tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN July 16, 2013 6:00am-7:01am EDT
income earners is what they are. like the bolsheviks went against the pollocks. businesses cannot get away with that. just because the label someone rich coming through mcdonald's does not mean i can suddenly .harge them a lot more. >> is that fundamentally unfair? the average business owner knows it is not fair. they are providing the service as cheaply as possible for anyone who uses it and there's some -- something fundamentally fair about that. that is the american way so i hope that some help to you. i appreciate you all being here. [applause]
thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> immigration policy with rahm emanuel and americans for tax reform, grover norquist. then, "washington journal." next, a conversation on immigration policy between chicago mayor rahm emanuel and americans for tax reform president grover norquist. they sat down yesterday. this is just under one hour. [applause] >> thank you for being here. i have a privilege to engage in conversation with two people that are extensively to of -- ostensibly two of the most powerful political leaders. it is slightly an out of body experience.
i did not know whether to sit here and have grover and rahm right next to each other. rahm, former white house chief of staff, three term member of congress, and now mayor of chicago. we do not do advocacy, but if you look at cities and their mayors and what kind of aims the chief executive -- kinds of things the chief executive of the city does -- what rahm emanuel has been doing, synthesizing the equation of what you're city will look like, it is an impressive arena. groverse, we have norquist, president of the americans for tax, encouraged by ronald reagan. i do not know whose idea the old was, but it worked -- both was, but it worked. i was with amy klobuchar recently. wasnterviewed her and she telling us how grover was now getting hate mail by some of his own base because of
committee testimony he provided on the joint economic committee that was very positive. i thought today "crossfire" is coming back on cnn. you have people with differences that bash each other without thinking. i thought today we would have a conversation. >> i am out of here. [laughter] >> rahm, forget your white house role, but we are in chicago, thinking about how the equation with immigrants. tryingyor, how are you to change the game customer works a couple of the -- gain -- change the game? >> a couple of things that are fact, in the city of chicago, about 50% of all new business applications for licenses are
by immigrants. that is why you cannot be pro- small business and anti- immigrant. they go hand-in-hand. we have cut our licenses denials by 60%, making it much easier to start a business -- 50%, making it easier to start a business card nearly -- business. nearly 50% of all new startups are by immigrants. those of you who know chicago, you know the magnificent mile. the hispanic area, 26th street, the two magnificent miles, i call it, it produces the second-most amount of sales tax revenue for the city of chicago and the state of illinois. outside of michigan avenue, when you pull out high-end
shopping, the most productive area from a sales tax revenue is 26th street, and it has people from all over the midwest that come in. finde weekend you cannot parking in the city of chicago near or around 26th street because from as far as minneapolis, minnesota, to columbia, ohio, people come in on the weekend to get things they cannot get in their respective community. those material fact in terms of what is happening in the city -- today, we send an executive order, creating what i call citizenship corners in every neighborhood library in the city of chicago. librarians are being trained to help people get their citizenship. we have kits that they can take home to promote the effort. i will close by this one example if i can.
one year ago we held a forum with robert f kennedy -- the first time here in america, their foundation, and all the nobel peace prize winners in chicago. i happen to think chicago is the most american of american cities. we didn't add a -- did it at a high school where my mother went to school, all jewish. your mother's high school, my mother's high school, this might explain a lot about our relationship. second, i introduced a young woman who is from yemen to introduced gorbachev. she came to america in fourth grade and is now at northwestern on a full paid scholarship card -- scholarship in the student body --
scholarship. the student body as 120 different nationalities. she was number one in her class. withid the interview gorbachev. she is on her way to northwestern on a full paid scholarship. how can that be against our interest? she has decided she is an american. it is in our interest as an economy and as a city when you look at all the relationships that are intertwining, going on, bringing the world to chicago and chicago to the world. it is a huge economic opportunity for the city of chicago and the country. >> before i jump to grover, let me ask, as mayor, if you are on a national tour and you stop in kansas, a place where i was
born, and it is not bending over backwards to be welcoming to immigrants -- what would you tell parts of the country, particularly those that have representatives that are not moving in a progressive manner. what if they say this is not our story? how do you reach them? >> that might be true, although i do think immigration is changing what used to only be an urban story. i am not so sure -- and, it also it is quickly becoming a rural story. that is cultural impact. my appeal is one on economics, then -- but nobody should dismiss the cultural piece of that, which can be disconcerting.
it is not true for the city of chicago because my grandfather came to chicago in 1917 as a 13-year-old to get away from eastern europe. that is the history of chicago. cityis the history of our and holds true for every city america. state, also true of any there is a history of immigrants that are given opportunities. you cannot give them a national story, so there are anecdotes in the history of kansas you would have to we've yet and i would not treat it disrespectfully. i could tell you a story about chicago hundred different times in a hundred different languages. there has to be a story from kansas you have to find.
i cannot give them a chicago example. they have to find a kansas example where they find an opportunity to see their future. >> coming out of that environment, that story -- [indiscernible] i was driving off to do early meetings and we saw karl rove driving by. the drivers were left wing liberals and they said i want to take that guy on. i said he was speaking at 8:00. a guy went and he said karl rove made a lot of sense. basically, from your corner of
the woods, somebody walked into the lions den of hyper-liberals and talked about immigration reform and i bet he got a couple of gop sign-ups. i am wondering given your role, the role of karl rove and george w. bush, where were you a few years ago? is this not a cynical move by some in the republican party to say now it is pragmatic because we are a dead party if we do not bring in hispanics, or is there something deeper than that? >> if you go back into american history, the chinese exclusion act, historically, going up to the 1980's, every anti- immigrant impulse was driven by organized labor. the modern democratic party. there has been movement all the way around.
interestingly, the business community did not get organized. in 1999, i was in a meeting. 12 pair -- people. i was meeting with the head of the republican party -- sort of a check up, what is important to you this year? they went around the room, and everyone was in one of those two places. then he finishes, got up and left, and like in the last couple of moments of "columbo those quote television show -- "columbo" television show they said what is it? they said immigration reform. everyone said it was a bigger issue. they talked in terms of hundreds of thousands of evil that -- of people that they
needed. none of them felt comfortable or confident with somebody else's issue. it was more than two thousand seven, because it did not get organized in that way. every business group is for the legalization of the 10 million or 11 million that are here, genetic -- germanic increases in future -- dramatic increases in future flows. they could switch in a generation because you are bringing in talent and opportunity. theresiness community is very the southern baptist convention has strongly endorsed comprehensive -- the roman catholic church, the mormon church, the national jewish organization. >> so, why are you losing? george w. bush, bill clinton, rahm emanuel --
>> the last two will not be persuasive to that crowd. >> if you look at who has lined up on the reform side, i do not think i have ever seen an issue with everyone on that side yet it does not seem to be percolating. you were with the greater boston tea party patriots. how did that go? >> every 20 people, every second one said very immigrantsy about and applause lines all the way through. it is boston, which helps. the campus chamber of commerce brought me out to speak with the governor, the most pro- immigrant governor, and the chamber was trying to make sure and canada legislators were
thinking about doing -- who were thinking about doing something like arizona were clamped down, and they will probably move more along the lines of utah, which is the opposite of arizona. kansas is very active in moving in the right direction. this has been an issue where radio talkshow host have driven it to a certain extent on the right, and you can get wealthy with five percent market share on the radio, but you cannot get elected dog catcher with five percent market share. we have had that conversation here at -- conversation. take a look at the list of people that might run for president on the republican side. >> that would be helpful. >> make friends. [laughter] >> why don't you just they
[laughter] >> scott walker of wisconsin has come out strong on this. rand paul talked about a pet reduces steamship before john bush, before marco rubio. chris christie -- the leadership moving forward, it is exactly where ronald reagan was and where the traditional party was, being more open to immigration. i had been going for 30 years to these press conferences arguing with the afl-cio, which to always the group we had fight. we had to do bipartisan stuff. i thought here was one we can work on -- what sign -- let's sign a letter that soviet union groups can leave the soviet union, and unions would not
sign it because they thought they would come here. they're still not there on future flow of guest workers. we are making progress. >> the emmys question, in your tax work, where you have been so popular and maintained a caucus to veto a deal -- >> we got a deal. we just did not have tax increases. >> many were influenced by tea party voters, the same voters taking these positions, and it raises the question of whether there is a corner of this that has a veto ability driven by -- i will just say it, racism. if you look at the work of
gregory rodriguez or those that the the the assimilation rate of hispanics in particular, it is phenomenal -- all the things that rahm emanuel was laying out, it is among all immigrant classes the lead. i am wondering, at what point that in." empiricalstuff begins to matter to jim demint -- that empirical stuff begins to matter to jim demint. >> 20 years ago, historically, the anti-immigrant position has been colored, connected with restrictionist in terms of number of people working. interestingly, this is not about opposition to immigration, and that is why republicans have moved away from positions they were yelled into my radio shows.
when pat buchanan ran for president, 70% of republicans thought there were too many immigrants. we thought there were too many immigrants since the germans started sneaking in. nine the first thought, too many immigrants. second thought, i'm not really against it. kamran, 70% of the people believed -- pat buchanan ran, 70% of the people believed, and he got 1% of the vote. the idea that there is a deep- seated anti-immigration reform vote in the republican party does not show up. the two senators from arizona, jeff mccain and jeff flake, the two most pro-immigration senators. it does not always show up in the vote.
>> if you direct this question at me, i would say that is all true, what grover said, but the party has allowed itself to have a few voices described and defined its position, which is where the political fallout as occurred and it -- if it is not averted soon will have a huge import to local and national politics. all of those data points are true. where the screening -- i would say that volume does not reflect depth. that is true in our party. that said, leaders have allowed the voices that have attraction to define who the party is. >> can you walk us through how you are trying to position chicago as essentially the
friendliest city to immigrants customer you make a case of white -- immigrants? you made the case of why economically it matters, and if you look at the 15 points you have would in place that you think are game changers for immigrants coming in, is your aspiration to create a template for other cities? i am not sure how much pc as -- washington, d.c. as in terms of impact. >> it is a huge impact, but it is less and less, it is declining. the state of illinois past the dream act. i was sworn in on may 16, 2011, and it was the only piece of legislation that i called for. i have raised $250,000 for that
fund privately, and we have a little over 100 people now going to college that could not go otherwise. that is one example of where you can do something different. recently we passed the drivers license -- four other states have done it, allowing immigrants who do not have a legal status to get a drivers license, which allows them to get employment, get their kids to school and go around. it has a lot to do with public safety, safety on the street, and have integrated people come out of the shadows. >> how did they get over the fear of being tracked down and deported? >> we are a sanctuary city. i passed it by ordnance. sanctuary city status does not live by the whim of the mayor. fourth, and most interesting, what led to today's event, is i
created an office in new american and i put it in the mayor's office, and they spend all day going through hell this will impact immigrant. we have 79 -- going through how this will impact immigrants. we signed an agreement with the immigration office. we are in the process -- we have already done 50. we are training all librarians with a special room called citizenship corners that has a process on how to help people become citizens and the neighborhood library is helping people become citizens. that office thought of that policy. andy, we sign the order,
with an agreement between the immigration office in the city of chicago, on this process, they literally go through every regulation, every office. it is not just does the website have english and spanish -- important to do, but they go through every part of the city government and it says what are we doing to promote immigrants? i think it is in the city's interest. we focused on the mexican- american community. chicago will be the fifth largest city in mexico based on our population. that is a huge economic capacity when you think about what nasa has created for the united states, but we are outside of warsaw the second- largest polish city. a huge amount of trade back and forth could happen when you think about how poland is growing. [indiscernible]
i know that. that is why i gave a shout out. it ges you a sense of the size of the city. everywhere,be true but based on the mexican- american population, we are the fifth are just city in mexico, and we are the second-largest city in poland. that is part of our history, but when you think about remittance, trade, opportunity, travel, tour is a -- at every level -- toward his him -- tourism -- at every level, it is a huge economic opportunity if for market and for a city that is still the headquarters of what i call the flat roof manufacturing, it does not have an export strategy
because these are family owned businesses. the historical immigrant roots is a huge economic opportunity for what they can export and that is one way we can grow. we could go on, but i need the federal government to change a problem. short of that, through the new american office, the library, drivers license, the dream act, we can -- have done what we can do short of the federal government doing the final bit. everywhere we can press, we have at the outer limits of what you can do -- we have pressed the outer limit of what you can do. >> the economic watching -- you went right into that, jim
demint and some of the folks in opposition to the legislative direction on immigration said the 50-your cost of creating a -- 50-year cost of creating a citizenship track is $6.3 billion. notcbo has argued that is the case. when you look at illinois as a state, they have bond problems. they have not been exactly a leadership in solvency to a certain degree. >> that was gentle. [laughter] >> do you see these steps adding to the economic bottom line, looking at them as economically vital, or is there validity to the fact that when you look at infrastructure, health care and all the cost that jim demint argues will be loomed out -- the loomed -- ballooned out --
>> so many of the services we pay for come from property taxes. you get a new group of people buying home, and another of the people paying property taxes. you pay for schools, police that way. take homeownership and what would happen on property tax if all of a sudden people said i am here, i am now going to buy a home? we pay our libraries that way, just that a city level -- all of a sudden people say i do not live under the threat i will be deported, we can now buy a home -- it is a game changer for the city heard part of the revenues -- city. part of the revenue stream comes
out of property tax. >> look, at the national level, the reason why we are the future and japan is not, europe is not, and china is not, it is because we do immigration. i get a kick out of people that say should we do immigration -- it is the same as saying should mcdonald's do hamburgers? what made us if it from the of the world was 1777 we paying 2% of our income in taxes 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 because they wanted to be here. the idea that people are coming
from some country they do not like -- we do not tell people from cuba i cannot come, -- they cannot come, we tell them they want to come because they want to be something if it. it'll are coming -- something different areas -- different. --na cannot do that could cannot do that. they coast for we do not do immigration. that is why japan has disappeared -- is disappearing relatively in terms of overall strength. immigration is what makes us the future, not europe, not japan, and if we do it better and on track to have historically been, we are significantly stronger as a country.
>> i would ask any of you to come to the city of chicago could -- chicago. there is nothing like the dedication of a child of an immigrant to their studies and their this. -- purpose. they know they are here, they are lucky and this had better not get screwed up. or your i give you this young woman from yemen. she came in fourth grade. she is now at northwestern. in her home, this is a unique
opportunity -- you cannot do this anywhere else. do not mess this up. that is the rejuvenation of the american dream -- people consciously left somewhere in to come someplace because they can do what they do only in america. there is nothing like the child of an immigrant trying to make something of their parents dream. x-unit have to cycle out and -- >> you have to cycle out come back. >> 126 nationalities -- that is a gold mine. i would not trade it for anything. >> you are the best political strategist in washington, d.c., that i know, and everybody is scared of you -- he did win funniest poll of the year in the improvisation thing, and that is coming up again. john lovett one. i do not know who you imitate. [indiscernible] celebritye funniest on c-span.
>> does john boehner ever call you and say this is talk, -- tough, any ideas on what we can do? you are the strongman in the gop on so many of the issues. you fought admirably for inclusion of gays in the republican party, broad immigration. do john boehner and eric cantor call you and say how can you help us elbow renegades into this? >> i work with all republicans in the house and the senate to encourage them to do what reagan did. republican reagan view. this is not compromise, moving to the left or something. mobilityity of labor, of capital, this is what they teach you in economics.
it should be second nature for republicans and conservatives, and the good news is we're making a lot of progress. we should do more. there will be a public vote for this. >> you have had so many fascinating positions, chief of staff for the white house, and now mayor of chicago -- if you were to be asked for the white house, what would you put on the table? what you think democrats need to do that that they are not doing today to make this more salient or to get more traction? >> first of all, this is not a problem or an issue for democrats, so that would be that advice. this is an issue in the republican party and in their hands. i do not think this notion that members of congress are running
in specific districts and if you're them will think about the parties future. they really think about their own. i think they are actually talking past each other. >> there is this cynical thing that if you never get a deal the democrats terminally get the hispanic vote -- permanently get the hispanic vote. >> that is a cynical view, but i think there are two parts of the conversation and only one part is being engaged. it is important to have grover, talk radio, the religious community engaged, is there is a group that needs a permanent slip to say yes and no democrat will create that. how to create a permission slip for a democrat to have a republican vote on it is really dumb. that is number one. the other part of the
conversation that i would engage in is how to persuade someone to go from here to yes. i think this is where john boehner's problem will be, how you permit a vote and do not expect people to vote yes. they allow people to happen. they do not mind becoming roadkill. part of the discussion is to get someone to go from here to the yes column. there's another part that is not a conversation publicly -- how you allow people to allow a vote to happen, and that is not a public conversation. that, if you ask me, is what, kratz can be helpful in creating -- democrats can be helpful. >> we have another border in
canada. >> we know that instinctively. chris in canada -- >> in canada, the majority party does the outreach, and they win those votes. leftwere attacked by the party for promoting more immigration to get more votes. there is an example of how to win those votes. and have done it in canada we have done it historically. we used to carry the asian- american vote and we should have that again. >> let me open the floor. we have ted from the council on foreign relations. get the microphone. just did not bring it near as.
>> grover norquist, the notion that immigration should be second nature to republicans -- you and others in the party spent a lot of time persuading voters that government does not do anything well -- it is not effective, waste taxpayer money. you have this bill that requires the government being effective -- securing the border, there are find employment for every work waste, weeding out the fraud -- how will you persuade the public and the government is capable of -- republicans the government is capable of doing that? >> that is one of the challenges. we were taken from 80,000 people getting arrested down to 40,000. we know how to police the border. that is not more government. that is less government.
>> i have no question. i knew there would, time when i agreed with grover and it came. that is all. >> do you feel better now? >> emma? in the back. >> i am with "the atlantic." you said your city is a sanctuary city and in that way it is in conflict with federal policies. are you hoping your city will move the dialogue on immigration? >> let me say this, what we do in the city of chicago i do because i think it is in our self interest. do i think that what happens at a city or a state does not have -- does have a ripple effect -- yes. we always had a sanctuary city,
but it was done by executive order. i do not know what elections tomorrow are going to bring, and i would rather have changes repealed or not reauthorize. i think we have done things the right way for our city, and i would draw a bigger example out of the dream act that we passed -- meet these 100-plus kids that are going to college. it is impressive and tell me it is not in our interest. number two, on the drivers license, it allows parents to take their kids to school safely, allowing them to get to employment, church -- those are examples -- and they are all driven, especially the last one, about safety on our roads. than is nothing worse
driving around with someone -- on the road with someone that does not have insurance. you cannot get it without a drivers license. >> margaret carlson? >> grover, as opposed to mayor emanuel, you do not really have to do anything. you can flip to issue to issue and you are not accountable, yet you hold the hill to your pledge. >> what is the question. butou must feel powerful, at the same time you have more power than many people in the senate or congress. --the taxpayer protected protection plant -- pledge was assigned to their voters, not to me. it is an important issue going back to the forming of the
country. when they make that commitment to their voters, they tend to keep it. on the republican side we have ivory soap percentages signing the pledge and taking it because they intend to keep it. republicans signed the pledge because they do not want to raise taxes. it is not that they do not want to raise taxes because they signed the pledge. it highlights that commitment. the power remains with voters and they have spoken harshly with people to break the pledge. >> you have rooted the tax pledge in the tax revolt, but also in the founding there was lots of different people from lots of different religions aligning themselves under a contract. is there some methodology to grover norquist that could be applied to the immigration debate that we are not seeing today -- a binary, yes or no
punishment for those on one side and reward for those on the other? >> when you talk to people who think they are against more immigration or no immigration, if you drill down a series of issues to people worried about the entitlement situation -- for every dollar put in, you get three dollars, so we should have fewer immigrants, but that is actually an argument against having children. most think that immigrants can go on welfare. they tag immigrants with other things they are focused on, including education. at our schools they do not teach you american history. i was here. they do not teach you american history very well. it is not just the immigrants that are not getting as strong of a public school system as we would like. you can explain to people what
bothers you -- let reform the welfare system, as clinton turned to do, entitlements, school choice -- that is the way to fix things, not yell at 3% of the population and say it is their fault. >> jim has a question. john always has a question. jim question -- jim? >> most of the viewers in this room would agree with the proposition that all three of you are advancing. >> i'm just probing, not advancing. >> i am advancing that immigration mixing it states different -- strong, vital -- [indiscernible] what is the evidence you can show us of people moving on this issue within the republican
party and becoming more excepting? dobefore we jump to grover, you have thoughts on that, rahm? you are not just a democrat. you had to deal with republicans. [indiscernible] >> and i went back and forth. >> western it has to be a few --there has to be a few. thatt me not answer question but use it for what i would like to say, which is -- [laughter] you have two major things going on here at a cross. when ronald reagan was president, republicans had a lock elect orally on the map, and the democrats had a -- electoraly on the map, and democrats at congressional lock. cultural issues are switching to democratic strong suits. if you look at the history of
where houses are going, florida where it was 10 years ago, when it will be 10 years from now, true about arizona -- go through it. then you have what has been a detriment. on the congressional side it is not the republicans have a lock, but we have a system where people are to pick the representative, but we now have representatives taking their voters. -- representatives pick their voters. basically, people will be republican members of congress immune from the argument, which i think to deal with issues that has to be a permission slip to allow something to happen that you oppose.
that is a different discussion. >> you have seen a lot of shift. for most of my life, i thought organized labor, which was against more immigration, against allowing iraqi translators to come here because they were threatened over there. that was immigration, that was bad. somehow the democrats have muted the unions, and they are still the problem on future flows. they are the sticking point. they are why this bill does not work as well as it could. on the republican side, it is a bottom-up think. conventionn baptist weighing in on this -- this is not unimportant to republican tenants -- the roman catholic church, latter-day saints, orthodox jews -- this is important for republican candidate running for office, and add to that the business industry, the dairy industry, which cannot function without
more immigration, the high-tech community, it is critical for speaking to republicans and explaining this to them. it has taken longer than i would like. it took a long time for the democrats to mute the labor unions, but we will get there. quick final question, -- >> final question, john. >> i would like to ask both of you -- [indiscernible] two-part question, part process and part economics. what about a situation where you have republicans that do not trust their leadership enough to go to conference and that argument has been advanced because they do not go to conference because they will get rolled in conference. the second is that legalizing immigrants will exert downward pressures on wages and if
markets work and we have a labor shortage, wages should come up and that is how we solve it. >> on the economics, it is so clear that when you have more people moving into an area of economic growth you actually get more growth. people are an asset. the argument that immigration depresses wages is the same as you should not have children. people that talk that way our mouth means and they are also anti-people. how do you argue with people that think that people are the problem? that is not something that sells as well as they think it does. i think a more open and free economy at all levels, including mobility of labor,
makes the country stronger, the economy stronger and everybody better off. we grew at 4% reagan levels, 2% obama levels, $5 trillion in additional revenue. that is a huge shift in revenue. a more open immigration bill would increase growth about 1%. that is a lot of economic growth and opportunity, even if run by the government, and is a step in the right direction. i think there are voices that are shrilled arguing for not having a vote are doing so because they understand the republican caucus is moving toward yes. borderll do their own thing, their own h1b thing, the house will not take directions
from the senate or do a law that trust obama because he changes the rules and that scares them. i think boehner is making the move forward correctly. >> mayor emanuel? >> it is hard to take that question up on the gratuitous hits on obama. my dna is kicking in. i cannot wait to get a flight out of here and back home. the fact is that i think i am optimistic for a different set of reasons why republicans will get there and get this issue dispensed with. i do not think they think it is in their self-interest. i think it is a lot of party interest coming out in the members. if the members were there, they would be there already. you could have the vote now. i think they will get there through internal republican
caucus politics. i did not have this data point on small business and sales, but in illinois, out of the university of illinois, which is one of the number one -- the number one computer science and engineering school in america -- 40% of patents come from immigrants, so it is a classic example of what votes -- a lot of people are trying to look at small businesses, whether it is a restaurant or whatever, and there are a lot of high tech entrepreneurs that are also here, and it is not just meaning in immigrants and shoving wages down. there are a lot of entrepreneurs, inventors, people with start up capacity. we did this one example -- micro-lending, people starting businesses that were too small without any background or
history in banks and financials institutions. most all of the applicants were immigrants in the micro-lending space. those are businesses that the, second restaurant or another dry cleaner. there is a huge amount of entrepreneurial energy. the notion that this depresses wages -- i would have to see it is a great stabilizer of neighborhoods for economics. >> in conclusion, i have had the team at "the atlantic" scan hundreds of policy issues and we might have found one other issues where they would agree, so maybe we can have you both back. >> do not tell anybody we were hearing together. it will now work at home for me and it will not work for him in washington. >> thank you to the chamber of commerce, the team at "the atlantic, grover norquist, mayor rahm emanuel, thank you very much. good to see you.
[applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] four >> at around 6 4/5 of senators met in the old senate average ofth of three hours from the centers for included the meeting without reaching an agreement with and harryrom of thune reid spoke briefly. everybody understands the other side better. [indiscernible] fifth and if republicans suggests anything about the nominee's? appointed.
that is a difficult thing to turn the other way. i did not see any evidence denied that that will happen. the discussions continue. -- senators reid and mccaul are talking. -- and mitch mcconnell are talking. >> [indiscernible] >> none other than the obvious. they want six republican votes for cloture and this could be avoided. they say don't do the nuclear option and if this were to happen, does this mean we would not have a threat to change the rules in this session of congress. nobody was willing to make any hard type of commitment. >> what about the nominee's other than the nlrb?
is the rear ofrb a point of contention. i think there would be sufficient republican votes to think it -- but i the two nlrb of lummis are difficult for repair work illegally made. that comes back to an issue of the separation of powers and whether or not we will give the executive to decide when congress is or is not in session. did you want to change by ?olls of the cpfb >> how does he have it cued up? >> is this still an idea of going nuclear could be bad for executive nominations going forward and it changes the rules and change out president
think about nominations? >> going forward, this is a new president. i think it creates all kinds of potential questions about what happens next. for sure, if this happens now, it is clearly going to be a practice that could -- that gets continued in republican administrations. evidently, there are not a lot of democrats willing to accept that or they would not be for it. i think they were fine with executive nominations but most of the line draw -- most of them draw the line at judicial nominations. [no audio]
>> in a moment, your calls live on "washington journal." the u.s. house of representatives gavels in at noon eastern and this week, they will work on a bill that will delay certain mandates under the health care law. live coverage of the house is here on c-span. on c-span 2, the senate returns at 10:00 a.m. eastern and elsewhere in senator he liked ed markey, democrat from massachusetts for a vote on nominees are expected to follow. on c-span 3, the senate foreign relations committee considers legislation for social security and diplomatic protection. live coverage begins at 10:00 eastern. next, a look at the u.s. senate filibuster rules regarding executive-branch nominations. we will talk with a congressional a historian and two senators to discuss filibuster rules.
then we'll take a look at the group wikileaks. our guest is journalist josh mire. "washington journal" is live with your calls next. ♪ host: good morning on this tuesday, july 16, 2013, "the new york times" calls it a shutdown on the senate floor after the close of the three-and-a-half lastlosed-door meeting night. majority leader harry reid indicated he may use the so- called nuclear option on votes scheduled later today. we want to get your take on the possibility of changing the filibuster. the numbers