>> as tony said i am jay hakes, director of the carter presidency library, and i would like to welcome you all here today. our topic is one that seems to have captured the public interest. it is bipartisanship in the 1970s and bipartisanship today. and we could not have a better panel to discuss that topic. as i think you'll all agree. i will start with a person whose name is on the building. [laughter] >> president jimmy carter, the 39th president of the united states. and also the founder a long with

his wife, rosalynn of the carter center. we will get into the presidency and depth as we move through the program this way. our guest today is the senator howard baker, former senator of tennessee, republican minority leader, majority leader in the senate, chief of staff to president reagan. but also perhaps even more important than all that, a great photographer. [laughter] >> and i had seen some of his photographs out that the baker center for public policy at the university of tennessee which i would recommend all you visiting, you will see a great collection of photographs. so when the baker law firm called up and said we would be interested in showing senator baker's pictures in your museum, we jumped at the chance. i know president carter was very excited about it. and you'll see that this is a journey well worth making to see those photographs. and we hope you will take

advantage of that. i normally was not planning to recognize people in the audience because it's a very distinguished audience across the board. but first lady rosalynn carter is with us today. georgia senator david is with us today. and also a special privilege, nicholas barletta, the president of panama is with us today. and we are very happy to have him today. [applause] >> so let's get to the topic and talk about bipartisanship it will start in the 1970s because some people don't think will have anything to talk about if we talk about bipartisanship today. [laughter] >> but we will. but going back to 1977, both the gentlemen here were sort of new to the office. senator baker had been elected by the republican caucus to head the party in the senate. it was a close vote. i think we will agree. >> one vote.

[laughter] >> and president carter running as an outsider from washington, defeated an incumbent president. and you must have come to washington with certain expectations about how you're going to do with the other party. someone if you like to sort of share, when you arrived in washington or you or ride as the party leader, what you were expecting from the other party. >> well, one of my main commitments during the campaign was what i had done as governor, and i was to we organized the government. and so i drafted a reorganization bill, and when i what that with the democratic caucus i couldn't get a single democratic memo the house of representatives to introduce my bill. so the first thing i did when i was president was turned to the republicans who felt like i did and the government ought to be more efficient. so that's the way i started my administration was depending on republicans to help me. and i was pleasantly surprised

in future months at how this original problem evolves into one of my biggest blessings. >> how do it from your prospective? >> well, certainly i agree with president carter. that was a high point of his early career. i do remember vividly the effort to do that. let me wax philosophically for a moment. my dad was in congress and long time ago. and i really, really took to heart the lessons that he tried to teach me. but the one that stands out most probably is he told, and i was a young man, i was in my teens i guess, that in politics competition for ideas, competition for the right to serve, is fundamental. that is political. but it must be accompanied by a decent respect for the other

fellow's point of view. because if you don't do that the whole system falls, it collapses. if you don't admit that the other person may be right sometimes. it's sometimes hard to take. it's sometimes difficult to understand, but it is absolutely essential. and the high points, i believe in his career, it was marked by the willingness, either publicly or privately, to recognize that we need to think about something else except for those things that we're particularly interested in. that is the essence of politics, the as and how bipartisanship. i'm not one who believes that bipartisanship is always the right thing. as i said, partisanship is the way we test ideas. but partisanship must not be so arbitrary.

and so don't at least listen to the other fellow's point of view. >> it was that philosophy of howard baker that existed 30 years ago that helped to make my administration successful. in dealing with some of the more controversial issues at the time, and the kind of courageous leadership that howard baker showed as the minority leader, we had majority democrats in the house and senate. was crucial. and it's very important to remember how courageous it was even then to go out on a limb sometimes for supporting the policies for a democratic president. and he did. iron emir one time that we met in the white house, him and his wife, and i thank him for voting rights, and he said, mr. president, if i vote right one

more time i'm not going to be elected in tennessee. [laughter] >> but he did it. and i would say in a direct historical note that the most courageous vote, in my opinion, in the history of the u.s. congress was the affirmative vote in the senate for the approval of ratification of the panama canal treaty. it was a very difficult vote. [applause] >> and there were 20 senators who voted for the treaties. who are up for reelection in 1978. only seven of them came back to the senate the next year. and the attrition rate was almost as great in 1980. and i would say, i'm getting at times. but when howard baker later ran

for president and sought the republican nomination, i think his support of the panama canal treaties' was one of the negative factors that kept him from being the nominee and perhaps president of the united states. so i want to thank them personally for being so courageous and a time when it was not easy. >> mr. president president, i thank you very much. anybody who wants to see my scars or bruises, i will show you. [laughter] >> it was not easy, but it was the right thing to do. and maybe i ought to share you all about how i arrived at that conclusion. because i don't know if i've ever said this public, but when it came up, those who advised me as minority leader were pretty well divided as what i should or should not do it. and what i did was put together a group of academics to study

the manner and to give the advice on what to do. well, as most academics do, excuse me, any academics in this room, but as academics usually do they studied it, and they came back with a recommendation that was on the one hand, and on the other hand. [laughter] >> but as a result of that, i made a decision. you may remember jim gannon who was my chief of staff, and before that was another chief of staff. jim helping with that. not the substance of it but with the courage to do it. he said repeatedly, do it. and i did. and i'm glad that it was the right thing to do. isn't though it may have negatively impacted my future in politics, but my future in politics was good enough for me. [laughter] >> and i enjoyed it.

and i enjoyed it most days, anyways. and i was not mortally wounded by that vote, but i must tell you, there are people in tennessee and people elsewhere, to this day who have not forgiven me for that vote. that's okay. i haven't forgiven them either. [laughter] >> so there you are. >> both of you were working power leslie to round up the votes, because there weren't any votes to spare. do you have in a store you want to tell us about how you were able to go that? both of you on the phones to. >> well, i wrote a chapter in my book about this. by the way, rosalynn always likes me to announce the book is still for sale. [laughter] >> but it was a tedious and sometimes fruitless appearing task. because the previous fall there

have been a referendum, i mean a resolution introduced in 48 senate approved the referendum, not to change the panama could have treated. and we had to get 67 votes out of 100 to pass it. and so it was a very difficult thing to do. so we have to do with every one of the borderline senators. and one i remember vividly was in california, a japanese former president of a small college in california who had gotten famous by putting down student revolts. and he was elected president. elected to the u.s. senate. he was a scholar and a very prickly man in many ways. howard would only benefit i would but one of the things of his academic career was that he was a notice semanticist. and he had written a textbook on semantics people i knew that howard how was doubtful about the panama canal treaties so i bought a copy of his book on

semantics. it was about this thick, about like war and peace. and i laboriously went through that book and i underline passages. i really started the book and then i invited him over to the oval office just to talk to me about the panama canal treaty. and just an inductive days, i said i read your book about semantics. and i said it's very impressive. and he immediately thought that i was a liar. so he asked a couple of questions about his books and i can almost quote his book. and i convinced him and i believe that was one of the reasons later -- [laughter] -- that he made a boat that is transformed live in panama. and i think it also transformed life for a celtic so that's one of the stories among many others and i'm sure howard knows about the inner workings of those than i. >> mr. president, i will not come to the -- succumb to the

conditions. [laughter] >> but i would tell you just one. i invited him wants to do a link and a speech in memphis, big lincoln day. and he agreed, went down there. i went with him on the plane and we did the speech. and when it was over, his condition had been he would go if i would let him go to beale street. he's a great music fan. and, of course, i agree. i rounded up a dozen people to take him. i wasn't going to go. but he went. and i was afraid he was going to come back because when it was time to leave the hotel, laid the peabody and goes to the airport to catch the plane back to washington, he was nowhere in sight. i was prepared to call the police and declare him a missing person. but then as i start to get on the plane, i saw at the head of

the column of about 20 people, musicians, play their instruments and marching toward the plane. [laughter] >> well, after i got over my shock, or house embarrassment and i got on the plane and he got on and we flew back to washington. but he was very much independent person, and i don't remember, frankly, what is he was. i was so intimidated at the time. i don't remember, but i do remember this. i remember the remark mrs. carter reminded me of it, that i believe, he said once panama canal was ours, we stole it fair and square and we ought to keep it. [laughter] >> which is very hal koh like that it was too. incidentally, i have since that

time read a good bit about teddy roosevelt and his administration of the way he manhandled that situation. i don't think i would have voted for it normally, but i'm glad i did. it was the right thing to do. and sometimes the right thing to do is the right thing to do. >> thank you for that. in preparation for this panel, i asked the archivist at the jimmy carter library to see it within the 27 my piece of paper that we have in the course bus between would have between the two of you, they could find some sharp words or some points. so the first one they came up with was to senator biggert, please accept our personal thank the support of the arms sale vote. i feel strongly these cells are of national interest take your friendship with are important, or your leadership is very important. >> that was the set of airplanes. a wax and. >> and in the arms embargo on turkey, your help was crucial,

signed jay. >> can i play? what about that? henry kissinger came to see me. he was lobbying hard for me to vote for the age of israel, planes israel. and i listened patiently and i said, henry, you've got to talk to my brother law. and he looked startled and said who is that? and i said pat. he said oh, my god. but he did talk to back. and pat thought it was a good idea. and we did it. >> that was given final -- material and military form to turkey. and it was strongly opposed by greek americans. >> it certainly was. >> and the sale of f-16s. that's the first time by the way that the house and senate ever voted against the israeli lobby, was to sell f-16s to saudi arabia, which was not a threat

to israel. but it would strengthen saudi arabia. it was a very difficult vote to howard said it was worse on him than even the panama can outvote. >> that's right. it was. it was. and somebody surprised perhaps, the very hardest vote i ever cast was not that come it was not the panama canal. it was a service recommendation act, strip mine act. and i got a call from lonnie strachan, who used to be on my staff. and he was in tennessee and he called up and said, senator, said you voted for the strip mine act, you've got some of them as old friends and some of the strangest. [laughter] >> at the anniversary show a negative letter we came up with one on the panama canal at the intricacies your leadership was

invaluable, and he gets a rare jimmy carter exploration mark afterwards. so so much for that. but the point is i think we have to not leave the impression that you all agreed on everything. i mean, there were disagreements over the sultry, over -- sultry, over the breeder reactor, trying to provoke a fight here. you may have touched this, senator baker, in earlier comments but how do you handle when you come to a different to point out something? >> you have to look at long-term. i was much for interested in panama canal than sales of weapons to saudi arabia. that i was up i the stale. so i gave, you, howard the benefit of that on snail dart and he gave me the benefit of the doubt on panama canal treaty. [laughter] >> i thought it was a fair deal. it was not a direct swap. [laughter] >> by the way, i would not have been so violently opposed to the sale has it not been for professor at the university who

announced at a press conference that he was going to find something in the endangered species field to stop that damn. no, you're not. and that was the origin of that. but they are now everywhere. stank -- thanks to my lightman. >> no doubt. no doubt that the. >> and i expressed my appreciation for the presence of presence yours? i am pleased he is here. pleased to have an opportunity visit with them as i have not done recently. he showed great courage, too. and country has come a long well. the canal is doing well, doing better than it ever did. and i think that is a great tribute to people. [laughter]

[applause] >> by the way, it is about five times as good now as it did when we had a. when we had at the panama was under socialism. it was owned and controlled by the u.s. government. now it is a free enterprise, so howard help to transfer it from socialism to of free enterprise. >> so i imagine the greeks have been coming back to you now and apologize and say they knew you were right all along? >> i still get letters every week that i gave away the panama canal. letters that part of the apartment inc. [laughter] >> mr. president, someone asked me once why did you give away the panama canal? and i said, because it is full of snails. [laughter] >> which is as good as description.

>> with your permission i would like to maybe move forward in time to health care and filibusters and sort of things that we see now. are we looking at the past of rose-colored glasses and maybe people thought just as hard back then, or are we in a different breed now where the partisanship is much greater than it was then? >> well, we're not looking back at a same time through rose-colored glasses, because i had enormous support in the house and senate from republicans who were monitored too conservative on budgeting matters and on defense capabilities. and one had a difficult issue to address, as we were drafting legislation, we would invite to the white house, or to the cabinet rooms, cabinet officers,

key republican leaders who were acted to help draft legislation before it was ever introduced. it was a working in a relationship between democrats and republicans. and it was not just for me, it was the same way with ronald reagan, the same way with gerald ford, the same way with bush senior and also blended johnson obviously. and even i would say as late as bill clinton. there was a bipartisan support on many issues. but i think the hard partisanship and division that now exist last year or so is unprecedented. >> howard may -- >> i do agree with that. i am reluctant to agree with that, but i do. and that's really what i advise when i made my remark at the opening, that politics is a confrontational contest, to test ideas. but you've got to have along with it a decent respect for the

other fellow's point of view. there is a bare chance that he may be right, as much as it bothers the negative. and that is missing now. it appears to be missing. i hasten to say nobody really knows the senate and less than and the senate. and i'm not in the senate. so i yield to other judgments, but my impression is that the idea of the benefit of the doubt, so to speak, is virtually missing. and that's too bad. >> how did we get in a situation? >> well, i have a theory, but i will share with you if the president will let me. i think the present situation is -- i shouldn't do this -- the present situation was at least exasperated, that's better, by the administration decision to use reconciliation to try to pass the bill. >> you need to bush

administration? [laughter] >> we use it, too. i used to pick. >> that's what i thought. [laughter] >> i don't doubt that. but for it to become a regular way to enact legislation. and i wish -- i wrote a piece for the paper that never got published, but what i said was sometimes the president can ask too much, and what he asked for too much in this case was not on merits but on the procedure. in effect, he cut off the right to debate to the senate. anderson is very jealous of that, and has been from the beginning. >> let's focus in on this health care bill for a minute that. >> let me comment. well, i don't disagree with what howard said, but i think there are a couple more generic problems that the country has become highly polarized. and i think there are two basic reasons that one is the gerrymandering of districts in the house.

where the trend has been to get rid of moderates on both sides, and you wind up with the district very carefully drawn, like in georgia, where liberals primarily maybe african-americans have a district carved out where they will surely get reelected over and over, and then you have left some very conservative district but democrats have no chance. and that exists all over the country, except maybe iowa. where judges do the district. but that's one reason. another one is the high increase in campaign financing, and the resort in an unprecedented way to the extent of negative advertising, and where they key to success, quite often, is to destroy the character and reputation of your opponent on both sides, and that carries over after the election is over with the people in the district believing that both sides are

scoundrels. and then there's an animosity that carries over into washington. and a third thing, less important i think is raising up an extremely right wing republican supporters, tea parties and others, that may have dragged the republican party voters to the right. howard may disagree with it, but the last thing i said, but i think that polarization is deep and penetrating. and i don't see at this point a way for it to be alleviated in the future. >> i think you will be alleviated, because it will collapse under its own weight. i don't think that the congress or the people will long stand for an action. and i don't blame anybody for an action today. is in the nature of things that i am opposed to the repeal of will 22, which is the filibusterable. i think that is part of the fabric of the senate as well. but sooner or later the people

will make a judgment of whether they think that ought to happen or not. i think they're on the brink of making that judgment. i don't know what that judgment will be. but my guess is it will be very different from where it is today. i would hope that in the next election, elections after that, that we will find a situation we have an honest competition between candidates that you have honest competition for ideas, and they translate it into usual policy. that may be too idealistic, but that's what i hope. i also hope that we will come around to the realization that campaigning is not an art, is not an entertainment, it is not an art form. it is a way to judge the merits of the people who are offering themselves for service. you did that. you had a very explicit express set of principles that you proposed. i like to think i did that.

and i think that will be the answer, sooner or later. people can make ideas, choices and not emotional choices. but a motion is part of it. i didn't say a thing. [laughter] >> but i felt better for saying it. [laughter] >> well, let me say if you substitute the word hope for expect or predict, i agree with you. >> good for you. >> you know, i used to teach courses in legislative process. i'm one of those academics who doesn't understand it, but we used to play a game called the senate. and if you invoke all the rules of the senate, nothing ever past. so things past because people let them pass. is there sort of a rule of thumb of when the filibuster issues, or when a hold is used, to where it can uphold, and not become a roadblock? >> say it again.

>> are there sort of, is there sort of a custom that you would recommend of when the filibuster should be used, or when they hold should be used? should use all the time? is there some threshold it should have? >> i don't think there should be a criteria for a. i think it is judge from time to time. this and is a very unique place, very different. and i don't want to unduly average the ability of the senators to speak, as long as they want to speak. we've gotten along for more than 200 years without rule 22. and we will get along again without it. lodge -- logic finally prevails, but i think almost always creates controversy. i would not, for