>> coming up tonight on c-span2 to the communicative speech and representative joe barton at texas on technology legislation. and former senate leader trent lott and tom daschle discussed bipartisanship in congress. this. >> host: this week on "the communicators" we talked with social -- several legislators about pending legislation in some of the issues the fcc is working on. joining us first is the chairman emeritus of the energy and

commerce committee representative joe barton a republican of texas. congressman barton a lot of proposals are coming out now not from the fcc yet but for members of congress in different groups about how to treat net neutrality. your colleague henry waxman recently wrote to the fcc asking it to be reclassified as title ii. what is your reaction to back? >> guest: i respect henry a lot obviously but he is wrong. you are trying to use an old law passed back in the 1930s for an industry in the 21st century. it's been proven over and over again that the best solution to allocation issues and usage issues is an open transparent market with appropriate oversight by the federal and in some cases state and local government.

we have a booming internet. we have a booming telecommunication system and by and large it's because for the last 20 years congress and various presidents have adopted more and more open market-based policies towards telecommunications. for henry or the fcc to try to use and almost 100-year-old law to regulate the internet in my opinion is just frankly flat wrong. >> host: if the fcc does reclassify broadband as title ii entity, would congress have a voice? good congress override that? >> guest: we would certainly have the right to override it. we would have to pass a bill that got through the house and senate and the president signs or override a presidential veto. when president obama as the

president and a democratic majority in the senate it would be difficult to do but not impossible. there are some issues that still have some bipartisanship elements to them and i think telecommunication policy is one of those issues. again, title ii of the communications act, this is when people would clearly call an operator from a party line and asked to make a long-distance call in the 1930s and the 1940s when you did have monopolies. he didn't have market competition. when you did have market power. that's not the case today in telecommunications. we have absolute robust markets. we have got fierce competition. we have got a very informed

customer base. you don't need title ii regulation. >> host: congressman barton the fcc is also looking into major mergers comcast time warner cable and at&t and directv and at&t is a constituent of yours. doesn't look like those are going to go through or not? what is your take on those? >> guest: i am not as up to date on that as i probably should be. my hunch is that they will go through with some qualifiers with some strings attached but again because of my previous answer somehow how robust the marketplace isn't how transparent it is i think they will go through. >> host: you also serve as cochair of the congressional privacy caucus and recently you wrote to the ceo of home depot. what were you asking him? >> guest: as you know home depot has had, i don't know how

to say this, a penetration of their customer base, their cardholders. hackers have got into the system and stolen a lot -- had access to a lot of private customer information and you know what we are trying to do at the privacy caucus, congresswoman of colorado and myself are when appropriate trying to move legislation to protect the privacy of the american citizen in the various mediums and the ongoing day-to-day current events encourage companies and industries to be more accountable and to be more protective of their customers privacy. >> host: do you see any of the issues we have talked about so far coming up in a lame-duck session in congress? >> guest: i do not.

[laughter] dad and a dollar gets you a doctor pepper, so, but i think we are going to have a short lame-duck session and i don't think telecommunication issues will be a part of it at all. >> host: what about the 114 congress when it sits in january? >> guest: i think the answer to that depends on which party controls the senate. if the republicans gained the senate so you have a republican house majority and the republican senate majority, then i think you could see very definitely some telecommunications actions. chairman upton and subcommittee chairmen of walden have a very aggressive agenda and we have some bipartisanship with congresswoman anna eshoo of california and frank colón of new jersey, whichever one of

them gains the new minority ranking member position. anna is the ranking minority member on the subcommittee with greg walden right now. so if you have republicans in the house and the senate there's a majority that say yes. even if you don't i would say it's possible because again telecommunications has been traditionally a fairly bipartisan issue and there are certainly things that could be done, fcc reform. you have already talked about net neutrality into little bit tougher. i think privacy is an issue that could be handled in the next congress so there are opportunities there. >> host: speaking speaking of anna eshoo you and she recently sent a letter regarding spectrum auctions and low-power television stations. >> guest: well, back in 2012 we passed a law that makes it

possible for the major broadcasters to give back some of their spectrum that they have had and be compensated for it. it gives the fcc the authority to repackage spectrum and reallocate it. under current law the low-power television industry doesn't have automatic standing. in other words they are granted licenses but those licenses are subject to availability and spectrum in a particular marketplace and if you repackage the spectrum the low-power television stations don't automatically have standing to continue to have a license nor do they have any standing to be compensated. so it's one of these nation issues that in the broader scheme people didn't pay much attention to.

but the reality is in certain markets low-power television is a major part -- player and in some. [roll call] areas it's the only player. so i have been approached by a number of low-power television participants in texas and i have also been approached at the national level so i have sent some letters and introduce legislation and worked with congress on a bill that we passed or could pass subcommittee but i've also worked to come up with a bipartisan approach and the result is this letter they talked about. instead of trying to move the bill we decided with chairman gregg walden support to send a letter to the gao jesting them to conduct a study on what the impact on the spectrum auction would be on low-impact television and broadcast

available and they would report back to the congress and the fcc. the fcc has come around and have begun to pay attention to low-power television as a result of some of the things that i have done in the last couple of years that this gao study will you know shed quite a bit of light on how they could be impacted. as you know the spectrum auction is an ongoing issue. i think we have about eight more years, maybe 10 new years in which to conduct it so we have some time but we or at least i don't want, and greg walden doesn't want and anna eshoo doesn't want them i don't think chairman upton wants low power television to be left out in the cold. >> host: representative joe barton we appreciate your time to talk about tele conditions issues. >> guest: it's my pleasure. >> host: joining us on "the

communicators" is represented morgan griffith a republican from virginia currently in a second term. he's a member of the energy and commerce committee. congressman griffith u. have a bill called the cell phone freedom act. what is that? >> guest: yes sir. as you know there are a lot of companies coming up with kills which is on cell phones in a lot of government entities are looking at the opportunity to tell people when their cell phone gets stolen. i'm all for that. what i'm concerned about is the proper call for a kill switch on somebody's phone. if some government entity or an individual decides if they want to cut your phone off and it's your phone i think you ought to have some protection. what this bill says is that you certainly can ask your carrier to cut your phone off if you are the primary person that uses the phone, even if you are not the contract owner. you can now set the bumpy cut off or if you are government entity or law enforcement agency in order to cut the phone off you have to go and get a court

order to do so. this mixed perfectly good sense to me and it's appropriate because we don't want to have happen is 99.9% of one portion of books would never think of doing something like this but their size that one small category that have a dispute with a boyfriend or a neighbor something and they say, they whittled get a little crazy and they say i'm going to call for his nankai nankai yourself up if they have a phone number and there's a kill switch and verizon gets a number from a parent in government whether they law enforcement or an agency involved in that industry, they are going to be hesitant to say what's your authority? with this bill says is that person will have to get a court order so whether it's an individual phone or the phones of everybody in boston after the attack there at the marathon when the government told everybody to stay in place. they may have wanted to do a kill switch on all the phones if

it's in the neighborhood and i might be appropriate. let's make sure we have different set of eyes looking at it. let's make sure the judicial process is used before we go killing somebody's cell phone that hasn't been stolen by a bad actor. >> host: do you think we are heading in the direction of all new cell phones will will have kill switches or that option? >> guest: i do think we are heading in that direction. it makes sense as long as there are protections on the other and that can't be abused so my cell phone is stolen i want to be able to stop into the nearest store call up my carrier on the phone and say or somebody else's phone and say okay here is to i am and what i need to do to identify myself? my phone has been stolen so not only wipe it clean but turn it off because it has no value to me. with the thugs and criminals are doing are stealing the phone and even if it gets wiped they can still use the basic materials to use your smartphone for some other purpose and a lot of times

it's not just for their own use but for criminal purses -- uses whether drugs or other criminal enterprises. but like everything else there has to be a balance in the balance is my bill. >> host: congressman griffith there have been a couple of cases we saw with the arab spring where the internet it can be shut off by the government. there is a case in san francisco where cell towers were shut down during protest. where is the limit? do you see a limit on what the police could do in cases like this? is it just a cell phone or do you see it further in? >> guest: i think it could probably go further. certainly the intent would be the same. you don't shut down all of san francisco or all of boston because for whatever reason without having a set of judicial eyes looking at it to make sure that this is an appropriate use of that government power. there is clearly a fear that the internet would be cut off.

not in our government government but another government says that we need to make sure that we continue to protect our rights so to speak. you would never have the ability to get a broad side of the newspaper posted on the side of a building or a wall that says you can't say that you are not going to allow any broadside in san francisco. likewise we should move forward in my bill is a first step that we should move forward and say the government can shut down the internet again without some compelling reason where there is a judicial oversight assess what are you thinking? because we can't give up our right to have the ability to freely express our opinions and to be a free society. >> host: the trade group for wireless cell phones has said about the california law, california has mandated kill switches, given the breadth of action the industry has taken it's unnecessary to have these kill switches.

>> guest: well i think the industry is probably correct that you may not need legislation for the kill switch because i think most companies are going to go ahead and put the kill switch in most phones. it will be an option but i think that's something the industry and consumers can figure out the ones that kill switch is there i want to make sure the government as is an abuser. >> host: congressman griffith what is the status of your bill and as their companion in the senate? >> guest: there's a companion in the senate that i'm aware of in the bill has been assigned to committee. it hasn't gotten a lot of attention yet but with people like you and the viewers who are watching this they should contact their congressman or woman in say hey you want might look at the griffin bell. >> host: you are currently in your second term in republican. what attracted you to these issues? >> guest: there a lot of jobs in the coal industry.

i ran on coal issues along with bringing down the debt so it was a natural fit for my district. also the health care components and the fact that we do have some of hardest territory and is to get cell coverage and telecommunications of all kinds into it so all these things attract me. this issue is one of civil liberties that happens to fall into that telecommunications somebody's making sure what the virginians called for when they insisted on the bill of rights is updated and modernized and now we can. we need to continue to have those freedoms. >> host: one of the issues the committee has been working on is net neutrality issue. how do you approach it and what's your viewpoint heard that in general? >> guest: i think we ought to be relatively neutral and what we are doing on the net. it's a little more on the commerce side than civil liberties might normally lead you to believe but it also has civil libertarians over lies and

if it's a civil liberty are more likely to favor it. i'm a big believer in letting the people make decisions on their on and the government doesn't need to regulate everything. to too great of a degree so i am more of a freedom than having the government controlling it or having corporations in control of that entity. >> host: you had tom wheeler in front of your committee several times. what you think of the chair the fcc? >> guest: i think is very bright and i like some of his ideas and others i would question but it's a matter of you put good people into a position come he's extremely bright and i think it's a good man to have an opposition that i don't think we will always agree but it's good to have bright people. >> host: morgan griffin a republican from virginia from the energy and commerce committee. thank you for being on "the communicators." >> guest: thank you. >> host: joining us on "the communicators" as representative leonard lance a republican from

new jersey a member of the energy and commerce committee. congressman lance you just had a bill that passed. first of all what is spooking? >> guest: spoofing is very bad behavior where those who are fraudulent try to trick the public to get information from the public for a social security number or tax information and this is a growing problem in america particularly among senior citizens. the anti-spoofing act is extremely bipartisan in nature. i'm the sponsor of it. i'm a republican from new jers jersey. a democratic member from queens in the city of new york and chairman emeritus of the house energy and commerce committee joe barton of texas whose legislation has passed out of her committee was passed on on the floor of the house of representatives and it's now over in the united states senate.

there is a companion piece of legislation in the united states senate also completely bipartisan in nature by senator roy blunt of missouri and amy klobuchar of minnesota. this is really a challenge for new forms of fraudulent behavior can occur at not only here in america but from outside our country as well. i hope the senate will consider this bill at an early date. >> host: how is this fraud being conducted? is it being connected via new technology? >> guest: yes. there was an act passed in 2009 completely bipartisan in nature, that addresses this issue but technology marches forward and the bill which i have been involved with includes texting which was not in the original bill and also new forms of communication. for example telephoning somebody

during ipad and this is just a demonstration that congress has to keep up with the new technology that exists and it's our responsibility to do so. for example there was a person in new jersey who was defrauded out of the i thank $5500 when she thought she was answering a telephone call and the caller i.d. said it was a local police department and it was not the local police department at all. this involves an allegation that she needed to pay more in taxes and certainly with our caller i.d. be expected to be the person or the entity that is in the caller i.d. and tragically sometimes that's not the case. >> host: so how is it that a local police department number will show up on your phone even

if it isn't the local police? how is that being conducted? >> guest: is being conducted by those who are able to have access to that police numbers and they are able to manipulate the means by which they communicate with the public. when i was a young people that would be exclusively the telephone but obviously as time marches on and therefore example of texting now, the 2000 might not does not include texting and this is a relatively new form of communication. that's why congress should update our law appropriately. this occurs across the entire country. by may district is in largest city in the region. congressman barton represents that district that is in many ways rural and we have heard horrible stories of how the public is abuse.

the legislation we passed in the house and that i hope will pass in the senate also includes the fact that some of these communications comes from abroad in the region legislation 2009 did not include that portion of fraudulent behavior. i want to give special credit to aarp that's been involved in this and certainly greatly interested in making sure that senior citizens in particular are not defrauded. but it goes across-the-board. it's not only senior citizens but certainly that is a significant component of the overall challenge. >> host: now there were some cases i think last year where people thought the irs was was calling in saying and we need your money. you have any idea the economic damage and a monetary loss to the aggregate? >> guest: i think it's in the millions of dollars. i don't know precisely how much they guess there were fraudulent

persons who were claiming to be from the irs. we have a voluntary tax system in this country. people complied by filling out their tax forms. it's significantly higher than other parts of the industrialized world and although none of us likes to pay taxes by and large the american people pay taxes and when someone who purports to be from the irs communicates either through a telephone or a text message the american people's response is overwhelmingly to attempt to comply with the law. that's why it's so incredibly important that we crack down on those who are engaged in fraudulent behavior. it's really reprehensible and too many senior citizens a payment of $5500 really is

something that is upsetting to what they were able to do over the course of the year. that's a great deal of money to most americans. >> host: congressman lance, people listening to this might think well of course we should have that law. what's the push back? was the other side of this? >> guest: i don't believe there is another side. it passed in the house of representatives by a voice vote earlier in september and that means there was no opposition. i want the public to know that the committee on which i am honored to serve the energy and commerce committee and among its subcommittees the telecommunications subcommittee, that committee is more bipartisan and its work product than any other committee and the congress. this is an example of that. more legislation has passed out of the energy and commerce committee and has passed out of the house of representatives

from energy and commerce committee and then has passed in the united states senate and reach the president's desk than any other committee of congress. the oldest committee in the house was established originally in 1795. sam rayburn the great speaker of the house of representatives chaired a predecessor of the committee when he was the chairman of the committee before becoming majority leader and speaker of the house. our most senior member john dingell of michigan who has served in the house longer than anybody in american history also one point chaired the committee. the committee is currently chaired by fred upton of michigan and mr. washington of california is the ranking democratic member. there are many instances where we work together and i hope that the public recognizes that is the case and certainly this legislation bipartisan in nature here in the house but also in the senate under the leadership of amy klobuchar i think is an

example of how we can and should work together. >> host: i want to pick up on something you said earlier which is congress needs to keep up on technology. is congress keeping up on technology or the potential rules? >> guest: yes, yes i think congress is keeping up on technology. that doesn't mean that we will not have to continue to keep up on technology because technology advances so quickly but i think it is the responsibility of the energy and commerce committee to take the lead in this regard. we rely on extra staff. we also rely on the testimony of those who appear before us and in the technology area. we want to make sure that the united states continues to be the leader in the world in technology and their various centers of that. i live outside of new york city

and the area that i represent is an area of expertise certainly silicon valley in northern california, areas near boston, areas near north carolina and other places as well. congress's responsibility to make sure the fundamental laws of the land reflect where technology is. >> host: finally congressman lance net neutrality. the fcc is working on at the energy and commerce committee has worked on it. what's your general view on how they should be approached? >> guest: i really think that neutrality is a solution looking for a problem. we have a free internet exploding over the course of the last 10 or 15 years. i personally do not think we really need to go down that route. i think the innovation of the american people and the frantic price system, they are at the

heart of why we have had this explosion. i believe that is the view of the overwhelming majority of the american people and certainly the view of the leadership of the energy and commerce committee. we want the free internet that is able to be accessed by all americans and indeed all across the globe and that is certainly my point of view. i want to work with the fcc and making sure that continues to be the case. >> host: leonard lance republican of new jersey chairman of the energy and commerce commerce committee thank you russ. "the communicators" which looks at talc medications issues facing the country that congress and the fcc airs every weekend saturday at 6:30 p.m. eastern time and on monday on c-span2, 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m..

coming up on c-span2 former senate leaders trent lott and tom daschle discuss bipartisanship in congress. then i look at u.s. incarceration rates and caramel justice reforms.

inspectors general of several federal agencies testified tuesday about the use and potential abuse of government issued credit cards. you can see live coverage of that house oversight and government reform subcommittee hearing starting at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.

>> next former senate leaders tom daschle of south dakota and trent lott as mississippi take part in a conversation on bipartisanship in congress. topics include the clinton impeachment proceedings and work after the september 11 terrorist attacks. this event courtesy of south dakota public broadcasting is an hour. [applause] >> it's great to be here tonight back on a campus that seems familiar and a little bit different from when i was here 30 some years ago. i think they filled two buildings around the old student union and i believe the new football practice facility i believe was the student body when senator daschle was here. i'm going to get to the point dr. lee and made sure it didn't

bury the lead and made sure we have a history tonight in dr. oben oben would say let's hit the ground rules early. this is a dialogue. it's not a debate that there will be differences and they hope to get into those those nights test tonight and hope to discuss those as we move forward. a year ago tonight the government shut down. seems appropriate that we gather in this environment and talk about partisanship and whether or not there is too much partisanship. the senate recently has been described as a weapon of mass dysfunction and i think it's probably a pretty good description. the job approval ratings had approval ratings as you know in the congress are so low that senator john mccain said that it's basically down to members themselves and to their staff members so those are the only people that are's approving of congress.

not too long ago these two leaders were leading at a time when we got some things done in this country. it came at a time where above everything else they sort of put partisanship aside. we are going to discuss that and get into that a little bit. let's take a look at one day above all others when they were leaders and defined the history of this country. let's take a look in lieu of it onto the discussion. [applause] >> at a time like this no words that we should either today or this evening can help the hearts and souls and feelings of the victims and the families that were part of this great tragedy that happened in this country today. our prayers, thoughts and words

of consolation goes out to all those who have suffered, but one thing that happens here in this place is when america suffers and the by people perpetrate acts against this country we as a congress and as the government stand united. and we stand together. [applause] senators senators and house members, democrats and republicans will stand shoulder-to-shoulder to fight this evil that's been perpetrated on this nation. we will stand together to make sure that those who have brought forth this evil deed will pay the price.

we are not sure who this is yet. [applause] though we have our suspicions and when those suspicions are justified we will act. we will stand with the president. we will stand with this government and we will stand as americans together through this time. thank you. [applause] >> today's despicable acts were an assault on our people and on our freedom. as the representative of the people we are here to declare that our resolve has not been weakened by these horrific and

cowardly acts. congress will convene tomorrow. [applause] and we will speak with one voice to condemn these attacks, to comfort the victims and their families, to commit our full support to the efforts to bring those responsible to justice. we, republicans and democrats, house and senate, stands strongly united behind the president and will work together to ensure that the full resources of the government are brought to bear in these effor efforts. our heartfelt thoughts and our

fervent prayers are with the injured and the families of those who have been lost. [applause] we know as a nation our thoughts and prayers are with those families of those injured. we also remember the thousands of people who are rescue workers and we ask now that we bow our heads in a moment of silence in remembrance. thank you.

♪ ♪ >> senator what does this bring you back to? >> well it was a startling and memorable day to say the least. i started the day in my office looking at that view right behind tom baer and i saw the first plane go into the tower. we started getting reports and then of course a staff member came running in and said they hit the pentagon with the second strike i walked to the window and i could see the smoke billowing up. he went to my desk and picked up my red phone that rings on tom's

desk and i said tom i think we need to get out of here. he was was the majority leader then he had to give the order. by that time our security detail came in and the rest of the day was a blur but i remembered it so vividly. we wound up at the police station and i wound up at andrews air force base. and air -- helicopter picked us up and went to some remote area. i still member where we were making back that night after we learned a few things about what happened. that was totally spontaneous. we didn't know that was going to happen but i thought that was one of the great moments of history actually when the members of congress at the end of the day came back and stepped on the steps of the cap is that we are going to be in session next day and we are not going to be intimidated by this horrific act. we were going to do what was necessary. i could write a dissertation on all of the emotions and all that happened that day but the most important part of that day was

what happened after that. i we came together, how we work together to get what was done what was necessary done for new york for military and to pursue the people that caused that event. we did a working together. tom and i went through a lot of legislation that fall and i'm very proud to talk about the fact that the approval rating of the senate by the end of that year had reached 82 and it hasn't been that high before or since. do you know why was that way? because they saw us working together for the good of the country about politics and about partisanship. [applause] >> senator daschle you are with john glenn that morning and he said no pilot could do that. he knew right away. do you recall that? >> that's right chat.

john had just come into both of our offices in the center of the capital in the senate complex of people which is drop by. john was having an interview with "cnn" and came by for a cup of coffee. we were talking in front of my television today said my god look at that. i said a pilot just flew into that building. he looked at it and he said that's not a pilot. there's something much more serious than not. i began a leadership meeting shortly after that and we were sitting around the table. i remember patty murray, the senator from washington, looked out of my window and said my goodness look at all that smoke. we rushed to the window and there was smoke billowing over the pentagon. he was at that point that track called and said we have got to get out of here. we rushed to the doors and i remember carrying huge books. i don't know what was so important that he was carrying

all these important documents and books with both arms running. i was concerned for his safety and of course but i mean that's where it all started. >> in retrospect do you think that was -- the leadership be displayed in the leadership that was shown that they and the sense that was a tragic day. do you look back on it was sort of hope or do you look back on it with regret? >> i look back on it as trent said so eloquently just now that it really was a time of incredible unity. i remember people going to the floor one after the other in saying i am no longer a republican or democrat. i'm an american and there was this sense of patriotism and a sense of commitment to country and the sense of resolve and unity that really was inspiring and moving and energizing. so from that perspective it was

incredibly, a moment of great pride as we look back. i think what i regret is that it takes a crisis of that kind to create unity and to create that kind of political determination to work so closely together to accomplishing problem. [applause] >> was than six weeks later with the anthrax did you think at that moment that was another terrorist attack from the same group or what were your emotions on that day? i think you are up on "the hill" that day. can he talk first about back? what did you think? were you scared for the country that moment? >> i was. i thought it was another step in what could have been a series of attacks. we didn't know really what to think but obviously our staff was horrified. these are the youngest staff members that you have the ones

that worked in the mailroom opening those letters which could have had anthrax in them but also we were concerned about tom and the senators and his staff and what we are going to do to deal with that. actually the postmaster the senate at that time was a classmate of mine from high school. he had to deal with all we had to do to check the mail going forward. that was another example of how members pull together. i was in the russell building and you were in the hart building. senators from both parties started giving senators from other parties there extra office space. there was nobody telling them to do that. they just started doing it and then tom talked about the sense that we wound up in the capital cafeteria, all of the senators. republicans and democrats to talk about what happened and what we are going to do about it and th the atmosphere in there while it was one of great

concern it was also one of camaraderie and expression of concern for each other. it was one of those magic moments that we experienced several times when other leaders where we would finally get down on our knees and get together in the old senate chamber or in the senate dining room and is one group made decisions that were right for the moment and for the country. they don't do that anymore. that's one of the things that, and i would urge that they have a the moral regular opportunity to get together where all the senators across party lines can talk about things. >> senator daschle would you briefly go through sort of the legislation that was passed in the two to three months after 9/11 that you look back on now is that period that we are discussing here tonight? >> there were so many pieces. i think probably one of the most controversial was the patriot act. as we look back i for one would

like to revise what we decided to do at the time. trent said something a moment ago that i agreed. we do the best we could given the circumstances and the understanding we have of the knowledge and the intelligence that we were given. looking back the whole issue of national security changed when we experienced 9/11. the realization that it would never be the same. the whole creation of the homeland security department was part of that agenda. homeland security had been a very disparate entity through a lot of different agencies. we brought them all together. that too was controversial, complicated a very political at times but we actually pull together. i think at the end of the day did a reasonably good job in creating the framework for security in a different context. we always thought moore on and

international and military complex. it was now much more local, much more personal, far more pervasive than it had ever been before. i was another piece of legislation that we have to address. >> we also passed legislation to help new york city of course and we helped legislation to deal with the problems we were having in the aviation airline industry that really got hammered that they too. people quit flying and they had real losses so it was a lot of legislation. tom and i went to new york city, guess it was two weeks or maybe less than that after that event and i remember saying when we were there when they hit new york city they hit america. we are all in this together and we are going to do what's necessary to help us recover and we kept our word. >> i know you both have said or written or said in speeches and she left the senate that there

was another period of crisis in the country where you felt there was productive work done afterwards and that was the impeachment of president clinton. that was pretty tenuous that day you went up in held hands. can you talk about what led to that moment? >> i remember it was my birthday actually. the house just acted to impeach the president and i was running errands that particular afternoon and he said you know now it's in our laps. now it's up to us and the one thing we have got to understand is we have got to rise to the occasion. we have to do it we can to make this a deep little iced experience and try to find ways to get through this god-awful mess we are facing. impeachment hadn't occurred for a president for over 100 years. we first had to learn what happened. how do you manage an impeachment trial in the united states

senate? who do you turn to? who knows these things so we began a great deal of research really with staff trying to create a mechanism for putting the pieces in place to conduct the impeachment trial. then the question is so when do we do this? we said the sooner we get this behind us the better however it turns out. we decided it was going to be the first order of business when we came back in january. piece by piece and step-by-step we came together and we got through it in reasonably good shape. >> two parts of that i remember the conversation with tom we agreed that we would get a couple of our more thoughtful senators to take a look at the history and what we needed to do to come up with recommendations. i selected gordon from -- and he selected joe lieberman from connecticut to get together to design a plan for a decision.

in a short period of time after the first of the year they came back with a recommendation and a sure way to describe what was it was going to be an abbreviated proceeding. so when i presented back to the republican conference they did everything but stone me and throw me out into the street. [laughter] some of my best friend said no we are not going to do it that way. they were not happy with it and they had some legitimate arguments. i had to call time and say this is not going to work. then we were kind of flummoxed. we do know how we were going to proceed and how we were going to get this whole thing done. somebody came up with the idea we wound up getting into an old senate chamber which is a hollow wood place. i called at that point i was the majority leader and i called on danny akaka democrat from boy to open a session with prayer. i was in a bible study group with him and then i called him

bob byrd really the historian of the senate to give us a perspective of the senate did ask him to be brief. [laughter] but he gave us a really good outline and we started the discussion. i didn't know how was going to turn out and i don't think tom did either. finally candidate got up, ted kennedy and made some suggestions on how we could proceed and then without it being planned at all phil gramm republican from texas got up and started talking and i realized they were saying about the same thing. with a nod from connie mack from florida a republican senator we said we have the solution. we will go with the graham kennedy proposal on how to go forward. everybody was ecstatic. we had come up with a solution and it was ted kennedy the liberal democrat from massachusetts and phil gramm the conservative republican from texas. i said to tom we had better go to the press gallery.

i said tom do you know what we really agree to? [laughter] we went out and had a great press conference announcing his great agreement and we assigned a group of republican and democrats to commit to writing. i still don't remember what the agreement was that it broke the dam and we went forward. we got it done in a dignified way. they fulfill their constitutional responsibility. some people said you could have removed him if he really wanted to. most of my life and politics i was away. i counted votes. the boze. the boze whenever they are so the decision was how do we do that in a proper way get them and where we can then pick up and carry on for our country. we finished this proceeding on a friday night. the following thursday bill clinton called me and without even mentioning what happened started talking about legislation he was interested in and we went forward. it worked and it worked because

we work together and because our colleagues realized this was a historical moment. they could embarrass ourselves and the proposals that were made by my colleagues on my side of the aisle wanted to have witnesses in the well of the senate on the floor of the senate. they wanted monica lewinsky to be a witness and i said never while i agree to demean the senate and treat it like it's a regular court proceeding. we are going to do this with dignity and the way it's been done historically and it's not going to include that. so i think that was one of the moments where tom and i actually felt the bond of trust for each other. iran number still and i've seen the picture where we stepped across the aisle from each other in the center aisle and shook hands and said we got it done now let's go forward. [applause] >> the thing that i think most people forget is right after the

vote on impeachment there was a bomb scare and we all had to leave the building. again this was in the 1990s. nobody knew where to go. my security team had no idea what we needed to do so i ended up walking through the space museum for two hours. [laughter] until it's safe to come back. i will never forget that. it was probably the best tour of the space museum i had ever had and it was minutes after the vote on impeachment. i'm thinking what a contrast. >> is sort of ask the point of my next question and that is can you explain to us what was so funny in this picture? tom had told the dirty joke. [laughter] i thought maybe you are sharing john mccain story. >> we could have. >> that picture was taken by a wonderful photographer was asked if he could follow me around for

about a week. trent was good enough to say yeah if you want to do this. so he had enormous access. i think it's probably at the only time i can recall ever doing that. that picture was taken when we were negotiating a 50/50 senate. i don't know what was funny about 50/50 at the time but i'm glad we found some humor in it. that was in the year 2000. >> at that point we had the majority because we have the vice president's vote but that was in my office and that's another example. leaders now i doubt if they ever grace each other's offices. the flow between my office and tom's office went both ways. what a small thing to do. how ridiculous would you be that you wouldn't go to the other leaders office? but that was one of the things we did to keep an easy relationship. by the way sitting at that desk we laughed and we cried some

too. >> i was thinking maybe senator daschle told them senator jeffords would -. >> i would not have laughed. >> we both would have traded members if that were true. let's switch gears and talk about the institution itself that both of you served in the house as well. the senate is sort of the saucer that cools the hot coffee. today it just seems to be dysfunctional and you alluded to it. do you think his personality? do you think its partisanship? what you think it is that's driving this? >> well as an array of things. it's partisanship. it's personality. it's the times. at times of change. trent is heard me say this a thousand times that i blame the airplane and part in the reason i say that is because in the old days when travel was not nearly

as convenient as it is today, people stayed in washington for large blocks of time and they go back to their homes for equally big blocks. not equal put significant time. nowadays people literally leave on thursdays to come home or to do their fund-raising. they come back on tuesdays and we try to govern on wednesdays. you just can't do that. that to me is one of the single biggest challenges we are facing is the limited time. the senate is only in session this year out of 365 days they are only in session 109 days. of that 109 days i would say only a third of that time is synchronized with the house. of that time, about two-thirds of the time the house is not in session. so there is no way to correlate to do the coordination necessary to move meaningful legislation, to work together not to mention the fact and this is such a big

topic that we could go on for the rest of the time but i would start with that and there are many other aspects to it. >> you both have come up with proposals including being in session. it's common sense. the job is in washington. do you want to stay in touch with your constituency or be in south dakota and visit farms and go to the towns and be with people? sure and i want to be mississippi. i've kept my home in mississippi but you are elected to go to washington on behalf of the people. our republican former government makes decisions on their behalf. we don't go by referendum. we vote by learning about the issues of voting for the people so we have recommended simple things like they should be in session five days a week. tom and i used to force a vote on mondays and friday mornings and sometimes on the weekends if we had a job to do. ..

one of the things we're really missing in addition to the american people being more and -- the solution is not just toqfyñ throw the bums out, becaa lot of the problems they've been caused by the new members of congress. in the senate in particular. the newer member done i'm a

conservative republican so for me to say they're more to right, there ain't a lot of room. [laughter] [applause] >> i don't know when i became an establishment raving moderate. but -- the same thing on the democrat side. the far left-the-far right, there's not much middle. the leaders have trouble keeping their team in place, but also, what we need now -- i'm going to say this in a way that's not partisan but we need some leaders that will step up, whether it's the president of the united states, the majority leader of the senate, minority leader of the senate, the speaker of the house, or the leader of -- somebody in leadership to say, we're going to stop this. we have to stop this for america. we need leaders that will lead, and now -- [applause] >> -- they're not. [applause]

>> senators, on that point, do you think congress is more of a reflection of the divisions in the country or a cause of it? the reason why i ask this question is there's new statistics about the way the country is congregating. people that think and live alike and have the similar lifestyles are living together more in the same communities and more and more than we had in this country, and i'm wondering if you think think that the congress is a reflection of that divided country we have here?ap and that we -- you've said it before. you get the congress you vote for. >> i think to a certain extent. in fact the pew research institute came out with a report a couple weeks ago that you probably even reported on, that noted that the american people are more polarized than in a long time. i think in part because of something else we have talk about, which is we tend to migrate to those media sources

that we agree with, whether it's fox news, or msnbc, or "the new york times" or "the wall street journal." that in part -- we have more blogs today than ever before, and they stir things up in a way we didn't have before. the media has changed dramatically. they used to be referees. now they're participants, and i think as participants they become very catalytic in crediting polarization we have right now. i have to say there is one other factor that i just have to mention and that is the money chase. a senator today to be in a competitive race, has to raise $15,000 every day2"íz he or shs in office and they don't do that. so they wait for the last two years, and then they spend literally two-thirds of their time dialing for dollars. sit in cubicles smaller than this stage, doing nothing but dialing, dialing all day long for the money they need. that's no way to run a country. that's no way to run this

democratic republic in a way. we have to find a way to address. [applause] >> i want to go back to point that senator lott made. you supported president obama early in his campaign. do you think he has been a good leader and do you think he exerted the kind of leadership that senator lott talked about? >> yes and. no every leader has failures and successes. i give him great credit for passing something i carry deeply and park not about, health care. [applause] >> can i make a point on that? that was not -- that was a partisan vote. senator lott is shaking his head. >> i wish it could have been --. i mean, i think -- he was encouraged -- i was in the room when he was encouraged to take what we commonly call a single pair approach to health care. that is, medicare for all approach. he said, no, i'm going -- i

want to take the heritage foundation model offered in 1993. the heritage foundation model. >> to the single payer approach that many of his staff urged him to do. he was then told, well, let's have a public option, at least have single payer for those who want to sign up for it. he says, no i'll never get any republican support if we do that. i was there on several stages where he made decisions that made the effort, but the bottom line is we didn't get the kind of bipartisan support, and i think it's undermined our ability from the very beginning to move the legislation forward. >> senator? >> tom, i think it was a shock today because wound of the bright student wes met with here at south dakota state university -- we met with students in the health care area, pharmacy students, premed, nurses and others, and they asked us some very tough questions, and they asked me if basically the question was, did

i think we would have passedwrdp healthcare reform if we had been and i shocked tom because i said, yes, because i do think that healthcare reform was coming, and there were lots of needs for it, accessibility, affordability, all we heard, but it would have been different. we

right?k, >> we did. after 9/11 we had break fast daily. >> you had to wear your jacket. >> yes. i showed up half dressed. i'm a night owl. and -- but bill clinton to his credit, we met with him a lot but more than that he was on the phone day and night. sometimes i didn't particularly want to talk to him at 2:00 in the morning, but he was in touch, always pinging us, trying to get us to do more of what he wanted, trying to understand what we were up to. i don't think president obama does that. think it would help him if he would do that. also, with democrats, you have to work with the team that you have regardless of party, and trying to find a way to get some agreements. for instance, everybody in washington says we need

broad-based tax reform. everybody says it. president, republicans, democrats say it. do we need to cut the corporate tax rate in america so we'll be competitive in the world? sure. yet we health done it. hopefully we'll do it next year. one thing i would say to my republican colleagues in the senate this year, tell the people what you're for. we know you don't like affordable care act, obamacare. we know you're holding your breath and hoping his unpopularity will elect you. that ain't good enough. what are you for? what are you going to do about energy? [applause] >> this is my -- i tried to stay away from the partisan remark but if they do that. we'll win he senate. if they try to ride this train out to election day, it could still go away. if the talk about what we can do in economic growth and education -- we don't even have a higher education act, and nobody is against it. and yet it languishes in the

committees. so -- wearing going to have5& o think about foreign policy and think about defense again. so these are not issues:,

-- i'd say, okay, have one mor vote. juzk"g one more vote on repealig it. maybe get it through the house and senate and then obama would veto it, and then what do you do? you should sit down with the president and say, mr. president, there's some things in this bill that are not working the way we thought they would or that you wanted them to. could we amend this? could we -- so, then what i would think they ought to do is d bipartisan. if you want to repeal the medical device provision, tax, which would undermine the bill in a way but if you want to do that, you could get -- if bet you could get 70 votes for it. you got senators like the democrats in minnesota would vote for it but pinning ping it where you see improvements could be made and get done and then move on. do your show g6)r boat and theno your real votes. and that what tom and i would do.

[applause] >> on health care, it's amazing how many things there are that we could do together. telemedicine, a fantastic opportunity to deliver care at lower cost, especially in rural areas. that just onea/év small examplet a very important opportunity. many others. >> right. let's get to the student questions because, frankly, they're probably better than any that i've asked. the first one is, i think

we have not created the mechanisms that accommodate the extraordinary costs students are facing. so we have to deal with the cost of education and how we address that from a national perspective is one that is subject to a good deal of thoughtful consideration, but reducing the costs and improving the access -- reducing the cost of money for student loans as well, but all of those things have to be part of it. >> i'm the son of a school teacher. my mother was an english teacher. when i did my first newspaper column, she clipped and it marked the grammatical errors in red and mailed it to me. but i've been accused of being

maybe a little flaky on the issue of education. after i graduated from ole miss in 1963, i worked for two years in the placement and financial aid office. i was a recruiter for the university, and i -- during the summer i did the loans and grant programs, setve the work study programs, and i felt like the federal programs of loans and grants and the work study program -- i cooperate have gotten through law school without it so i've beened a advocate of it. in those days it wasn't called the ndsl, it was called the ndea. the national defense education act, and part of it was if you got the loan and you -- it was at a lower rate than it is now and if you went into teaching a certain portion of your loan was forgiven for every year you taught. that's a good idea. but i think that a system of loans and grants -- i like the work study program where you can

work for the university while you're going to school and get paid for it. i did that. i also think, this is where i begin to reflect my background. i also think you have an obligation to pay it. we need to look at it as a whole. we need to take a look at higher education in america. how is it doing? how has it been funding? are we adequately funding research? which is important%ç part of our university curriculum, i think, and then what is an adequate amount of loans? what is a light rate? how can we make sure that students do pay it back? and that where i get a little hard-nosed, frankly. you borrow it, you pay it back. i also think sometime -- i'm for the grantxñ program. i'm from a poor state but i get nervous you get a loan, grant, supplemental granted and suddenly you're making more money if you go to school than if you get out of school. so this is an important area.

we need to look at it. they made a little progress this year, and by the way, they came to a bipartisan agreement on it. and so next year, we have some good people that -- the chairman of the education committee in the house is a guy named klein from minnesota, very thoughtful guy, and i don't know who will chair the committee in the house or the senate, either way. it ought to be one of our priority issues next year. >> let me ask you, as you lewdded to earlier you belong to the bipartisan group, and one of the things they came up with that the group through some of your work is a year of national service between 1 -- 18 and 28, which is controversial. >> it is. >> burt that went into the student -- could that be possibly into the student debt situation? >> we had a wonderful day on campus talking to a lot of students in different classes, and one of the messages that i think we both took to students

is that, i think everybody has the commitment to their country, a realization that we have too give back. there's got to be some recognition of the responsibility of citizenship. that goes, of course to voting and political involvement at all levels. but i think it also could mean national service. it's been discussed on many levels and all kinds of different sec;bfs and occasions, but i think there's a real value to students who are brought to an understanding of the importance of citizenship, the importance of responsibility, the importance of giving back to one's country, and in so doing, addressing other challenges wew&&e face in education as well. >> we talked an awful lot about the moments you have come together and whatever, but there also were moments where you were, for lack of a better term, at each other's throats in the senate, and both of your books you wrote about those times, and

i'm wondering, what was the most difficult situation that the two of you think you faced as leaders? >> i don't know we ever government at each other's throats. we had disgrandmad and it was -- i remember when -- disagreements and i remember when we got the balanced budget agreement with bill clinton, where we agreed on the tax cuts, agreed on how we would get to a balanced budget and led to balanced budgets and surpluses. actually got it done. i was not an easy discussion for tom because, frankly, there was a lot of back and forth between republicans and the president, and there war some things in it that tom didn't like and it was uncomfortable for him in the end we got it done in an overwhelming vote. a couple times i surprised tom, did something that i didn't -- we had one -- really, two agreements. number one, that i would tell him what the schedule is going to be and wouldn't surprise them. every now and then i i'd pull the trigger on him, and he would

get mad at me, and i would apologize, and it worked both ways. sometimes he did to me what i'd done to him, and then we kind of work it out. i don't know we ever got -- did we ever get really nasty? >> i think what happened, we both came at issues from a different perspective, and we understood if we're ever going to get through this particular legislativeamzt challenge, somew we have to find common ground. i think the greatest friction occurred was on procedural issues that are kind ofberg to the audience but -- kind of boring to the audience but a term called filling the tree, where the majority lead are lays a billí tree -- theçkñ2 parliamentary te with amendments so the other side can't offer amended. that's hang now. happened over seven times in the last six years. and so -- but that is the frustration that sometimes you have. you want to legislate,aofhu andf you think you're being dealt

with unfairly whether it's procedure or substantive, you'll respond and we'd have our tiffs but trent said something earlier that i look back and i think how pleased a. we did it. we decided to have a phone that directly connected with the two leaders and it was only for the leads the staff couldn't use it. nobody used it but us. if the phone rang, it was him. it was that line of communication thatyrnn@llowed uo get through the difficult times. once in a while we'd use a colleague, a senator from louisiana, good friend of trent's and a dear friend of mine. we would send messages through john, but it was usually by the end of the day -- i don't think we ever went home:'beñ mad. we always figured out a way to work it out. >> on this filling the tree, i did it to tom about 11 times. >> that's true.

i didn't like it. >> i think you only did it to me once or twice but you did do it. that a terrible procedure, actually, where you block amendments. i did it at least two times trying to block john mccain from off efforts campaign finance reform, which i blocked him for four years and then when we lost the majority, it got passed, and i do think that while the intentions were good also contributed to the problems we have now. that bill weakened the ability of the parties to do what they have to do and led to these super funds now that are out there blasting people with tons of money, millions, and usually negatively, and no transparency. one of the things i've always said about campaign finance reform, don't like limits but i think you should have to reveal instantly where you got it from and who gave it to you. and let the people decide that. there arecu probably some dairy

men here. i got a contribution from dairymen's incorporate id. a political action committee when they were new. was plastered by the news media and by my opponent i was taking political action committee money from the dairy industry. i was$ it. those things we have had to put up with over the years. >> is there such a thing -- as too much bipartisanship? i ask it in this cop text. i think you both raised objections or second thoughts about the patriot act. there are a number of democrats who regret their vote on the iraq war. was there too much partisanship that pushed us too fast into iraq and too fast into these things in the area of privacy and those types of security concerns we're now seeing playing out in the pail trot act? >> chuck, don't think so. i probably could have said more

to the point but i -- i think you do the best you can given the circumstances you're dealt. and we did the best we could, given the circumstances that we had at the time. but i think that true of almost anything that the congress has faced in all of history. come back. you look at the number -- the number of times we amended the social security act since it was passed in 1936, or medicare in 1965. i think you just recognize that, this is an organic process and it's going to continue to evolve over time. and i look back with pride and satisfaction, but obviously there are things we now have the luxury of better understanding and knowledge that we didn't have then, that i would apply certainly if we ever had that chance. >> i don't think there can be too much of a good thing in:9ñ bipartisanship, which is what you have to have when you have two parties to get something done. but you don't have to give up your principles or your

philosophy to get that done. i come from a school of thought, the best government is the least government, closest to the people. the people here in this room, your mayor and council members and your county commissioners, that's where the rubber really meets the road. i still believe that kind of like a former governor, i think it was in wisconsin, once said, the federal government should defend the shores, deliver the mail, and stay the hell out of vy life. i believe in individual responsibility, and rights at the same time, and i still have a greater faith in people at the local level and i'm naturally suspicious of the federal government, but having said that, i also think that there's a role for the federal government, and for colleagues in my party that basically say i don't want any federal government. that won't work either.'mm and so you have to be prepared to give a little and get a

little, just like tom mentioned that big tax bill that bush wanted, bush 43, in 2002. i was very much an advocate of the full tax cut. but with this -- this is when we had the 50-50jc friend, john bro, democrat from louisiana, tipped across the all, probably with tom pushing him, and stole olympia snow from maine with the votes. i didn't have the votes but it wanted the tax cuts. we cut the tax bill by 300 billion, about it was still a huge tax cut. we got it done. where i come from, if you can't get a trillion but you can get 800 billion? that pretty good deal. and so that's what you had to -- that's what -- i've been accused of being a deliminger and being a compromiser, yeah, but also

been accused of getting things done for my country and that's the most important. [applause]x<

i never had a republican primary opponent in 35 years, and -- but now the primary is so vicious and my colleague from mississippi, that cochran, has been in congress 30 -- i meant to know -- 9 years, a val till man -- volatile man but is 76. he ran for an election and we had an ugly primary in mississippi. i think our candidates -- our elected officials are not the cause of the problem. i think they reflect the people. i was shocked at what some of the people said and did in my state of mississippi. we generally have run gentlemenly campaigns. this was nasty. so i worry short term. i get nervous before the our young people, all this social media and all the twitter and the instagram and facebook and i really worry about it. then i come to -- i go and see

military men and women, and then i come to a university like today, at south dakota state university and i see these young people and it reinstated your faith. so i'm worried short-term. but long term, this is the greatest system the minds of men have ever conceived. this, too shall pass. i do see, hope, over the horizon, the next generation of leaders that are coming into congress, republican, democrat, house and senate, they will be different from the current leaders. not just damning the current leaders. they're reflective of the times. i look dune the line at the men and women coming into congress, i think it will get better, and i do believe the american people -- i hope it won't take another crisis or another war, another disaster, but when we get together, we're a hell of a force, and it will happen again. [applause]

>> i guess i share that point of view. in the short term i am very concerned about the polarization, the confrontation, the dysfunction that we have began talking about tonight, but it's been worse. times have been worse. our country has been in a lot worse shape. i remember reading a book about william jennings bryan in 1907 during the great panic, double digit unemployment and people were very concerned about whether our country could survive, and he gave this speech in denver, and he ended the speech by saying if i had one wish it would be to come back in a century to find out whether this great country has survived. that was in 1907. you think about it. we survived not one but two world wars, a great depression, a number of other scandals, the resignation of a president, and we look back at that century as one of the greatest american centuries in all of history. in fact, the american century.

and i think we succeeded in part because of our resiliency, and in part bus of our amazing innovation, and in part because we found ways to collaborate and be engaged, but in large part because when we needed it the most, our leaders rose to the occasion and provided the kind of leadership that really made a difference and that's what we need so badly now to rise to the occasion. to show the leadership, to come to grips with the challenges we're facing. i got a electricitied in 1978 and -- elected in 1978 and will never forget a conversation i had with senator claude pepper. he had been defeated in the senate. came back and served in the house and was chairman of the rules commitee at the time and had two pictures on his wall that some of my friends heard me talk about. one was a picture of an old biplane with two men in front and it was -- said to my dear friend, claude pepper, oroville and wilber wright. right next it to was a picture

of a moonscape, addressed to claude pepper, by neil armstrong. neil armstrong walking the moon. i said what advice dish got elected here by 14 votes. i don't know how long i'll be here but you tell me, what advice would you have for a very junior, very fragilely elected congressman him thought a minute and said, one thing. he said you're a democrat and i'm a democrat. but it's far more important, not that you're in an r or d or a cod, but you're a constructive and not a destructive in the legislative and political process. he said cry to be a constructive. try to be a capitol c. we have a capitol've right here some aim grateful for him coming to south dakota to join us tonight. thank you all very much. [applause]

>> according to the bureau of justice statistics 1.5 million people are in prison in the united states. next, two ex-con vices, a former prison warden and an investigative reporter, discuss incarceration rates and criminal justice reforms. this is an hour and 15 minutes.

good evening and welcome. in particular if this is your first visit. we welcome you for the first time. for those who are return visitors, welcome back. my name is dr. bob ross, the president of the california endowment. this is one of a series of evening conversations we have about issues of the day, typically health and civic minded issues of the day. this particular conversation tonight is timely and compelling and powerful. this issue -- the topic of the issue and the timing is interesting for me personally. it goes back 30 years for me when i was a practicing pediatrician in a clinic in camden, new jersey, 1984 is when

crack cocaine hit the streets of urban america. and when some evil genius invented crack cocaine, it made cocaine, which is an intensely addictive, intensely euphoric, short-acting drugging are which was not available to low-income families because it was too expensive but when crack was invented, the affordability of crack, of cocaine, went down from $100, $100, and higher, to five bucks. and crack cocaine swept the nation and influenced the neighborhood that i practiced in, seeing more premature babies and more infant mortality and more youth violence and youth homocides and assaults and sexually transmitted diseases

and all kinds of things exploded and went through the roof. not just in camden, new jersey, but across major urban centers in america. the reason i share that with you is because that was the very same time that gave us the war on drugs, the so-called war on drugs, as well as three strikes and you're out. as well as the zero tolerance culture that has permeated our criminal justice system and our schools and law enforcement. and so here we are 30 years later, and we still have this problem. and so the conversation tonight is with some extraordinary experts and i want to introduce the person who is going to bring up the moderator and the panel, and that is the great visionary, extraordinary founder, and director and publisher of zocalo public square, a round of applause for this great civic

leader, gregory rodriguez. [applause] >> thank you. i appreciate that. thank you. thank you, dr. ross. thank you for the california endowment for co-pending. zocalo is an ideas exchange. our mission is to connect people to ideas and each other. we partner with educational, cultural and philanthropic institutions, and journalism we syndicate to 150 media outlets throughout the country and the world, including time.com, the "washington post," smithsonian.com and u.s.a. today. all of events are free. last year we presendded events in 30 cities. we invite you to join us for

what we think is the most thoughtful and intelligent idea journalism in southern california and beyond. you might know is as the guys who put on events who serve you wine afterwards. we want you not only to listen. we want you to engage in the speakers and want you to form community you may not have formed afterwards, right behind us in the courtyard. you can fan us on facebook and follow us on twitter. if you're tweeting type of we'reogy the hash tag why prison. we'd like you to know a few upcoming eventses in los angeles. does corporate america know too much about you? okay. what could speed up traffic in l.a.? will young californians ever be able to retire? these are alley/no questions. will downtown l.a. rival the west side? real big question of our side. please take a moment to silence

your phones, and after the program is finished i hope you'll join us to meet with each other in the courtyard. before i end, we are very happy that c-span is here recording tonight's event, to later play for national broadcast. now, i'd very much -- i'm very happy to be introducing mr. tim golden. applause. [applause] >> tim golden has worked as a journalist for nearly 30 years, primarily as an investigative reporter and foreign correspondent himself upcoming book is about the detention of suspect as guantanamo bay. he is manager editor at the marshal project, not for profit, nonpartisan news organization dedicated to covering america's criminal justice system. please give a warm welcome to mr. tim golden. [applause]

>> thank you very much. i'm a native carran, and so i know -- californian so i know this is a place that prides itself on tolerance, including a high tolerance for self-promotion so i would like to first lean on than visit tour to say if you had enough interest now subject tonight to make your way here through rush hour traffic i hope you will become ratherred of the marshal project. we'll have a steady diet of news, both daily coverage and ambitious investigative reporting that will hopefully cast some new light on problems in the criminal justice system and also solutions. and after many years of relative paralysis, this is a time of a lot of policy experimentation in almost every fast sees -- facet of the system, and it's hard not to be hopeful on some days the system is starting to change in some pretty fundamental ways. today is not that day. one of those days.

this morning the big striking news in criminal justice was that the number of people incarcerated around the country is actually going up rather than down, which had been the trend line in american prisons over the previous four years. so the idea that we had really turned the corner after three decades of a steady rise in the incarceration rate was maybe overly optimistic. california was in the center of this for the last few years it's been helping pull the national incarceration rate down but this year california's numbers were up and once again, so goes the country. the number of people in federal prison did decline for the first time in memory, and that is perhaps the best news given that the bureau of prisons population had been rising much, much faster than that of the states over the last decades. some states, new york, new jersey, hawai'i, were all down,

and have been steadily down for a decade though, point they can claim the distinction of having an incarceration rate lower than cubas'. which is better than most of the country or many of the big states. but overall things were bad on both ends. more people coming into the system than in the previous year, and fewer getting out. tonight we have a great and rich panel to help us try to unpack that. and make some sense of it. susan burton lost her son in an accident when he was five, and then spent the better part of two decades stuck in the criminal justice system before she made her way out in 1997. she has been focused on reentry efforts ever since, founding a new way of life, re-entry jacket which provides resources like housing and case management and legal services to people who are trying to rebuild their lives

after being incarcerated. jeany whitford had a long career in criminal just, starting at a corrections officer in san quentin in 1978. she became the warden in 1999, and five years later was brought in to direct the california department of corrections and rehabilitation, and became the department's undersecretary the next year. she worked as an advocate in opposition to the death penalty and is now a senior fellow at the berkeley center for criminal justice. prophet walker was a different kind of insider in the system, having been sentenced to six years in prison for assault when he was 16 years old. he helped start a two-year college degree program while he was incarcerated, which gave new opportunities to young inmates and he is a founding member of the antirecidivism coalition which helps young people get a fresh start after incarceration

and was an important force in lobbying for changes in juvenile justice laws in california. he is currently running for the state assembly in the 64th 64th district, which runs from compton and watts to north long beach. and kermit reader is an assistant professor in the department of criminology and law and society at the law school at the university of california irvine. her research focuses on prison, prisoner rights and impact of prison and pun u-ment policies on individuals, communities and legal systems. she is also going to be the author of a book about pelican bay. so welcome to all of you. >> thank you. [applause] >> just to start, i'd love it if you could give me -- give us a sense of what you made of the news today, was the optimism is

misplaced that things were starting to change in a fundamental way? >> i think for me what i began to see was twofold. there was some optimism that dwindled just because we want to see constant declining numbers, but i think there was a new optimism that arose in me, which is targeting of the second strike within our two-strikes law. we have built a huge campaign for the third strike within our three-strikes law but the second strike doubles the amount of time that people actually get once they commit a second strikable offense, which has -- what happened in california is that is now increased the length of time that each inmate is actually spending in our prison system. and so i think that because of these numbers we'll be able to open a dialogue on how do we now

reform the second strike as well, and continue to take these incremal steps to see -- incremental steps to see real reform. one of the things the numbered opinioned out is that california and texas, largely impacted the overall percentage. right? so if we can make real change wind our policy and our laws, i think we'll see those numbers decline again. >> i think there was some good news in the numbers, as you mentioned, new york continues their incarceration rate continues to go down and treasure strategy has been multifast sed, including sentencing reform. california is just slowly doing and we need to do more of as you mentioned, the second strike law. but there's an initiative on the ballot that is looking at sentencing, prop 47, which voters will have an opportunity to vote on, but overall, i think that we need to look at states that have that kind of success,

like new york, and hopefully at some point have our legislature look at sentencing overall. we're just chipping away at it a rule at a time. we're still heading in the right direction, re-alignment was a step in the right direction but many of the counties have not embraced re-alignment which is not to incarcerate people but to ute lie the money the state is given them to address incarceration. we other need to look at counties doing that well, like san francisco and others, and try to implement policies that hold the other counties accountable for using that funding in the way it was intended. >> i think that polls have shown us that americans -- the people -- no longer want to see these numbers and these institutions built. they're looking at other ways in order -- other ways to handle

people with mental health issues and drug addictions, which really drive the numbers in our prisons and in our jails, but i think that what we have done over the last three decades is really built this mass incarceration vehicle that has driven and driven and driven the numbers of men and women and children into the systems and now we're realizing that it's not working, it's broken, it's too costly, it's taking lives that we could handle differently. so, that's where we have landed. but the system keeps churning away. and i am very happy to see a proposition in california like proposition 47, that the people can go and cast their vote, and

this machine will have to downsize. so, i think that it's out of control. irregardless of what we the people are looking at and wanting for our communities. >> also -- i want to point out another nuance with these numbers. that's within the juvenile population. so, while here in california we look at our juvenile facilities and we say, overall juvenile incarceration has gone down, i think that's somewhat of a misnomer because we actually increased the amount of direct files from juveniles into our state prisons. which puts us back at this place of reforming policy and go back to a more rehabilitative model for juveniles, and counties taking on that task -- >> maybe explain what direct files are. >> direct files are when

juveniles are up against -- are alleged of a crime and instead of going through the juvenile process, they're directly filed to the adult court system, and then likely are convicted and sentenced to prison. so that increases our prison population as well, and i think we need to go back to what the premise of the juvenile justice system was meant, which is rehabilitation and focusing in on the mental health and trauma that children face as opposed to mass incarceration. >> i think when i look at these numbers, it's just really -- the academic here, it's important to step back and take a long view and think about in 1980 we had a few hundred thousand people in prison and today we have 1.5 million and we won't see that decrease over night.

there have been incredible increases and what we saw today was a couple thousand numbers, a few -- i think it's 4,000, roughly, less than -- more people in prison this year than last year and doesn't compare to the '80s. so it's important to keep that long perspective we're not seeing the dramatic increases that got us here but also not seeing the dramatic changes that will get us out of here, and it's nice to hear people starting to brainstorm how to get there. >> how do you think california has done as harvesting the lessons of other states states e programs that worked in other applause thursday. >> or, worse, house has california down in planting seeds in other states then the three strikes, juvenile without parole, solitary confinement. but there's a better dialogue. jeanie pointed to new york and the progress they're making on issues and california, thousands of people in long-term solitaire

confinement, tough drug laws. new york made progress reforming those and we're starting to see those conversations in california also. it would be nice to see california be the trend setter it was in the '60s and '70s in terms of progressive policies itch don't think we're there yet but initiatives are putting us in the right direction. >> maybe we should explain exactly what proposition 47 will do for the audience. so, proposition 47 will be on the california voter -- it's a california voter initiative, and it reduces six low-level felonies to misdemeanors. it will transfer $250 million a year out of the adult prison system into schools, into rehag addition -- rehabilitation

services, into victim services. if this proposition passes, the people, the voter, will shift many resources, and lower the amount of time that people can spend in prison for substance abuse, for petty theft or receive, for receiving stolen properties. there's six low-level offenses that will change and also make people who have went to prison for those crimes, eligible for an expungement and i'm really excited about it. after being released from prison 20 years, after rehabilitating myself and hundreds and hundreds of others, jeany, i'll be eligible to get an expungement and be eligible to clean up my record and not be punished anymore for medicating my grief with an illegal substance, and

incarcerated when i lost my son. and that is not just me. those are hundreds of thousands of more californians. so, i'm really, like, gung ho for prop 47. >> you mentioned a little bit the political shift going on, and you saw that in a very close-up way when you were lobbying on the two juvenile justice reforms that passed. what is your reading of how much that has begun to change just in california? how much the confluence of compassionate conservatives, christian conservatives, who have been interested in prison reform for a long time, with tea partiers who are suspicious of

the government's involvement in these big giant programs, and obviously these libertarians, is starting to make a difference here. >> right. i first of all wasn't lobbying. i'd get in trouble for that. i was advocating. [laughter] >> just to be clear. but -- the two bills we're speaking specific live about is sb9, which disallowed california to sentence juveniles with life without the possibility of parole and sb260, which says if a juvenile is convicted to, i think, 20 years or more after 15 years or so the board of parole can revisit their case and determine whether or not they've successfully rehabilitated themselves. and what we saw was, first of all, the power of story is actually being utilized a lot more effectively these days, and so myself and a few other

individuals who have had a successful transition from prison, went to sacramento to advocate for these bills, and what we found was it's not as adversarial as many would think, and it's slowly coming together. so we have support from different law enforcement groups, different victim rights groups, we had support from -- had a letter from grover nordquist and newt gingrich, just different conservatives and others that you would otherwise think they're just completely against this, but i think people are seeing not a only has our prison system been socially irresponsible, it's been fiscally irresponsible as well. i was telling the group in the green room that just this year alone, our legislature passed a budget of $9.8 billion for our prison system.

which serves 130 plus thousand people. we only passed $9.6 billion for the cal state system, which serves 500,000 to 600,000 students. we're clearly on a path or have been on a path that we scare ourselves. in the '80s and '90s it was tough on crime. you were elected if you said tough on crime. we scared the public into believing all these myths about super criminals and the whole deal, but i think now conservatives and democrats and everyone are saying, it's no longer this idea of tough on crime. we actually need to be smart on crime, and if you're a conservative, right on crime. and we're seeing a transition here. >> do you share that sense of fundamental change going on? jeanie? >> i do. even researchers who predicted these super predator kids really

that led to these long sentences are saying, we were wrong, and the science that is coming out about the maturity of the brain and all of those things and how much it costs, are coming together and i think people on both sides of the aisle are paying attention and realize we're headed in the wrong direction, spending too much money on incarceration, not getting anything for our money real where, and that our -- really and our money could be better spent in helping people return back to society, keeping them from going to prison in the first place and that's really what public safety is about. right? it's people didn't understand the collateral consequences of putting people in prison. we took mothers away from their children. their children ended up in foster care. the whole idea that we were sending people to prison for really what were minor crimes, led to the growth of gangs in our communities, and so as

people were beginning to understand the critical consequences of locking people up, i think that they're onboard with trying to figure out what we need to do to stop incarcerating so many people. that's the good news. now, the devil is in the detail and that's where we get into all the debates about what should be the length of prison sentences for different crimes, and it's going to take time to unravel that. >> but people here are talking about it. you're all in the room, the marshal project just started. it's a big sea change to me from five or ten years ago when people weren't talking about the details. i opened the paper almost every day and see something about solitary con -- confinement and juvenile life without parole and people from a whole entire political spectrum and a variety of religious perspectives talking about those things. i think in the 1970s we had people talking about these things and we produced a lot of bad policies. maybe with the wisdom of hindsight and the sense of what

has bon gone wrong. conversation is better than none. >> i tell people this story. was in richmond, california, and i saw a guy standing on the street corner and i recognized his clothing, the release clothes from san quentin and i saw the bag in his arm and he is looking left and then light as if he was trying to decide which way to go and the truth was no matter which way he went, there was nothing there for him, and to me that really describes how we released -- were releasing people from our prisons, without a plan. it's what we do with our county days every day. we release people in the meld of othis night when no services are open. so the dimple is in the details, looking at the local policies and the things we do that need to change so that people can be more successful when they leave our jails and prisons...

i remember no one was saying anything about it and very few people even knew anything about it. when people come home they need to have an actual exit plan, a place where they can go to just