you can go back down. thank you very much for that very interesting and kind introduction and i'm particularly gratified that senator don nickles, one of the ablest legislators of the modern era came to town in the 19 -- after the 1980 elections would calm here to discuss some of these issues on the day after the 113th congress has adjourned. last month, the republicans want
solid majorities of both houses of congress. i maintained that in so doing they have gotten themselves into a terrible fix. when they are taking charge of a branch of government that through decades of delegation and its use of its constitutional powers as terribly hobbled its ability to exercise effect of checks and balance is to play the cons to two chanelle checks and balances game. and they are going to be facing an executive branch that is accumulated with autonomous power can result in the management who is determined to exercise those powers. this is a partisan problem for the republicans, but also the constitutional problem for all of us. my essay that you have a constitutional congress, was published shortly before the
election in the weekly standard. it addressed the partisan question, but its genesis was in earlier writing on the constitutional one. i documented commerce's wholesale delegation of its taxing on this inane lawmaking powers to the executive ranch and viewed with the wind the growing concentration of power in a single branch and a single individual. but it occurs to me that a time of fully divided government when one party controls the congress, article i and one party controlled party too, might provide some opening for institutional review. to paraphrase james madison the partisan interests of a congressional majority might be connected to the constitutional rights of the place. so when it appeared that we might be in for a time of fully divided government ice myself
to thinking thinking how the connection might be accomplished and i came up with the five-part plan for congressional restoration. i notice that five-part plants are very popular for dieting dating, making her resume, other earnest endeavors. this might draw attention to my ideas. there is a fundamental difficulty here that has to be acknowledged and emphasize. the modern age has not been kind to the representative legislature. this idea that we should be governed by elected representatives of local districts to gather together to make the laws that we live our lives by by hammering out compromises different competing, conflict of interests
and values was in the regional embodiment of the public cannot serrations against the prerogative of kings and autocrats. but that was a very long time ago. it was a time when politics and government for naturally constrained by what economists call high transaction costs. when travel and communications were slow and costly, legislative sessions were critical locations to learn developments in other sections of the nation to take the measure of other political leaders, friend and foe to forge alliances, and that compromise is far from the of hometown crowds. when political organizing was costly, they were few and broad days based on general. when law enforcement and program administration were costly the executive branch could do only a
few things. representative legislation was not beaten by but it was at least manageable. in the modern age, high affluence and technology have developed all of those traditional functions. legislators no longer need to schlep to washington to find out what is happening around the country to form positions on national political questions or to pot and bicker with their peers. all of those things can be done in juliet at a far lower cost media and direct communications. we now have thousands of very well organized, very well-heeled lobby groups devoted to every imaginable cause. their abilities to monitor rewording sanction individual legislators has drastically reduced to space for legislative
deliberation and compromise and it has created new opportunities among politicians for championing national rather than local interest. the pressures for an endless array of interventions is overwhelmed legislative capacities the disciplines of the old committee system and seniority system and the falling cost of administration have empowered the executive branch and greatly augmented its natural advantages over the legislature advantages born of hierarchy, specialization the ability to multiply functions indefinitely. in the 18th and 19th century, the law was legislative. it was custom made. in the early 20th century, say the new deal it became
industrial age executive law making. lawmaking in america today is information age executive lawmaking. the basic congressional at it tatian has been to delegate to the executive agent is. congress sets very broad goals. legislators are in favor of clean air. they are against discriminating, against handicap. the authority for achieving the goals is given to the agents these with broad discretion to pursue those were the calls to various regulatory procedures. the individual member, senate representative in place at the age-old give-and-take of collective legislating adopted new business model they said about influencing decisions of the revenue that could she met on behalf of local, national constituent groups.
the committee leadership structure is planted by partisan leadership structure devoted to supporting or opposing the comment opposing the end, the president, whatever he may do. regulative order in taxing and appropriating collapses under the weight of it sin worthy and unworthy causes clamoring for attention. i said i had a five step plan. i'm going to give it the first three. if you want anything about foreign eyes, read the article. the first step in my congressional makeover is for congress to be claimed if many authorities for appropriating empire wayne bennett has advocated to the executive ranch in recent years. critically, this would be gone as soon as the 104th team convened and it would be strictly a nod or a
constitutional house keeping and renovation. it would have no policy content about spending levels for immigration policy for the powers that the kids number of financial protection bureau or any other matters on which the administration and the republican congress will be sharply divided. presented with the bill for his signature he would face a clear choice of whether or not to prevent congress from reclaiming delegated powers and exercise them as the constitution provides. that formulation seemed a little bit prissy when i was first advanced. i'm happy to say that it's intense practicality became apparent almost immediately after the election when president obama made his long advertised and highly
controversial changes to immigration a by executive order. the republicans who were opposed to that action set in the next day or two that they were going to stop it with the appropriation for the u.s. customs and immigration service. but then, a day or two later, there is another embarrassed apology, another report. sorry, we just discovered we hadn't even realized the cia asked the customs and immigration service is one completely financed by its own fees. it's completely independent of appropriations. sorry. there's nothing we can do about it. in the hand, the budget legislation that was finally passed last weekend extended appropriations for the 2015 fiscal year all the way through october with the exception of the department of homeland
security were csis resides which has to be reappropriated in february by the new congress. that in itself does nothing for the fact remains that see i guess doesn't need congressional appropriations until the statute granting independence is rescinded. if that recession is done as part of the bill that also prevents eis from implementing the president's unilateral immigration policies, he is certainly going to veto it and the controversy will all be about the the the immigration hall is his rather than the central constitutional point. i want to note one more thing about the controversy. u.s. eis customs and immigration service gain financial independence as part of the homeland security act of 2002, which was signed and passed that president bush is in stints in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
an important part of the delegation story going back over the decades is that extraordinary powers are delegated from congress to the executive in the face of emergent these that require fast action and they continue to rest in the executive branch when normal times return. the broader msn is crisis and urgency favors the executive. normal seat routine inpatient stay with the legislature. that is the essential reason why congress needs to reclaim the many financial powers come a financial constitutional powers it has given up in a manner that is shorn of ancillary crisis provoking battles with the president over immigration he was the powers of the consumer financial protection bureau for over racing the debt ceiling. following the republican debacle
of the last debt ceiling crisis in the fall of 2013 congress simply handed over its power to the treasury. the treasury can borrow at low to pay its bills until this coming march. that power needs to be reclaimed as part of an unadorned act where congress is simply declaring it readiness to resume the routine exercise of its constitutional responsibilities. the exercise of those powers in competition with the executive is always going to involve difficult questions of political tactics and strategy of the republican are not going to win all of them by any means, but at least congress has a fighting chance. it does not have a fighting chance today. step two is to reinstitute the spending power. this is both the least controversial as an abstract matter of the proposals, but
also the most problematic and difficult as a practical matter. congress' inability to even pass a budget and government onion on the radio that basis is a source of widespread contempt and ridicule a view shared by many people in the congress. every member of congress will tell you resuming regular budgeting and appropriating would be a splendid idea and senator mcconnell has opposed to set things straight is things straight as soon as they get back to town in january. this would not require legislation. president signature is not part of it. all they have to do is resume congress' own procedures for annual budgeting and appropriations, procedures established in the congressional budget act of 1974, but is almost completely ignored now for several decades.
adhering to the discipline of the budget and passing 12 regular appropriation bills by the end of each summer will require a radical change in congressional structure and culture a change in the adaptation, sesame to modern politics that i alluded to a few minutes ago. the evisceration of the committee chairman especially the taxing, appropriating and budgeting committees has cleared away internal congressional obstacles to spending growth in a multiplicity of interest group tweaks that individual members are under constant pressure to exceed two at the decline of the committee members in the transfer of their powers to the party leadership was dramatically illustrated in the past week in the humiliation of finance chairman ron wyden in
the senate at the hands of his leadership. the annual continuing resolution replacing appropriation bills in which the entire government is founded for a period of time by one t-tango bill has created a new power structure at the level of the party leadership but has played strongly to the advantages of the executive ranch because it results in one big in your crisis. i worked in the reagan at evisceration arthur mentioned for several years and when i was fair congress frequently received money interfered without excellent, well thought out policy initiatives that we were pursuing and regulation antitrust, other areas through the appropriations bills that omb, the treasury department, justice department, other regions he is.
we see the riders and see if we can work around them. if there's something we can do in place of these writers. if we couldn't, we would give up and move onto other mischief. we always took the writers seriously and they were routine. it happened all the time. if all of these have been rolled up into one annual crisis, where ronald reagan put it on rolled his national rhetorical nose in competition with a few much less known salons on capitol hill, that would have been dandy for us. wouldn't have been good for the congress. reforming the spending process will require reconstruction of a strong, specialized policy hierarchy where the committee chairman have strong powers onto them center no longer the handmaidens of the party leadership. it will require relearning the hours of actual ledges natives.
collective choice where we have to come to a decision amongst ourselves in compromise with people sometimes a very different and conflicting views. the third step and then i will wind up is to find delegate the lawmaking power from the regulatory agencies. is this a problem not so much of culture as the sheer capacity. because congress by delegation has created a bomb making machinery capable of cranking out law at a volume vastly beyond what could be done by bicameral legislature of nested committees with all sorts of procedures thrown in for good measure by the constitution itself. the most direct opposed a list of republican ideal that is floated for the last couple of years and the republican house
twice called radiance. major regulations of the branch could not take a until they were approved by both houses of congress and signed by the president, what should be a foregone conclusion. it's a real bill. and would enjoy a fast track privileges to an up or down vote of each of the two chambers without going to the committee process such as we do with trade agreement and the base to base closing exercises. that would mean major regulations would be legislated or postals. it is very dramatic because it takes a slow-moving complicated legislative process and put it right into the middle of this high-volume regulatory machine that we had dealt. it is some delegation and in the
extreme of either people or for it. it's an interesting thing to see. one thing when it was an anti-obama measure. now that congress could actually pass such a thing we will see if they really want to do it. it would mean time, 20 maybe more pieces of highly complicated legislation added automatically to the legislative calendar every year and are rising with privileges at a time and place of the presidents choosing. we will see if they want to do that. the congress will search to try to display some regulatory decisions under obamacare. the epa greenhouse gas initiative, other things were feelings run high. it is not going to be easy. those things will not be signed by the president unless he finds himself in a fix after the supreme court decision on the
federal -- the subsidies to the federal health insurance exchanges in the summer. my own ideas for some confidence building exercises. for congress to get back in to making decisions, collective choice, legislation in this area is. i proposed in the article too little ideas that would have a good chance of getting a lot of democrat foes and a good chance the president was fine. one would be to legislate very high capital standards for large banks and other large financial is to shins ousting the extremely timid ideas for enhanced capital standards been floated by the side and other agencies, creating the very best protection we could have in the future would mean the equity holders, not the taxpayers standing behind financial risk.
senator brown of ohio of liberal dumber crowd and senator vitter of louisiana, a conservative republican and. the second is to free these amazing new innovations and personal health information, such as smart on and personal genetic profiling techniques such as those of 23 in may from fda pre-marketing controls. senator ted fisher of nebraska republican. that means democrat. have introduced pretty good pieces of legislation along those lines. if these facts were passed and actually take power away from the regulators in these two areas, they would be great if
you read his four bipartisan smart populism over the forces of faux expertise and crony capitalism. how do you like that? so i am for pursuing opportunities here to take lawmaking right back to congress. i think that we should be prepared for congress in thinking about the balance of powers should be prepared for some surprises in the next two years. i think this conventional media idea that the president is a late term or a lame duck, very unpopular. that is what presidents do. but not much else. i think that may be incorrect. he is a man of strong ideological, systematic views. he is very smart. he is intensely determined.
if you look at the things he's done such as immigration and other areas, it's as if he came to washington with a list of 10 things he taught us about during the campaign in 2008 and he's determined to get them done. and it is given the powers that the executive branch has accumulated. i want to give an idea and everybody's going to think it's unbelievably fancy. consider the idea of president obama has advanced since the beginning the career and most recently in an amazing statement he released shortly after the election the next to last month or so. that is that the internet not to be converted into a national public utility under comprehensive controls over price, entry, terms of service
and in particular net neutrality that service providers should be converted into common carriers who must take the same price regardless of the different prices and values that the services that are being provided. essentially to treat the internet the way we treat at railroads and airlines, it is unbelievably primitive retrograde idea. but it's got some support in the faculty lounges of the law schools around the country in economics department. because support in the business of some big firms and the president is deeply attached to this idea. moreover, he can't do it by himself. it's up to the sec. that's exactly what he told us several times about immigration policy before he said i'm going to do it myself. could the president make the
internet and national publicly regulated utility all by himself? first of all, the electro- mag not expect term, which is the key scarce resource in the internet is something that is by declaration called by the federal government, has been a person hurlburt hoovers said so in the 1920s. most of that spectrum is allocated by the sec but the government could take that allocation back and in a way i am going to tell you a second. in many ways defense commerce others own future marjah spectrum that they do not use themselves that can provide enormous pay for what i have in mind. the government itself provides many things directly like geostationary positioning systems for our apple and she
>> >> some things that's can a president just do this? people said no but they just did it. it was a popular cause and it worked. most recently the amazing developments with this so-called in version international mergers where for there were some very solid financially sensible mergers that were prepared by the boards end they had candid conversations and the board announced they were abandoning these initiatives to everybody's amazement at the white house pulled together the major internet
service providers, the major firms that provide internet matters and have forged an agreement for a net neutrality and public utility controls that everybody would agree to a avant they understood they had to because there was other pieces the executive branch would be taken into account and it was taken to the fcc for a rubber-stamp approval for the beginning of the program. by the way, nobody appeals they keep the judges out of this. i don't want people to think i am paranoid. this is not a prediction i want to use this idea simply touche dramatize the discretionary power that has accumulated in the executive branch and how it could be used for astounding purposes
in the next two years. i am not mindful that congress has many vices of its own. a republican congress reconstituted along the lines would without doubt be the source of excessive and horribly wasteful spending with the tax and regulatory provisions at the expense of the public. those are part of a larger policy that we have in politics but immediately that depends on robust competition to keep federal power constraint and under control between elections to police the inevitable
corruption's of concentrated power. they have policy reforms that they wished to pursue and many of us feel very strongly about them and hope that they do well. in that is to restore badly constitutional balance. thank you. [applause] >> when i first read chrises article i said this is one that deserves to be a panel discussion that we interject deep into the debate of the role of congress and one out
of a measure of my respect and colleague for my friend christopher demuth it was the sneaky way to get to meet don. i will always think of him as the said the and save face during those devices of someone who always seemed to have the right thing to say on the one hand causes the issue's size about conservative support as to be threatening or dangerous or mean-spirited to the public good. so i began to wonder is it possible?
could be possible to be saying and intelligent with the kind of integrity that he seems to have? everybody says that is don nichols. dimaria read his biography the more you like him. like me he attended public schools to pay for his education through oklahoma state university and they ran a professional dry cleaning service do you still have that? no? okay. then in 1978 he ran for the
oklahoma state senate. two years later and was selected as the industry publication every elected to the united states. in his years in the senate he assumed leadership that was part of the inner circle to shape the future direction what the republican senate should look-alike that will be necessary for a republican senate and congress that comes up in january. for that reason it is extremely important to have don nichols here as part of a commentator here on the
future of congress and what takes place. as you know, he is now retired from the senate coming his place was taken by tom coburn that also seems is of model that we would want in my just want to tell you that i have enormous respect for tom coburn. but don nichols is the original coin. please welcome former senator don nichols. [applause] >> i'll just make a few comments then i will join you. i want to compliment chris for his outstanding speech to say i share many of the concerns that he touched on.
as a senator in 1980 things have changed a lot. because flipped seven times and it will flip again. and it is not that unhealthy but to talk about those natural tensions and frankly the judicial branch. i always felt it was better them leadership to protect the legislative branch. and even the judicial branch. if they ran the legislative business but the real problem in the last several years i think there is a disrespect or lack of respect for congress.
and voluntarily and all members of the house and senate and president with they are sworn in they take an oath to uphold the constitution. and i am absolutely flabbergasted that says there are a constitutional scholar to proceed violate the constitution. grossly. article one is says congress shall make all laws all legislative powers. the only exception is the tenth amendment gives all other legislative powers to
the states and the people of the federal side it is delegated to the house and senate. and then reserve to the states and the people. that you like the fact it does on legislation to it anyway then hope that congress will address it if you are happy will cited that it will supersede the lawyer implemented. that was his statement not long ago. but he made that statement after the election. did he just say that? did he really just say i will pass a law i know we should be done by congress but he said it should be and congress has to act. if he said it several times then right after the
election he said i will do with full speed ahead and i challenge congress it does not say it when it comes to the health care bill. pretty unusual circumstances i will not comment on that now but to some of it is unpopular some of it will come up before the election so i will suspend the individual mandate. and those that turn comfortable and to be totally irresponsible it might have political repercussions. that you mentioned consumer finance protection board.
unbelievable delegated powers to one individual that was made a bizarre -- a czar that could not get confirmations of and was a recess appointment. and then they said they could get a percentage of the revenue to come from the fed that is several hundred millions of dollars per year. no board or commission in this did not even have the confirmation process but to stick the figure in the eye of the senate. on individuals that could not get through the senate that were actually defeated would not be confirmed so he did a recess appointment. the courts said you exceeded
your authority. then senator reed changed the rules. i think there is a constitutional practice that it is disregarding the constitution as it is written as if he is a czar or a king. there is why the forefathers had the power to separate the wisdom of the checks and balances. and then all of a sudden to get anything through. god bless them but one of the champions in the senate to defend the legislative powers our balance of power and they did railroaded through on december 24th
or something in the first year. it really bothers me. i hope and pray. i will be positive. there is new leadership in town. with senator mcconnell in power he will return to regular order for congress to do its job. for whatever reason i want to use separate the to the house did its job to pass the budget bill every year in most of the appropriation bills. and with the continuing resolution senate right now edits the first time the senate is active on the appropriation bill in years.
for five years on a continuing resolution in this bill passed they worked out most of the bills but they didn't have any in the senate but the good news is i know senator mcconnell and his chief of policy they will revert to regular order to have appropriation bills. i was on the budget committee 24 years. every year we tried to do of budget we always marked it up and had hundreds of votes in the process. for the last six years and use that to get obamacare so
the senate did pass the budget but it was not designed to actually come up with the budget handed is not easy. i was chairman for a couple years and if you do a budget but you have unlimited opportunities though senator sanders can set one less money for defense and more for education so you can easily see it is not an easy process. but it is a healthy process. i would bet anything in the next year the senate will have more votes in 2015 than they had the last six years combined. to have some opportunities to have mr. f.
and it will not be pretty. they will do a budget and appropriations bill and lots of opportunities to make amendments that the republicans don't like what the president is trying to pass a law and immigration immigration, how do stop that? that they have the money coming automatically because they may have a lot of things like that. and to reassert congressional authority. you know in the trillions of dollars but the rest is on automatic pilot through automatic pilot. they can pass laws to change them but it is not easy.
was the cost of living adjustment. anybody who studies anything knows it should be done. but senator reid said you can have big things like that can get past the senate that is okay. part of the process so i am excited i will see a return i think to the legislative branch standing up to the executive branch hopefully to reclaim the powers that have been granted to push back from the white house that is trying to usurp their powers beyond what the constitution allows.
it is hotly contested but i think it will be fun to observe and hopefully or prayerfully we will return to constitutional a balanced government between the three branches of government. thank you for letting me participate. [applause] >> i get the privilege to claim the first two questions. in your list or agenda for what the new congress must do as part of its calling back powers and its constitutional role, one piece of legislation for the
obama administration that is a major source of controversy is obamacare. but yet you did not mention it. explain yourself. >>. [laughter] in obamacare the policy action has basically moved to the courts and to the states for the time being. the last week congress did something that nobody thought possible and actually revised substantially to provisions of dodd/frank but that was not quite the purely partisan enactment of obamacare and that is still the case the administration would veto any effort to change obamacare.
the there are several strong constitutional challenges including the '01 coming out of said d.c. circuit regarding the provision of the tax subsidies with the federal or state exchanges that would be decided by the supreme court by the middle of the year. it is fair to say there is a significant chance that will have been beyond they're statutory authorities. and senator nichols is a health care expert so i am hesitant to say too much but i believe if the decision went that way the administration would be in a fix and would need some legislation to open things
up a little bit. obamacare also requires a lot of cooperation from the state's and we have a new section in our politics now we used to have the south verses' the rest of the country that is long gone. now we have the heartland to growing and conservative states in did is a short section that makes this cooperation difficult so there are the two other constitutional checks and congress has been disabled by the fact the senate was democratic and it will still be someone disabled because the change will require the president's signature but we have to other backstops whenever congress may do, if
it can't do anything effective the administration needs its help and the court decisions could be the antecedent. >> part of this is the legislative process is the biggest change frankly with entitlements since the creation of medicare anger and social security but yet the senate as the most liberal body did have votes in the finance committee but not in the senate never had the up and down vote on individual mandate or employer mandate keep your health care plan if you like it grandfather in the above the city is not for the individual mandate and insist is now part of it never had a vote in the u.s. senate.
not in the last six years. never. that is really why senator reid blocked the senate because if we open the amendment process we will get tough votes and i am not sure. obamacare passed by one now senator harkins said we've made mistakes so there will be lots of folks i think voting is a healthy process why you in the senate? don't run for the house and senate you cannot take tough votes. but they could pass it by one the 94 christmas if it has been indefensible so chris is exactly right this court decision i think is well over half the individuals of the country that are entitled to subsidies but that they have
to come from state exchanges not the federal exchange but i don't know what will happen because justice roberts was pretty creative in his original ruling that surprised me because i worked hard to get him confirmed before he was confirmed. but this is a big deal in a field on administration loses they will have to come to congress tuesday help and there will be major rewrites or you will see congress pick off pieces like the medical device tax you may have a grandfather the administration said we can defer the mandates. until the next election but then congress could pass deferring of the mandates that is over the next couple
months. it is just 2 percent of your payroll if you make $100,000 set is a $2,000 penalty and it is not insignificant. but the president by executive action suspended that part of the law until after the election but congress can do that it will have the chance. it takes two-thirds to override the veto my guess is congress will make an effort to repeal then they will come back with some more discrete pieces started with a medical device tax that the votes may be there to pass that but i suspect you will see votes on obamacare but also the
senate did pass and 60 votes only 30 members to voted originally are still in the senate. there has been a big turnover in those in the meantime are not the biggest proponents it is not their legacy they do not have to defend it. those that did, and they became a former senators. >> my question for senator nichols as a crystal ball question, one is how the new congress are senate will act on the keystone pipeline and to how they will lift the oil export base and and the repercussions? >> end you may remember that
harry reid would not allow the senate to vote in a way that could get to the president's desk. and a runoff so mary did have it thank so he could get her vote early next year and i would expect with good margin with the necessary votes. it makes every kind of sense for it is cheaper -- cheaper and safer to transport and die in mind the board of the biggest refiner we move a
lot of oil by piping and trade. it will move one way or the other. this is one argument nobody makes but i find it troubling we keep sticking our finger in the eye of our best ally in canada. >> i totally agree. >> they have been with us on everything. i don't even think it is a close call even the state department pretty much said as much. but the president i think i said if he doesn't move on and keystone he is bound to lose the senate because colorado arkansas louisiana montana and idaho all those states were impacted on keystone and he lost every one of those states. i think congress will pass it or have some leverage with the president.