politics was good enough for me, and, i enjoyed it and i enjoyed most days, anyway. 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 and that is okay. i haven't forgiven them, either! [laughter]. >> so there you are! >> both of you worked tirelessly to round up the votes, there were no votes to spare. do you have any stars you want to tell us about how you were able to do that? both of you were on the phones and... >> well, i wrote a chapter in my book, "keeping faith" and rosalynn always likes me to announce the book is still on sale... but it was a tedious and sometimes fruitless appearing

task, because, the previous fall, there had been a referendum -- i mean, a resolution introduced and 48 senators approved the referendum not to change the panama canal treaties, we had to get 67 votes out of 100 to pass it. and so, it was a very difficult thing to do and we had to deal with every one of the borderline senators, and one i remember vividly was hykawa, a japanese, a former president of college and he was famous by putting down student revolts and he was elected to the u.s. senate an hiakawa was a scholar and a peculiar man in many ways and howard would know him better than i would, and what i remember of his academic career is he was a noted semanticsist and wrote a textbook on sman

tics and he was doubtful about the panama canal treaty and i bought a copy of his book on semantics, it was this thick, like war and peace, and i laboriously went through the book and underlined passages and really studied it and invited him to the oval office to talk about the panama can that treaty and i said i read your back about semantics and it is prim yes avis and he thought immediately that i was a liar. so he asked me a couple of question about his book and i could almost quote his book, and i convinced him and i believe that was one of the reasons, later... [laughter]. >> that he made a vote that transformed life in panama and i think also transformed life for ourselves, that is one of the stories, among many others and i'm sure howard knows more about the inner workings of those days than do i. >> mr. president, i will not

succumb to the temptation to tell you hiakawa stories! but i will tell you just one. he -- i advised him once to do a lincoln day speech in memphis. and he agreed, and went down there and 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 agreed to that. and, rounded up a couple of -- a dozen people to take him to beale street. i wasn't going to go. but, he went. and i was afraid he wasn't going to come back, because when it was time to leave the hotel, leave the peabody and go to the airport, to catch the plane back to washington, he was nowhere in sight. i was prepared to call the police. and decollar him a missing person.

but then as i started to get onto the plane, i saw him at the head of a column of about 20 people, musician, playing their instruments as -- and marching toward the plane. and after i got over my shock, and perhaps, embarrassment, i got on the plane and he got on and we flew back to washington! but, he was very much an independent person. and i don't remember, frankly, what his view was on the panama canal, i was so intimidated by his other to the tributes, i don't remember but i do remember this: i remember the remark, mrs. carter reminded me of it, that i believe you reminded me of it, he said, once, the panama canal was ours, we stole it fair and square and we ought to keep it. [laughter]. >> which was very hiakawa like.

and, incidentally i have, since that time, and i'm glad it was since this time read a good bit about teddy roosevelt and his administration and the way he manhandled the situation. i'm glad i voted for it and it was the right thing to do and sometimes it is this right thing to do and it was the right thing to do. >> in preparation of this panel, i asked the archivist to see if in the 27 million pieces of paper we have in the correspondence we have between the two of you, they could find some words or some points. so, the first one they came up with was, to senator baker, please accept my personal thanks for support of the arm sale vote, i feel strongly sees these sales are in the national interest, your friendship -- leadership was very important and that didn't meet the bill. and then the -- >> that was the... >> the f-16s. >> yes.

>> and the -- arms embargo on turkey. your help was crucial, signed, j, and -- >> a quick story about that. >> sure. >> henry kissinger came to see me, he was lobbying hard for the vote for the -- for me to vote for the aid to -- planes to israel deal and i listened patiently and i said, henry, you've got to talk to my brother-in-law and he looked startled and he said who, and i said pat estedes and he said, oh, my god, but he talked to him and he thought it was a good idea and we did it. >> that was material help in military form to turkey, and it was strongly opposed by greek-americans. >> certainly was. >> and the sale of f-16s to saudi arabia was strongly approached by every supporter of israel and that is the first time the house and senate ever voted against the israeli lobby,

was to sell f-16s to saudi arabia, which, were not a threat to israel. but it would strengthen saudi arabia and let them defend themselves later on, from iran and so forth, so it was a difficult vote and the senate was worse on howard, than even the panama canal vote. >> that's right, it was. it was. 1 and, somebody -- to somebody's surprise the hardest vote i cast was not that or the panama canal, it was the serviceman reclamation act and i got a call from a -- lonnie struck, who used to be on my staff, and he was in tennessee and called up and said, senator, since you voted for that act, you've got some of the maddest old friends and the strangest... [inaudible] [laughter]. >> anyway... anyway... >> the end of our search for a negative letter we came up with

one on the panama canal at this end, it says your leadership was invaluable and gives a rare jimmie carter exclamation mark afterwards and the point is we have to be not leave the impression you all agreed on everything. i mean, there were disagreements over the salt treaty and the snail garter and the breeder reactor, trying to provoke a fight here and you may have touched it in your earlier comment, how do you handle it when you come to a different viewpoint. >> you have to look at the long term. i was a much -- much more interested in the the panama canal than sales of weapons to saudi arabia than i was about the snail garter and i gave, i gave howard on the benefit of the doubt on the snail darter and he gave me the benefit of the doubt on the panama treaties. it was a fair deal. >> it was not a direct swap. >> i would not have been

violently opposed to the snail darter had it not been for a professor at the university, who announced a press conference that he was going to find something in the endangered species field to stop that dam and i thought, no, you're not and that is the origin of the conflict. but sh but, senators... [inaudible]. >> thanks to my enlightened position. [laughter]. >> no doubt, no doubt. no doubt. can i express by appreciation for president bartletta, here? i am pleased he's here, and pleased to have an opportunity to visit with him which i haven't done recently. he showed great courage, too. and the country has come along well. the canal is doing well. doing better than it did when we had it. and i think that is a great tribute to the people of panama. [applause].

>> by the way, it is doing five times as good now as it did when we -- we -- the panama canal was under socialism. it was controlled by the u.s. government and now as free enterprise, howard helped to transfer it from socialism to free enterprise. that is another benefit for the panama canal. >> and critics have been coming back to you now and apologizing and saying you knew you were right all along. >> i still get letters, every week, that i gave away the panama canal. letters, you know, part blue and part red ink and so forth. >> mr. president, someone asked me why did you give away the panama canal? and i said, because it is full of snail darters! [laughter].

>> which was as good a description as there is. >> with your permission i'd like to maybe move forward in time, to health care, and filibusters and things that we see now. are we looking at the past with rose colored glasses and people fought as hard back then or are we in a different period now where partisanship is much greater than it was then. >> no, looking back at the same time, through rose colored glasses, i had enormous support in the house and senate from republicans who were moderate to conservative on budgeting matters and on defense capabilities, and, when we had a difficult issue to address, as we were drafting legislation, we

would invite to the white house, or to the cabinet, cabinet officers, key republican leaders, who were active in the committees to help draft legislation before it was ever introduced. it was a working interrelationship between democrats and republicans, and, it was not just for me, it was the same wa with ronald reagan and the same way with gerald ford and with bush, sr. and lyndon johnson, and each i would say as late as bill clinton, there was a bipartisan support on many issues but i think the partisanship and division that exist the last year or so is unprecedented. howard may... >> i free, mr. president. i do agree with that. i'm reluctant to agree, but i do. and, that is really what i had -- when i made the remark at the opening, 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 bear's chance that he may be right. as much as it bothers me to say it. and that is missing now. it appears to be missing. i hasten to say nobody knows the senate unless they are in the senate and i'm not in the senate so i yield to other judges but, my impression is that the idea of the benefit of the doubt, so to speak, is virtually missing. and that is too bad. >> how did we get into that situation. >> i have a pet theory and i'll share it with you if the president will let me. i think the present situation is... i shouldn't do this. the present situation is -- a least was exacerbated, that is better, by the administration's decision to use reconciliation

to try to pass the bill. >> the bush administration. >> no, talking about the... we used it, too, i used it. >> that's what i thought. go ahead. >> i don't... but, for it to become a regular way, to enact legislation i think is destructive and i wrote a piece for the paper, that never got published, but what i say is sometimes the president can ask too much. and when he asks too much in this case, it was not on the merits but the procedure. you in effect cut off the right to debate in the senate. and, the senate is very jealous of that and has been from the beginning. >> let's focus in on the health care -- >> let me come back to that. well, i don't disagree with what howard said but i think there are a couple more jen racgeneri problems, the country has become highly polarized and i think

there are two basic reasons, one is the jurymandering of districts in the house. where the trend has been to get rid of moderates on both sides. and you wind up with the districts very heavily drawn like in georgia, where liberals primarily, primarily african-americans have a district carved out where they will surely get reelected over and over and then you have left, very conservative districts, but, democrats have no chance. and, exists all over this country. except make iowa. where judges do the districts but that is one reason. another one is, the high increase in campaign financing. and the result in an unprecedented way to the extent of negative advertising, and where the key to success quite often is the -- to destroy the character and reputation of your opponent, and, 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 is an animosity that carries over into washington. and, a third thing, less important, i think, is the raising up, extremely right wing republican supporters, tea party and others, that may have dragged the republican party voters to the right. howard may disagree with it, but, i think, that polarization is deep and penetrating and i don't, a way for it to be alleviated in the future. >> i think it 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 inaction and i don't blame anybody nfor inaction today, an i am opposed to the repeal of

the filibuster rule, rule 22, that is part of the fabric of the senate but sooner or later, people make a judgment whether that will happen or not and or on this brink of making that judgment and i don't know what it will be, but, my guess is it will be different from what it is today. i would hope that in the next election, the elections after that, that we'll find a situation where we have an honest competition between candidates and you have honest competition for ideas and they translate into useful policy. that may be too idealistic but that is what i hope. i also hope that we'll come around to the realization that campaigning is not an art, is not an entertainment, is not an art form. it is a way you 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, emotion is part of it. and it -- i didn't say a thing but i felt better for saying it! [laughter]. >> let me say, if you substitute the word hope for expect or predict. i agree with you. >> all right. >> 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 invoked all the rules of the senate, nothing ever passed and things passed because of people letting them pass, is there sort of a rule of thumb of when the filibuster is used, or when a hold is used, where it can

uphold the dignity of the senate and not become a roadblock? >> say it again. >> is there a custom you would recommend of when the filibuster should be used or when a hold should be used, should it be used all the time or there is a threshold that it should have? >> well, i... may i. >> i don't think there should be a criteria for it. i look at it as judge from time-to-time. the senate is a very unique place. very different. and, i don't want to unduly abridge the ability of senators to speak. as long as they want to speak. we have gotten along more than 200 years without rule 22. and we'll get along again without it. logic finally prevails. but i think to try to impose a solution, almost always creates

controversy. i would not, for instance, have advised, had i been advising the administration, which i was not, i would not have advised to try reconciliation. that is too technical for us to talk about here but i think it guaranteed that you would have partisan confrontation for the foreseeable future over the issue. and that is too bad. i am for health care reform. i am really for universal health coverage, i haven't figured out how to pay for it but i am for it and there is a way, but we've poisoned the spring and it is so controversial it will not happen in the final analogies. -- analysis. >> president carter, i think, said that he might favor nonpartisan drawing of districts. can i read that? do you think that is a good idea to have districts redrawn

outside the legislative process nonpartisan or do you prefer diet. >> i think it is unconstitutional. >> the only thing i say is, our -- they have distinguished judges in iowa who allocate the area of each u.s. congressional district. and, they do it on a nonpartisan basis, whereas, now, as you know, in texas, they even do it between censuses, depending on who has a majority in the legislature, for the governor to approve and orient each congressional district to suit the particular members of the congress, so they can get reelected. so, the number of congress members who are now subject to possible nonre-election, dwindles with every passing census and now, there is a senate cure, for some conservatives in some districts and arch liberals in other

districts, and, the moderates in between, have just been removed from the congress. so i think, that that is a downside of jurymandering. but i don't know exactly -- i don't know it would be unconstitution tol have the legislature -- who make the decision, by the way, ordain that judges or nonpartisan, blue ribbon panel, could orient the districts. it will not happen. but, i don't think it is unconstitutional. >> how do we rebuild collegiality? do the republicans and democrats need to go out to dinner for often? it seems now like those bonds that sort of cross party lines have -- don't seem from the outside to be as strong. is there some way to do that? >> i saw the other day, or night on i think jim lehrer's show,

the former senator, he says democratic and republican senators never sit at the same table any more in the senate dining room and i have never been a member of the senate. i don't know. >> well, they do. they do. yeah, they do if they want to. [laughter]. >> but, the point is well taken, it really is. collegiality is personally nonexistent in the senate now. and when i came to the senate it was the rule. it really was. and it was -- it is too bad it has disappeared, because it is the lubricant that makes things work. i don't know how you restore it. i do not know how that happens, but it needs to happen. i remember, i -- can i tell one story? it is a little off color, but not much. my father-in-law was everett dirksen, who in my view was a great senator.

lyndon johnson had been majority leader when he was minority leader and they got to be very close and when the president got to be the president, president johnson was elected president, dirksen was leader of the -- republican leader, and they continued their friendship. i remember one day, this is terrible, i shouldn't tell it. one day, i was waiting in his office, to catch a plane back to nashville. and a person came in and said, the president is on the phone, meaning president johnson, and, nobody asked me to leave and i didn't. and, i heard the conversation go like this, no, mr. president, i'm sorry. i'm sorry, i can't come down to have a drink after work. pause. i'll tell you why. i came home late last night and lou well la was mad. and i thought this is remarkable. republican leader, democratic

president, on such cordial and informal terms and 15 minutes later i heard a terrible clatter in the reception room, and the first thing i saw were two beagle dogs tied onto one leather leash, true story, he came in, the secret service, was panicking, and, came to the inner office and said, if you won't come drink with me, i'll come drink with you! [laughter]. >> and they did. they went to the -- i don't know what they did or what happened there and i don't know what problems got solved, but i'll guarantee you, some did. and, that is missing that is not there any more. and that is too bad. it really is. i don't know how you change it. but it is too bad. >> is it harder to do things in private any more? that is a mixed blessing, we're now in the age of cable news, and 24 hours, and 7 days a week, does that aggravate some of

these partisan issues? >> i think they -- talk shows and the division with -- msnbc on the one hand and fox on the other, tends to help with the polarization throughout the nation. we didn't have cable television when howard and i were in the white house. and the senate together. we only had cnn polls in 1980 the last year i was in office but, before that you didn't have this constant 24-hour bera rati of people and, now, the conservative people always watch fox, and the others don't. and so, it helps to polarize, i think. we didn't have that then. in the media.

there were liberals and republicans -- liberals and conservative columnists and both wrote for the "new york times." and i don't think we had it then, do you think. >> no. i don't believe we did. and, i'm reminded of, was it kay... who stood on the shore and tried to make the waves stop coming in? that is the way it is with television. and dby the way, ted turner, wil be recorded as having changed the history of american government more than, perhaps, most other people. by affording wide coverage of cable. and i think that is to his credit. >> and also point out, c-span is with us today. and, c-span began in 1979. so, both of you should claim credit for that. >> brian lam was the young man who kept fussing about this and

i kept not listening. and, finally, we did agree, to let c-span cover the senate and the house. and that, too, had been a dramatic change. he did a great thing. >> he's still doing some shows. great, great resource. we're getting close to the end of our time, would either of you like to wrap up any -- if you had one... say you had one piece of advice for president obama and one piece of advice for leader mcconnell, what would you tell them? >> well, i think, summarize, reach out to each other and treat each other as human beings and as friends. and, try to find as much common ground as possible. and the adverse comments, made in the media through the reconciliation talks between them, in a private way, i think

that is the main thing i would say, but... >> i agree, mr. president. i don't think it will happen soon, because it is so ingrained now. and it is so embraced by the country. who think of it as entertainment, i'm afraid. it will be difficult to change but it has to change. it really does. >> i'm grateful as a former president, for the bipartisanship that you exhibit sewed courageously when i was in office. >> i'm grateful for your leadership. thank you. [applause]. >> i think howard has made this one of the best c-span programs anybody ever had. >> and plug on that note and please see the how