>> the civil rights act, voting rights act, medicare, education, a remarkable period. there were three elections. 58, 60 come and 62. there were 24 new members elected, 11 of the same party.

you only had 11 seats the changed hands. if you compare the 1950s and 1960s, two decades juxtaposed, you get total different readings about their performance. a lot of things happen. the assassination of an american president, manages to muscle things through to get things done. things are always happening in our country. so before people run and decide that it's ever going to get better this is the worst time ever, we need remind ourselves there have been other periods and come back. each generation has to discover how it operates and functions in its time innocent. even with today the modern technologies that exist in information. i totally agree the awesome and dreadful responsibly of raising money for charities to get elected or reelected. i want us to be careful about rushing to judgment. there is remarkably good members in my view. democrats and republicans in the senate, and i think given the opportunities, will rise to the

occasion just as other generations have. we are living in a time where the franchise of public service is so denigrated on an hourly basis it's hard to get anyone to say anything positive. nothing more infuriating, someone watching the institution and see the demeaning process. we got to be celebrating, regardless of politics. if it wasn't to be involved, and not enough that happens in my view. i don't want to be a pollyanna, but i do see the institution made up of quality members coming back under different circumstances to make a difference. while i accept certainly the critical observations about this, i think you need a deeper, longer, the stroke of you about the institution, see the quality of the members that exist and recognize they will find their mode. they just did on immigration or about the. i think they will on other issues. what chuck schumer did with orrin hatch and others and find

a compromise allowing it to go forward, i think we begin to see a better day. i wanted to end on a positive note, that i'm not as down on the institution and i realize all of the things that have been said i also believe this current membership can have some very, very significant moments. and equally if not -- >> thank you very much. [applause] >> i think senator dodd just took the most unpopular position ever taken in this building, he defended the congress of the united states. thank you very, very much. no,. >> well, this is a treat. certainly a treat for me to listen to bob and chris. and it's a treat for you. there is a lot here that is of real interest, importance and relevance. and i want to underscore a

couple of pieces of it to make sure it just didn't with by you. first, to be clear about what i think of bob kaiser's book, he sent me page proofs. it was off to production, so it was too late to go on the back cover. he just sent to me and i read it, believe it or not, on vacation. not a novel. i read his book in tucson, arizona. and as soon as i finished i got out my computer and i wrote this e-mail to him, and it said, "an act of congress" is easily the best book on congress i've read in decades. it is a stupendous achievement, richly informative, a pleasure to read. wise in his assessment of why dodd-frank was able to succeed,

and that this case is more exception and rule in these difficult governing times. and i ended by saying, generations of students will find it their favorite and most rewarding of signed reading in classes. bob's book reads like a novel. and let me tell you, -- knows what novels read like. [laughter] it's much more interesting than, and informative, then sitting through this series of hearings chris dodd had to sit through, and barney frank had to sit through, and the difficult conference that they have to get through the. but by conveying the richness of the interactions and the participants. one comes away, and

congressional scholars who never get that close, will come away with a new and appreciated, a new standing of this institution, and this broader process. but the book also contains a serious analytic treatment of congress as an institution within a political content, and that's important. the last chapter is called still broken. and that's where he develops this notion of the problem is of congress. now here, i want to make an argument that his emphasis on the culture of congress turns eyes away from other things that he says that i think are more consequential and imported. just remember, the culture of congress didn't change between the 111th and 112th congress, but it's day in a.

it's because the context was dominating. the republican house made it impossible for anything to happen. i would argue the culture is more a symptom of what's going on, and with it comes a whole set of him problematics and consequences. but it's clear what's driving the culture that he is talking about in this book is, is the emergence of politics polarizations which came after that great period of the golden senate that chris dodd referred to come and which there was no overlap that alito could work with in the other party. because everyone was absolutely a part.

secondly, during that period of time, democrats were in control big time, large majority. the house and the senate democrats had been in control since eisenhower's first term, the first congress. and, frankly, republicans were kind of game. they realized if they were going to get anything done they had to do business with democrats. and a lot of them, a class of problem solving conservative or moderate senate democrats made a huge difference, and they were a good number in the house as well. republicans, excuse me. but when we got the parity, first with the senate with the 1980 election when chris was elected, and the 1994 election, suddenly either party could win a majority. and that's what turned i think members of congress, many of them, from being problem solvers and legislators to politicians.

because they were under such pressure saying, this one piece of legislation, this one amendment could be the wedge issue that determines if we're in the majority or not. and the final, which bob talks about but didn't say a word of during the presentation here, i will quote from kaiser in the "washington post." the biggest change in american politics in my lifetime has been the transformation of the republican party. and he says it in great detail. and it is a reality that you've got to face up to, and it enormously complicates the task of governing. so i don't disagree with any of, certainly bob's rich description or his analysis. it's all there. i just think he's slightly under emphasized some of the by talking about the culture of

congress, which is saved in the world of the press today because then you don't seem to be imbalanced. bob isn't like that. many of his colleagues at the "washington post" and "the new york times" and others do that. now let me turn to chris here. chris dodd is genuinely a man of the senate. this was far from the first major bill that he passed. he has a record name it on the labor committee, family and medical leave, immunization, day care, a whole host of issues that he is worked at. and you can find the same thing in the area of foreign policy and the early banking activities that we talked about. he's made a difference many times.

so we should remain optimistic. he's been a part of getting things done, and even got something done since congress changed and the senate changed in really such a fundamental way. but i kept asking myself, did chris really believe he could cut a deal with shelby and make it stick, when mitch mcconnell had announced at the beginning of the year, forget it. republicans are not playing ball. and i thought it was brilliant to put together the pairs of senators on the committee, and they did good work, but we notice not a single one of them voted for the final bill. sure, if they can have a hand in influencing a build but then walk away from it, if you hadn't managed to put together the three republicans that you did from the northeast and some

upkeep the queasy democrats on board, you did so much work to do that, their absence would've led to a complete failure. so i'm not quite as bullish on the republicans as chris is. it's a tough job in this environment when the filibusters, which used to be the exception, then became a little more frequent. in fact, it track chris his career. and then it took off like a rocket in 2009. everything was subject to a 60 vote threshold. many things that got done in earlier times wouldn't have happened under this environment, and it's why some big things managed to happen in the 111th that had no chance in the 112 or 13, and all of the reporting about what obama did or didn't do was largely irrelevant to the

reality that the context has changed. we got the stimulus, the affordable care act, dodd-frank, in the 111th. we got the pseudo-crisis over the debt ceiling and the public downgrade of our debt and the 112th, and the sequestered in the 113th. i sort of rest my case. what i want to say is i agree with chris over bob on staff. that is to say, strong members are serious about legislating, need really good stuff. and one of, and you tell the story, and you say it, that one of the real details of this is, is the extraordinary work done

by keith house and senate staff. but members would not have been able to make use of them in that fashion. and then or get into the broader process. so yeah, i'm saying if we have a lot of members who aren't informed and we do, and if we haven't had a lot of silly talk on the floor that is pure sound bite and prepared lines repeated again and again, thank god we have some people people who care about the institution. i'm just worried we don't substitute for jean and amy a bunch of ideologues who don't achieve the expertise and work to try to develop legislation that has a shot at it. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> i know there are a lot of people in the audience a real

expertise, such as want to confine myself to a couple of questions but i do want to report the most interesting new organization i learned of from this book, only in washington, d.c. would we create the coalition for derivatives and users, which bob describes. and, in fact, i never expect the book to make the battle over derivatives to look like a cliffhanger. it's a really fascinating story. it really truly is. don't take my word for it. read the book. bob and i have a long-standing argument which i don't want to get into, which is i'm kind of temperamentally skeptical of golden age theories of any institution. i was thinking as bob was led by the campaign process, richard nixon ran against the painfully. george smathers in the late '40s attacked his opponent for having a sister who was a thespian. yes, she was an actress.

you know, -- matriculated in college. [laughter] vicious campaign. i don't want to get into that, i do want to sort of put that out there because, and if bob wants to defend the golden age three, i will let him, but i wanted to ask sort of related questions to bob and senator dodd. when you look at this whole story and examined the various compromises that were made, i want you to toggle a bit about where you think the bill was harmed, if you will, by necessary compromise. you are talking of the 3% rule, 3% with the lowest you could go and still old scott brown's vote on the derivatives. so i would like you to sort of reflect on that. senator dodd, a similar question, two questions really.

one is how different would this bill had been if you could have passed it with 51 votes? do you have some thoughts, couple examples of what you might've done differently? but just how would that process have been different? would it have been better or worse wax and have you changed your mind at all about the filibuster? you have up to now been a defender of the existing rule. and bob suggests in the book that you were getting pretty impatient with it and that was before the last year. so i like to ask you those two questions, above, if you talk a bit about, going through all of this, where did you see the necessary compromises, potentially doing damage to the bill? >> i, too, don't believe in golden age is. i believe in more golden than less golden. and we're in the less golden one at the moment.

this question raises what for me has been a tricky problem throughout. i am not and never have been an expert on financial regulation. i've had some wonderful teachers, many of them in this room, while helping understand issues here but really don't know to this day with one exception let me mention where there's a weak spot in this bill, whether something is really wrong. and i think as chris and barney have both said to me in different ways, we really will only know for sure when we have another crisis to see what works. because a lot of these provisions are taking on hypothetical problems that have never actually arisen. the one really interesting egregious case, i would like to hear chris talk about, i have pressed on them before is the compromise he felt he had to make that was never a

compromise. nothing ever happened. that was the compromise. it was blanche lincoln was running for reelection and the democrats desperately wanted to help her in every way they could, for the obvious reasons. and because of this some really bad language on derivatives is still in the bill. a real hero. i was finishing the book last night and wanted to meet you. [laughter] >> worth meeting. julie was driven to distraction by this because she knew what was wrong and nothing could be done about it. they kept hoping this instance, this instance may be in the conference committee there would be a chance to fix it. and then it was. so i'm sure that a critical

analysis of the, the worst provision is -- is because of his political act. the other compromises that i know about and wrote about all seem to be justified with the this question of 3%, 10%, nobody has any idea. volcker had this wonderful line, proprietary trading, which means the bank playing the markets with its own money, proprietary trading is very hard to define set volcker, any hearing in your to me, but i know it when i see it. that's a little too glib, frankly. it's in fact extreme difficult to say this transaction is proprietary and this one is not. that's what the regulators are struggling with now, trying to write the volcker wrote as a functioning regulation. so it was a compromise. it wasn't what paul volcker wanted. but he accepted it.

and i think it's fun. i think it's okay. and the other ones are all similar. the biggest compromise that was made from the outset here which i write about, both chris and barney for the own reasons decided at the outset were not interested in revolutionary reconstruction of the financial sector of the united states. they were not interested in breaking up the big banks if you're not interested in restoring glass-steagall. is not an open and shut case in my opinion for restoring glass-steagall. so they did something which the liberal activists said was a copout, which they can defend very articulately, and chris will if he wants to. but it was a big, big compromise not to do what fdr and ben cohen

decided to do, which was really shake up the existing system, change them, make them different than they were. they built on a system that existed, did not transform its very different now. a lot less profitable than it was but it's recognizably the same system. i think that was very much power of the politics, but also the preferences of the two chairmen, and the administration. everybody was on the same page. >> well, a couple of points. on awful lot said. regarding the big banks, the last point, we established the financial service oversight, we gave an extraordinary power. this never existed part of this was my thinking on this was came up within process, or submit this just would hope that the of the staff working on this proposal.

there's nothing in this legislation that prohibits the next crisis. they will happen. the question is can be turned it on the problem before it metastasizes into with this problem became. in my to have been '06 or a summit response to the residential mortgage crisis it would have been a crisis but far less of one than what emerged as result of failing to address problem when the opportunity existed. so the idea of the federal oversight was to have an organization made up of the treasury and other oddities that meet regularly, i can sum up said reactions of treasure when they weren't going to miss you share that and it was a disagreement. but to me, meet periodically and look over the horizon as to what's occurring after, institutions taking on greater risk than they ought to. are their product lines emerging that could pose significant risk and the like?

all of a sudden your face with these dreadful alternatives that we were in the fall of 2008. it was very, very important in my view that we have had capacity, that was an example of the ability. all 60 eminence with exception of one on the floor of the senate, i insisted that everyone be accepted or rejected on a 50 vote margin, and everyone was except the one. which 60 votes because of those involved insisted upon and actually carried even with 60 votes. the reasons i did, i let people talk in the senate, unless they got so dilatory in the process i call the other into the great credit very few did. never had to call anyone on it, but you could take a major bill, you could actually debated and a full foot away on the floor of the senate, and you could

actually then vote up or down 50 votes. the final to require a 60 vote margin for passage. so the question of what would've happened of 51 votes with the question of all ask him if i four, five, six, seven, eight republicans decide they want to work with the, not to rewrite the bill went to work on the bill itself, with a little more freedom than they were being given by the leadership, then i think to build my to been different in the derivatives area a little bit, maybe in the volcker wrote a little bit here and there. it's hard to say exactly where the changes would've occurred but it was disappointing. and they did try to reach out to the people. to her credit susan collins want to write provisions of the, cared enough about it. we incorporate her ideas and she voted for the bill. olympia snowe cared about small business, had provisions in the. she supported the bill. sam brownback had an amendment stating with the congo. dick lugar did dealing with extractive industries a as a wet

virginia argued because it involved over governance but, unfortunately, didn't support the bill in the end. so i regretted, norm in a process having been through many of them over the years that a minority if you get provisions in the bill, significant once, you may not like everything else but your inclination, a major idea of yours has been incorporate the that didn't happen and i regret that didn't happen but you think it's important when talking about the history of the legislation that there are significant provisions in that bill that were crafted and written by the minority. that's not insignificant in my view. now, the filibuster. i'll be quick on this one. i served under every imaginable configuration that you can in congress and the white house in 30 years. every imaginable one where i was in the majority, minority, presidents, republicans, democrats. as it was a rubik's cube and you could move it around every possible configuration to i served them one time or another.

and i'm a great believer that the bicameral ideas, which was created by two wonderful senators from connecticut, oliver sherman and, roger sherman and oliver ellsworth to say the constituconstitu tional convention in the 18th century. had the right idea that the house, the rules, absolute guarantee the rights of majority. i served there, on the rules committee. the brilliant idea down the hall we created another body that would have equal representation of all states and with the rights of the minority including a minority of one would be sacrosanct. forcing the institution, the congress, to deliberate and think about things before there was a tyranny of the majority could happen. having served under all these different configurations i always find it interesting that those who are in the majority want to get rid of the filibuster, the other ideas. those who spend a few years -- when ideas come along. that are dreadful, do great damage to the country.

and so this is a rough period we'rweare in and i agree with t. i don't disagree. saddens me to watch but also as i said earlier have a lot of confidence they can come back. and what does i hope you don't confront the united states senate has been basically so neutered in the process it looks like it unicameral process. just a mirror reflection of the house of representatives. the senate operates on unanimous consent with all the other rules you have. it's the willingness of the members of the institution to make it work. and right now what you've had three times in the '20s and early part of the 21st century, 1948, saw began in 1981 and you were seeing it now. and that is give almost supermajority made up of first term centers. it happened in 48, between 44 and 48 the it happened between 76 and 81, and it's happening today. next year, automatically 54 senators in the first term. that is if no one else is defeated and process. could be more.

when you end up with that kind of distortion, so many new members and fewer members have been around on the, the discipline of the institution that moderates the behavior of new members somewhat. so the ginned up with more of a flow, new and old members coming. not suggesting longevity at you get a flow, a certain amount of members have been around a while, new members coming. you learned the rhythms of institution. it's not governed by rules per se but rather the willingness of 100 people to sit together to try and achieve some common point of view and then drive effectively to get the. the last few weeks i was in the senate there was a survey done, not for me, and asked members of the senate is the most partisan number of the senate and who's the most bipartisan member of the senate? i won both polls. [laughter] >> ago figure. >> and i don't object to the outcome in some ways because happened with some of the best senators historic were people who believed they did what they cared about.

and willing to fight for but also smart enough to figure how to come to a compromise to get something done. so i know there's a temptation in these frustrations, with the nomination. i think you ought to look at who gets confirmation but i wonder whether chuck at senate confirmation of ambassadors and other things today. they can communicate with each other on cell phones minute by minute in the state department. you begin to look at how you reduce the number of senate confirmations and reduce the number of filibusters that a critic by just urge people not to get so caught up in the moment that you're willing to fundamentally alter what is been a critically important institution with the rights of minorities in the debate that occurs, and thinking carefully about what we are about to do. frustrating as it is, i think changing it would be a great loss. >> i wanted to pull these numbers on just this question. bob notes that as recent as the congress in 1969-70 confusion 15

cloture motions were filed in the senate to in the '80s they never exceeded 60 in one congress. after the democrats regained control in 2007-2008 they shot up to 139 in 110th congress in 137. has this changed already? in other words, you are saying you like the way the senate works by the senate doesn't work like it did anyway. in other words, this is a new world. and i want to ask about what he thought about the filibuster but i want ask you -- >> i can't argue with any of those numbers. but you're asking me to say because were going to this, those numbers are dreadful, that you're going to take an institution that has given us the kind protections against some very bad ideas historically. because there was a place we had to think twice what you were doing. committee to give that up until is a great deal. it depends on where you sit on whether not you think these are grateful to the leadership and

the ability of people to know each other, you are bob pointed out what a fun one of the worst conditions, and that is a staggering number of people go by from monday night or tuesday when police thursday nights on friday mornings to they don't know each other at all. no institution, public or private survived weather is not the kind of social interaction, critical in its success. what's happening is the only people know about each other is what party they belong to or what ideology they embraced the they don't know what they care about, what the kids care about, what hobbies are. there's all those basic things that any institution needs if you're going to be success. and to me, that is awful lot of damage in the process that people don't know which of the when i arrived, check on this, the united states government paid for two grand trip tickets a year to your stupid after that you want to go, you pick one of your own pocket. now, there was a failure. you get elected to congress.

your spoke to come and spend the time. instead of québec, now you can go back on if you can think of a reason to see three people that have some public purpose on a saturday morning, the federal government will pay you round-trip ticket to go do it. that's ludicrous. immediately say, the political back onto the, a fort out of your campaign account or pay for personal and if that's what you want to do. people need to spend time you, you have 70 or 80 house members living in the offices. i regret they don't bring their families to down. many of them can't afford it, i realize it's expensive, but just that alone could have a fundamental alteration all those numbers you're talking about. >> bob, i want to go to the audience. you have any thoughts on the filibuster? >> chris said the key thing. that's an operator when operated well when the unanimous consent will because of a shared loyalty to the institution. and i'm afraid that that's what's been lost.

the loyalty now is to party, not the institution as i said, and the difference is profound. and, therefore, a more sympathetic, although i haven't seen the perfect solution yet. >> thank you. >> please identify yourself. >> everyone, please identify themselves. >> i'm garrett mitchell. i write image were poor and what to push on this point were i think we are now, and that is as a look on the stage, the points that of a particular from bob kaiser talk about the greatest change has been in his time in washington are suspended change in the character of the modern republican party. and tom in norman's book about is worse than it looks, and senator dodd's point about we

might call it the baby and bathwater argument, is all good and well but went back to stewards notion about, i don't know what it is, but i know if i see, i suspect everyone of us sees it. my question is do you either or mr. kaiser board senator dodd, if we could agree that that it ain't working and it ain't working because it is, that to me changes have taken place so that the character of the senate that your father knew and that you knew when you came as an example is gone, what nominations would we make from this panel of changes that could be made? in either the house or the

senate. that would make some difference that would nudge us towards, if not a golden era, a less corrosive one then -- i'm just interested to know, you know, what's the realm of the possible. because it seems to me this is not the time to follow ronald reagan's, you know, don't just stand there do nothing, or whatever the hell it is. so anyway, that's -- >> thank you. for me, that's where this starts is reagan's first inaugural. government is not the problem -- not the solution, the government is the problem. we have cultivated over the last 40 years of hostility to government in our culture. it's never been absent. it's been there from the beginning but it's intensity has increased dramatically in modern

times. the result is that a majority of the new members of the 112th, 113th congress i think don't believe in the efficacy of government. they think government is something only to be shrunk, and they see no good coming from it. this is a perfectly acceptable philosophical proposition, but if that's the membership of the governing legislature, you're not going to get much good government and that's where we are. so i think unfortunately i'm asked this everywhere on my book tour now, how do we solve this? the only real solution i can recommend with a straight face is that we've got to again develop a sense of citizen involvement in public life in this country, that has been absent for quite a while. why do people put up with the money issue? why is there no popular revulsion against the obvious

buying of our clinical system by the rich and the powerful? you can't debate that. that's happened. so where's the uproar? where's the revolt? until we see one, we are in trouble. >> i mentioned a couple of things to the money issue, bob has articulate. having been through it, through eighth elections, nine elections actually, it is, there is a corrosive quality to it. it's not so much i worry about people becoming holy bob subsidiaries, it's the amount of time spent more than anything else. i worry more about that. we really have these members having to go day after day making calls to make the running -- money. let me mention a couple things that would add value to one, you have only seen some change in california and iowa, for instance. out the back to the notion of

the real apportionment and deciding joint congressional lines. the old gerrymandering process again going back to the 18th century, but to me, getting to the point i think they're only about 40 house seats that you could call competitive in the sense where you have a democrat or republican could win based on argument to the rest of them, you worry about your prime and that's it. so getting people, it is a tendency to just the opposite effect of what should happen, it's forcing people to the extremes rather than bringing people closer to listening to minority voices is very important. i even regret to some degree that the new modern campaigns which we saw in the last one can become so scientific that when you go to m. street to go door to door, no one had to go to two or three doors, because you and all the rest of them are either for you or against you and you never have to listen to them. so you're only going to those who might vote for you. i think it's very valuable to open the door, knock on the door and someone opened it up until

the how long they think you are. i think that's very valuable in the political process. and if you eliminate that two large extent, if you don't have to listen to what other people think about an idea, because you're only talking to yourself, your own audience, then i think we suffer. so readjusting those lines, the money question as well i think is critically important to and then again just this notion of again, i don't think you can falsely built into the institution the kind of camaraderie like reading sort of happy hour and so forth. i think is a phoniness of that has to happen more legitimately. i'll just say one quick story, a set of anecdotes outweigh my first week in the united states senate. i arrive, there's a launcher and the unfortunate an eyelash incident, i use take all the members and show this room, no

one was religiously lived by those two tables the weekend and mixed it up but you couldn't bring staff, couldn't bring a gun to just members to i walk into my first week i go to the democratic table and there's pat moynihan and ted kennedy and scoop jackson all sitting around, fritz hollings, all sitting on the table, others, giants in the senate, john glenn. and i looked around, the only seat at the table was the chair at the head of the day. and i've got my vote for him ongoing, i don't think the. i'm not walking up to the head of the table. but there's no other chair at the table. some sitting there, i began to look stupid because i said i better just sit in tha in the ct the head of the table. none of them are talking. i didn't understand. i go visit an integer and the entire table goes, you, you can't sit in that chair. what are you thinking of cooks don't you know who's chair that is? i put my knees -- i'm shaking the booster is a? they said that chair belongs to chairman jim easton.

i said he died. they said we know, but he may come back. then they roared laughing. they have been waiting all of them for me to walk in just to do that. [laughter] i know it sounds kind of boy school stuff to you, but it was a reflection how the place functioned. and that table, for the next eight or 10 years was like a ph.d in politics. because it was the ribbing that went on, the storytelling, but also you got that idea, this one, and ways of doing things. like any other institution, if you could somehow magically bring some of that back, everything to do so because you eliminate the highly subsidized return trips to people. we had to spend a little time with each other. i had one senator, he would no o talk with imagined his income on the day i left him up to me on the floor of the senate and said you were leaving, i'm coming to what is your big advice? i said my big advice is your impression in the minority. no one will pay much attention

to you in the first you're stupid if i were you i would pick up 20 people on the set of value think are your most ideological and for each one of them, buy him breakfast lunch and in the you'll like them a lot more than you ever imagined, too, you agree with him on even far more than you would imagine, and that may frighten you. and the result of the first two, you will do things together. that makes this job enjoyable and the country is counting on that kind of activity. i don't know what h they did itr not, but to me that is the critical component. deciding, john ashcroft as my cosponsor and living travel restrictions give the how did you ever get john ashcroft to do that? i made my brilliant argument on why it made sense for foreign policy perspective it is to put me onto the i said were you impressed? he said no, i've got a bunch of rice farmers in southern missouri who want to sell the rice in cuba. i never would have found the answer if i hadn't talked to him. we can have a conversation.

it's labor-intensive to of all the new technology, it still is member to member and you got to spend time with each other. >> tom, although the second the we have been like this in a big i wanted them were closer time. we're about to pass but i would like to bring it sort of several voices at once. this gentleman, this gentleman, those two folks over there. i'm sorry for the others. tom, we were just down the pen. i think we have to and in a reasonably timely way. >> thank you. professor class from the school of international relations and university of southern california, former senior policy adviser to senator jeff bingaman. been close to the action. cloture rules are not etched in stone to their changed over time. senator merkley recently produced some reform efforts to change the filibuster rule that would require those who choose to filibuster the filibuster, to make it more difficult for those who choose to do that.

from outside the beltway, congress seems to be broken because we won't even debate the major issues of the day. you're statistics i think were instructed in that regard. what our chances in the filibuster reform, or is the culture such that there'll be no reform and we will continue to go in the same direction we have been going? thank you. >> hold your thought. i want to bring in several people at once we get him. this young man at the front right over here. you don't mind being called a young man. >> thank you. good afternoon. my name is james reid. i'm a student at george washington university. i will make this quick. there's a deficit of financial literacy in their countries was wondering how the bill addresses that, if there's any key players in congress that dealt with that, or if anyone during the bills drafting have dealt with the? >> good question. the gentleman on the aisle and then i think there was one, and then that lady. >> thank you. i was just wondering, syndicate.com if there's any awareness on capitol hill as to

how frustrated and angry the population is, and the voters are, while we are waiting -- >> the lady over here. >> i'm a law student at american university. my question was to you, center. senator. if you can give some advice on new folks trying to lobby congress. i am new in the greater london very interested in learning and helping congress understand the other side the middle east and muslim issues. thanks. >> so here's what i'm going to do. we've got the filibuster again, financial literacy. do members of congress understand how frustrated people are, you might tell a great

story of visiting ted kennedy's grave and how you made your decision. it's my moment for academy award-winning moment in the movie of the book. and the lessons and lobbying, can i just go down the panel, and also you could also take these questions in any traction wanted to let me start with tom, and then go into, senator and bob. >> just two comments. filibuster, prospects for change are not good right now. harry reid still doesn't have the 51 votes he would need in cooperation with the chair of sitting in the chair of the vice president to in effect create a new precedent in the senate that would allow some alterations in the way nominations are handled. so i think the pressure is

coming from the bright, young, new democrats who are really unhappy about how their institution is working. that one change that would be good, it's not making in filibuster, it's making the filibustering party produce 41 votes and not forcing the other party trying to do business to produce 60 votes on a recurring basis. that would make a huge difference, and there is a chance of that. they both had wise things to say about money and noncompetitive seats and redistricting and other things. and i'm a pro-reform on these things, but my view is, for the foreseeable future, the best route change, if i'm correct,

that a majority of americans do not support a dramatic constriction in the size and role of government in their lives, if i'm correct in that, then the route is with them being led by ted cruz, rand paul and mike lee, the republicans will decline. they will not regain this it. they will lose the next presidential election and they will lose the house at some point. the majorities may be large enough for democrats to govern, even in the senate under those circumstances. if that happens, republics, some republicans will feel obliged to do business with the him and you begin to try to set a new dynamic which will allow new voices, more problem-solving, moderate conservative voices to

emerge in the party to get us back. but these are -- but it's either a dominant one part democratic system to get some things done, or slowly or quickly a situation in which the republican party returns to its sanity and the position of problem-solving. >> jet is a great member. he served, jeff bingaman, those of you, a wonderful season a good friend to and actually some of the ideas from lamar alexander was working with chuck schumer and has made suggestions on the motion to proceed, having a filibuster ridiculous. is going to filibuster, it's the substance to the kosovo. so that various things that i think nixon sent in reform areas that would suggest that i think that if having to get up there and talk. the majority can make you do that as well, too. the idea that you let people off

the hook, when someone says they will filibuster and then all of sudden shut the thing down on the quorum call. in my view is you want to make people into it and%. at least then you could have a debate. regard to financial literacy come it's a great question. senator dan akaka of the light, no longer with us but he used to argue all the time can we made the case, i have very young children, i'm going to a new that get mailed aarp services and diapers. i don't see a reason why they couldn't going financial services in their math classes and how to balance a checkbook, all sorts of things that were not to incorporate. most difficult, not just two members understand is that the general public understanding what goes on. it's a very good point and one that we talked a lot about it. has been some resolutions on it but nothing in a meaningful way that would require the process.

getting angry constituencies but if you don't will have to face the opposition is still knocking on the door and having the screen door bang on the news. not a bad thing have t happenedn my view but no one likes that it's always uncomfortable but i think it's healthy. today given the mechanics of politics you can avoid actually meeting anybody was angry. you just your own folks everyone in the prospect and i think we all suffer as a result of that a little bit and clinical debate and discussion but i do think people get and understand the particularly over the last few years, the level of anger. we saw sermon in august of 2009 with the town hall meetings that exploded. occupy wall street as well. most americans don't fit into either one of those comfortable groups. they're not going to go out and scream at the congressman. , and i think again based on conversation, i've had a few with people who seem to get a.

and lastly your point. first of all, thank you for raising the issue. i'm sorry the word lobbyists have become a majority. first amendment in our country insist that people petition. there are lobbyists that it will become take advantage of that situation. but i think you are will serve. if you have enough sense to listen to one, good lobbyists will give you good accurate information or they will have a point of view but the ones that i always am willing to listen to i found helpful. one of the things we didn't finance reform bill we didn't talk about much is, the former staff director, every person that wanted to see the committee during that year and a half to bring up a point, when major event chance to get in office to talk. i didn't meet them all because when an endless. members understand the. julie, you did on countless occasions but all across the spectrum of the derivatives discussion julie would be within but you want to talk about it. i felt very strongly that people ought to have the right to be

heard on these matters and that if one gets to witness in a congressional hearing. and so i believe that lobbying is an important point that people ought to be able to express themselves, raise important facts to get along the way x. i would urge you, one can keep your facts straight, make sure your accurate when you get into. don't take a long time to make your points but there's only so much time. and find ways to lobby back in a person's district or interstate. they are more apt to remember what you come back on home turf than they are in their office typically getting people in the district or state that involved and care about the issues you do is add delete a more indelible impression with him than one when you're a long list of people they may see on a very busy day. but to be active, make sure her information is good. the one way i never let anyone back in my office again was if they were not on us and didn't have information that i could count on having acted. that was the last time they got to sing. if people of good information, actually great, even though they

had appointed to the family, i welcome back anytime they come to the office. but i'm really upset we don't understand or are losing our appreciation of the value of doing exactly what you just described you would like to do, talk about an issue you care deeply about. >> bob, closing remarks? >> i want to say something about, i talked about something quoted by the transformation of the repugnant party being the biggest political event of my life and. the second biggest political event is the growth of the number of americans who refuse to identify with either party. we have a real centrist independent group now in the electorate that don't want to be called republicans, that don't want to because the democrats. i think democrats particularly and a number of our good commentators on the left, including e. j. and tom are too soft on the democratic party and

its corruption, and on the fact that a great many of ordinary americans don't see enough of a difference between the two parties in their attitudes about money and politics particularly. a lot of other things, to. not policy issues so much as procedural issues. and the nature of politics. i think this is a big price for democrats are now paying. and that they have to face up to the. spent i should've said this out the outset that i acknowledge that i was blessed in the whole process of having a partner named barney frank. barney have brought many great qualities to the. one thing he did understanding gene did in his offices will come you don't get this all done in house is understand the senate which is not an easy thing to do. but barring was an insufferable an incredible part of the we never could have done this without so i don't want this

gathering to conclude without me at least giving a public setting for the first time to say gene and to his death today than others, but particularly with barney without his cooperation is what we never would've gone all the way through this. my hats off to barnegat i'm sorry does not here today to join in on this discussion, but he is a great ally and distrusted and thank you, gene. and amy and 80. bridging, i would be remiss if i didn't mention you and barnegat think you. >> two quick points. one is the only actio action was invited him want to, and come. and the second is, i love bob so much that it won't even replied to that last shot at tom mann in me but we'll deal with it afterward. and i will still recommend that you buy the book. [laughter] that's loyalty. or foolishness on my part. i do want to read one paragraph

before you go and buy the book. .. >> nonfiction author or book you'd like to see featured on booktv? send us an e-mail at booktv@cspan.org or tweet us at twitter.com/booktv. >> we asked, what are you

reading this summer? here's what some of you had to say. >> we want to know what you are

reading this summer. post a message on our facebook wall, tweet us or send us an; e-mail. >> even though gettysburg was the midpoint to have war and more people died after than before, why does it still loom so large in national memory? consider the statistics. three days of fighting, july 1st through 3rd, 1863. 7,000 killed. 33,000 wounded, some of whom later died. and 11,000 missing. staggering total of 50,000 casualties in one three-day period. >> the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. live all-day coverage from the gettysburg national military park next sunday starting at 9:30 eastern on american history tv on c-span3. >> you've been watching booktv, 48 hours of programming beginning saturday

morning at 8 eastern through monday morning at 8 eastern. nonfiction books all weekend, every weekend right here on c-span2. >> you're watching public affairs programming on c-span2. here's a look ahead. next, "the communicators" continues its series of interviews from the cable show in washington with the presidents of cox communications and espn. then critics of the nsa data collection program voice their concerns at a forum of the congressional internet caucus advisory committee. after that an fcc commissioner talks about cell phone unlocking which allows consumers to use their phones with a different carrier. and later, marriott international ceo arnie sorenson speaks at the chief financial officers conference. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies in