no embargo when the session ends. to help you rezest that relentless selfie urge we'll e-mail pictures to the session to all reporters here as soon as the breakfast ends. if you want to ask a question, pries send me a subtle nonthreatening signal and i'll happily call on one and all in the time we have. we'll offer our guests to make opening comments and then we'll move to questions. thank you for doing this. we appreciate it. >> well, it's nice be here, always good to see our friends from anga. all i'll suggest is that the system is bone-crushingly gridlocked and it will stay that way if we just continue to play by the same rules. i think our views at the bipartisan policy center is that the rules are going to evolve. the frustration of those who are

constructive partisans who whatnot to get things dub are going to start to require a different approach to legislation. congressman boehner now has a 244-member majority. that changes his latitude some. i think if you look back to last year during the shutdown, when speaker boehner showed real leadership and said we're not defaulting on the debt and i'm moving forward, that strengthened his hand. he did not fall through the ice, and the last thing i'll say is that in my experience, the people who are absolutely the most frustrated with washington are members of congress. this is not what they signed up for. the vast majority crime here to actually get things done. and i think that constructive frustration, just like the con frocktive frustration of the general -- constructive frustration of the general public, is going to start to

have an influence. i tried to in my book, which has not been held up, talk about -- >> what was the title. >> talk about what our -- pragmatic but not naive ways to start steering the country back to a productive partisanship. >> first of all i'm sure this is all off the record. [laughter] >> thank you to agna for hosting dismiss the "christian science monitor." i assume tom and i will have an opportunity to speak for 30 minutes, with extensions if we need more time to filibuster. but i'm delighted to be here with me good friend tom daschle. we do a lot of joint appearances now and that's natural because we did a lot of things jointly when we were the respective majority, minority, majority, minority leaders, back and forth. when you go back and look at what we went through together, not only the impeachment trial

but 9/11 and the anthrax attacks that specifically affected tom's office, and how we dealt with the 505 congress. so we went through a lot of tough things, buffet also -- but also i'm very proud of the thing wes got down. i'm still an incurable optimist. i still feel like good things will happen but it's going to take strong leadership. we'll have to see some change of direction from the president. we're going to have to see the speaker really move aggressively in trying to keep his conference moving in the right direction. i've always said that when you're in leadership in the house and the senate, you can follow your conference or lead your conference. and if you just follow them, you got trouble. and i'm hoping that the speaker will step in that regard, and of course mitch mcconnell has achieved a goal he has works on literally, i think, since he was in high school. now he will be the majority leader. so a lot of things need be done.

what is happening in the energy field is having a dramatically positive effect on our economy, but it presents opportunities and challenges that i hope the congress will step up to next year. but we don't want to eat up all the time making opening statements. we'll be brief and go to your questions. >> tom. >> i want to thank dave and the christian science monitor for giving us the chance to come back and it's a good opportunity to see some of you. we haven't had the opportunities we used to have as leaders to mingle and talk with you as frequently as we used to. so, we look forward to the opportunity. if you haven't read the book, i highly recommend it. trent and i have worked together in a lot of different iterations over the years, and it's been an enormous pleasure for know work with him over the last several years, and a lot of different

contexts, especially here at the bpc, and over that time i think it's fair to say we have become even closer friends, and so i've treasured that friendship and appreciate the chance to be with him this morning. it's no secret that our country itself is very divided. the pew research center and others have said that this may be the most divided we have been since the -- in over 100 yarded ideologically so the congress reflects the divisions wind our own country, and i think we're experiencing that today. largely it's a debate about the role of government in modern society. a debate between those those who consider themselves rugged individualists on one side and those who believe there is a lot to be said for collective action on the other. finding compromise between those two points of view as we consider the role of government in modern society is a challenge but it's become more. so it's also been a tactical question for a lot of members who get a selected to congress

these days. the tactical question when too you stand your ground and when do you look for common ground, and a a lot of people believe they were sent to washington not to find common ground but to insist on standing their ground and standing on principle alone. the challenge in regular con siling those views, first on the role of government, and second on the way which one governs, has presented the set of circumstances we're facing today. but as jason and trent both said, there are ways with which to address it. there are easier ways, somewhat more difficult ways and ways that are almost impossible, but if you have read walter isaacson's book he says in order to be successful in almost everything you have to have a healthy disregard for the impossible and i think that's really what we have to understand. we have to have a healthy disrecovered for those who just say, there's nothing we can do about this because it's just

impossible. it isn't impossible. i hope we can continue to demonstrate our capacity to do so going forward. >> thank you. all three of you and for your remarkable time sensitivity which we don't always find with our guests. i'll ask a couple and then we'll go to -- -- and then i'll ask one on behalf of phil douglas. let me ask you a noncongressional question 0, perhaps a noncongressional question. as we all know a new york grand jury eddeclined to indict a white police officer in the death of an unarmed african-american, eric garner. does the recent spate of high visibility death of unarmed black americans at the hands of police call for bipartisan action, and if so, what? >> well, maybe i can start by

saying, i think without knowing the specific circumstances in the case -- i understand there's going to be an investigation so we'll better understand just what actually occurred and why. i do think that we have avoided a serious discussion about race in america now for some time, and it's critical that we continue to understand the need for that dialogue, the need for us to become much more aware of the inequities and the challenges we face as a nation, whether it's the voting rights act or voter suppression or any one of a number of other challenges we face in the country, we have a lot of work to do, and these case are certainly a reminder of that. >> i'm going to -- >> the way we'll do this, i'll let each of you respond. so either of you want to respond? >> just to add maybe a broader

reflection, really does affect a lot of the folks in this room. we now get to see almost everything, whether it is interactions between individuals and police that get violent, whether it's the horrible grotesque actions of isil, and that is changing the way people understand these problems. i have no actual statistical notion there is more violence between white police officers and african-americansed today today than there has ever been. my intuition is there's less but we see it more. and i think that does in a very constructive important way, force this conversation forward, and it's hard to imagine a federal legislative response to that, but we do have a very strong federal role in civil rights enforcement. and so i do believe this is

going to be an ongoing conversation. >> i think it's something we have to confront. we have to come to terms with what happens in instances like this, and what could be done differently. i've always had a little bit of a problem -- talking about what legislatively could be done. some of the equipment that the federal government provides to police departments around the country now, you wonder why they need that. it's heavy equipment, and sometimes it's small-town police departments. i think congress, and dianne feinstein specifically has been talking about doing something in that area to at least limit it to smaller side arms or weapons rather than tanks, if you will, and i'm not sure -- large antiriot vehicles. also i think that it's time that everybody ask themselves, are these things being handled properly? not only on the streets but in

the courts and in the become discourse, and it's been interesting and troublesome, quite frankly, some of the thing wes have seen and heard, and there have been others that have taken advantage of the opportunity to try to find some solutions. so, we'll see what happens with that. >> last one from me. i want to ask you about what you see as the most likely areas for bipartisan action, speaking of the business roundtable yesterday, president obama cited tax policy, the transpacific partnership and trade, infrastructure, and surprisingly, immigration, as potential areas for bipartisan legislative action. based on your considerable expertise, what would top your list of the best possibilities for bipartisan action, if any? >> i do think trade is one that they have a good opportunity to, and need to work together. it can get off track. if members of congress see the

negotiations particularly the tpp, the asian negotiations -- if they go too far in labor or environment area, republicans will reaction to that, or if they don't go far enough, democrats will have a problem with it. so there's a delicate balance there. to the administration's credit they are now beginning to reach out in a bipartisan way, both to congress, members of congress, and some former members of congress to talk about how this can be done, because we were involved in doing it with nafta. the problem is get this debate and 60 votes required on the motion -- but the actual vote is only 51 votes. so, members are going to be a little jumpy about -- before they know the final product, you know, are re going to agree to give this fast track authority where you limited the amount of time under the rules and then vote. i'm very much an advocate of the tpp and the one in europe.

there's complications with both of them. they had some problems with japan on automobiles and agricultural problems and there will be problems in europe, and the administration has not wanted to put some things on the table that the europeans want. i think that -- i know that mitch mcconnell will be wanting to be helpful and move that forward. i also think tax reform is possible. i think they kind of tripped over things last week. they were getting close to having the big $400 billion tax extender package with make something of the extenders permanent, and then the president threatened to veto, and it fell apart, and now they're moving just to one-year targets extenders. some -- tax extenders. some say that might be a move to get extenders in a package next year. i'm a little nervous because it seemed like everytime they get started in the right direction, something trips it up and they

lose their momentum. but it needs to be a comprehensive package. it is about jobs and the economy. so i really hope they'll do that. there's a good possibility in the energy area. they are going to have to deal with some of the energy areas. we recommended they the bipartisan policy center, some reforms that would actually put somebody in charge of energy policy. nobody is in charge. something like 17 agencies, commissions,, bureaus and departments deal with energy. nobody has the con, as they say in the navy. obviously, transportation and that's a good possibility because you have the aviation, faa is expiring, the highway trust pitched hope they get serious about dealing with the need for money and how you do that. they're not many options on the table. but bill schuster is one of the best legislator inches the congress, and he has got good

helpers, good legislators on the senate side. we have seen barbara boxer has shown the ability to get bills through that committee, working with iminhofe and dave vetter. if barbara boxer and dave bitter and jim inhofe can move infrastructure, that's impressive, and you add bill schuster on the house side, that's great potential. i hope they'll go back to regular order. quit running everything out of the speaker's office or the leader as office. you have chair men and chairwomen that are except. let them do the job. have hearings are and investigations and markups and votes on amendments. move it to the floor, raise hell. have great debates, stay in on saturday, stay late, and vote on amends amends and quit acting like a bunch of chickens when you got a six--year term. so i'm hopeful that things will move. immigration? they got to do that. should have done it in 2007.

one of the most disappointing experiences i ever had as a member of the senate. the amount of cower dis -- cower das i saw in 2008 on themes bill is extremely disappointing and contributed to misdecision to move on and do something else itch hope they'll come back to it. they can do it in pieces. i pray if they try to do the big gulp they'll choke on it. and it could moved in three pieces bit there's got be three. the border security, got to do the visa situation, and then you have to go -- what is the appropriate way to deal with the people here, fair, reasonable way, but do it some such a way writ can't be defined as amnesty. >> i'd add one and that's health

care. i think there's a list of healthcare initiatives that could enjoy pretty broad bipartisan support. i start with the repeal and replace of sgr. the sustainable growth rate. a 51-0 vote in the house commerce committee. earlier this year, i think it's clearly something that everyone recognizes needed to be addressed. the children's health insurance program expires, and as most of you know it always enjoyed broad bipartisan support. i think telehealth, a lot of recognition of the important of telehealth and what it can mean for health care delivery in urban and rural areas and a whole array of new services to be offered through electronic communication. in addition to that, there's a number of issues affecting diabetes. we have 29 million americans who have diabetes. 86 million americans who have prediabetes, at a cost of 322

bill a year and there are a number of things we can do on prevention, detection, and treatment, for diabetes, that already have enjoyed broad bipartisan support. so, on a number of those areas, having to do with health, think the potential for bipartisanship is quite high. >> that area you just mentioned about the medicine and diabetes, we have an experimental program from the university of mississippi medical center, to sunflower county, one of the poorest counties with a highest indense of diabetes in the entire country, and by this use of telemedicine they're monitoring people that are diabetessics and have diet problems, check their blood pressure, work with them on taking medication, talk to them about what they should eat or not eat, anding too this all by -- medicine is remotely done to an area 120 miles away, where there's no local doctor in the county. so there's leally a lot of exciting things that can happen

in the medical area through the use of telemedicine. >> jason? >> just to make the point that there are a lot of issues in the queue, and a lot of issues that actually had some bipartisan moment over the last few years that got choked out by the really destructive relationships a you move towards leadership. the assertion we have to let the committee does their work is essential and is a whole strata of issues. i'll just mention a few. energy efficiency. bill has been sitting there. senators blunt and brown have legislation on advance manufacturing. postal reform. something that people actually would feel and see, sitting on the table and has had bipartisan support. we don't have to start from zero. there is a misperception that congress across the board has been incapable of collaboration, and that is quite true at the highest levels. it's not really true within the

rank-and-file. so, in addition to some of thing issues, swallowed the square pill on health care. the only other two things i would mention, oil exports. this is a fantastic issue. it kind of explodes the 30-year structure of energy legislation which was based around light blue cardigan sweaters and we now live in an ea of energy abundance. people are not dug in and entrenched. and lastly -- >> might also mention natural gas, since you have ang back here. >> the last point i'll mention is dodd-frank. we never passed a piece of massive legislation like dodd-frank or the affordable care act perfectly and look it

in forever. we always have iterative tuneups, tweaks, changes, and there's a possibility-both around the aca and dodd-frank to make technical corrections, modest adjustments and bring the bills back into the fore. >> mr. batting ton, "associated press." >> thank you very much. senator lot mentioned cowardice in the immigration issue. [inaudible] i'm wondering if the american voter has in your time of looking at american politics, and government, have you seen a change or -- are americans less willing to take some -- paying taxes or having a limit on social security and medicare, that sort of thing, or is this a reaction within congress itself? >> i actually think that the

american people are willing to be led if they can be shown that in so doing, america can be elevated to a higher level in public policy or ultimate objectives. i think there is, as jason so eloquently talked about earlier, there's far more transparency today. we have always known that the legislative sausage-making is never pretty, and we now see that elevated state of sausage-making and people repelled from that somewhat, or the lack of sausage-making in many case because of the transparency that exists. so to a certain extent there's a reluctance on the part of members to deal and to come up with comprimise in part because so much is so much more transparent than in the past we used to cut deals. we used to -- and frankly, earmarks were part of deal-cutting. you could trade thing that

members needed back home for the opportunity to move legislation forward, and that was all part of the legislative process. it wasn't pretty but it worked. now we don't do any of that in part because of transparency, and in part because of the reaction to earmarks that understandably generated over the last several years. >> i agree with everything that tom just said. these are different times. they're different people. i do think that there's a little bit too much everybody looking to appeal to their base vote. whether they're far left or far right, and i never was one that hung around in the middle but i also think that people yearn for somebody, for their elect editors, leaders, to -- elected officials, leaders to lead, and explain why they're doing what they are doing. i vote for said department of education and i knew my con

stint tune si did not agree with me but at the same time i indicated what the vote was, explained why i did. i knew that 54% of my constituent didn't agree with it. i never got any flak for that. they also knew when they elected me i had an education background, son of a school teacher and worked for the university of mississippi and all that. but the times are different. people, the social media is part of it. and it's godden 24/7. it's explosive, and the media gets locked in on an issue and you really can't get away from it. my phones were jammed for a week or two -- my office phones were jammed. i'd go to the office early and when the phone rang, pick it up. i would say, this is fresh lott. i had them at a disadvantage. they complaint believe i would answer the fun. during that process i got three

death threats, one prom any own state, one from oregon, and a third one. so, it was ugly. but we lost the float 2007 on a procedural vote, and the accounting i was doing, as whip, thought we were going to be able to win that. but over the weekend, rush limbaugh labeled it amnesty, and labor got ahold of the democrats and said we don't want these workers coming in with these visas, so democrats were voting no because of labor, republicans are voting no because of amnesties, from rush limbaugh, and i'm in the well of the senate with john cowle, and lindsey graham, not two knower to yourself liberal, and also ted kent, dianne feinstein, and harry reid. the six of us are working the vote and we lost. one of the most mind boggling

things i've ever seen. so it's harder now, i think, but my attitude is, why would you whatnot to come-all you whatnot to do is raise money and get re-elected? why wouldn't you want to make a difference? when i hear some of the criticisms about -- i point out to some of the -- look, when clinton was president and tom and i were in leadership, we got welfare reform, which president clinton signed. we did a balanced budget, we did tax reform, measured telephone communications reform, safe drinking water, importantability of insurance, raise military pavement what among those is not a good thing? what among those is not conservative, from some of my conservative friends. i tell some of them, look, just to doing in is not a conservative position. it's to change the direction of the country. you have to get an action, whether it's liberal, moderate or democrat.

have to get something done. but it is harder now do and it you do run the risk of getting defeated, i get, or losing your leadership position. enough look back and -- say now, so what? at least you go down standing up, as morgan freeman said in the movie, "gloriry. " standing up fighting for something. if you're going to get your head chopped if politically, at least get something funny process. the people do want leadership. they want obama to reach out to mcconnell and for the speaker to reach out to the administration. talk. see where they can find some common ground. i think american people would react positively if they would see that. >> just to -- this idea of not taking hard votes is just tragic. one reasons is it doesn't work. all folks senator reid were trying to protect by avoiding votes, virtually all of them

lost. voting captures the possibility and a way to vent the anger. the body is created to vote for things and my hope is that the last election cycle where a lot of people were harmed by saying they were in lockstep with the president, will demonstrate the political imperative is not to prevent people from voting but actually allows members to differentiate themselves that would be major step forward, is that sense of the political logic starts to change. >> my good friend and partner, john brough is talk about the senate has 54 votes but they need six more on a lot of things heat looking to see if there's fulcrum point, if there's six democrats they might be willing

to maneuver the way john used to. he would give us heartburn because sometimes he was moving against me for tomorrow and the reverse. if that group of somewhat more moderate democrats decided we're going to be part of trying to find the 60th vote to get some things done, that could have a lot of influence around here. >> francine. >> so much has been talked about with mcconnell and what he is going to do with his new majority and so on. i'd like to ask about the flip side, senator daschle. reid is going into the minority now. what is his task as minority leader? >> i think it's to lead. i think it's to find ways to achieve some common ground. he said something last week that it thought was very encouraging. he said, we're not going get into payback. if he meant that -- i assume he did -- he always speaks from his heart -- my guess is that

they're going to be opportunities on the array of issues we have already talked about, where there could be some common ground. it wouldn't have to take those six people that john is going do be looking for. you could do it with 60 or 70 votes. and that's possible, depending on how democrats look at their role. it seems to me it's in harry reid's interest to accomplish as much as we can in the final two years of the obama administration. obama has two more years of opportunity, and i find, is a look back, some of the most productive years of any administration are the final two, that's certainly true of bill clinton, and you can argue that about other presidents but there's no question, there is a very rich agenda here that could be addressed if we could find real cooperation. i have been encouraged -- trent and i were just talking about this. i've been encouraged by the signs of maybe a new found

relationship between mitch mcconnell and harry reid in the last two weeks. they steam be talking more. steam be comping up with grandmas a little bit more frequently, and if that's any indication, i'm stoked, even though it has to be shown. i'm still hopeful we can really find some common ground next year. >> he did say, after he had been working to try to put together the tax extenders, big package, and it was -- felt apart, he did say he would support just the one year extension, which the house voted on overwhelmingly last night, and he has also said the can go with the -- some people didn't like and said we can do the cr in omnibus but it would be a short-term homeland security. just the fact he realized we have, what, six, seven, legislative days left this year, that this was probably the best we could get.

so i was encouraged by what he said on both. >> jim carroll. >> to have both of you hear, could spend the whole hour talking about your skin experiences as majority and minority leaders, and you could write a book and in fact you both have. thinking ahead to how mitch mcconnell is going to govern. he says he wants to find common ground. have you talked to mcconnell? has he asked for your advice on becoming majority leader? and second of all, what should be his takeaway from any advice or what advice would you give, how to conduct the senate. >> i have not talked to him since he attained hills new position but i have had hundreds of conversationsed women him of many years. i'm encouraged one of his real heroes is henry clay. henry clay has always been iconic, as and viewed as a great

compromiser, somebody who could bring sides together, and if that's mitch, in modern times, i'm encouraged by that. i'd also go back to his experience with marlowe cook. marlowe cook was also somebody who found ample opportunity to work with people across the aisle. so he has a long history of experience and comments made by henry clay that seems to me are indicative of where his real soul lies. let's hope that that can be reflected as he makes his decisions about leadership. these are -- was trent said these are different times but i think it's going to take meaningful leadership, stepping continue plate, looking for ways to do things differently and i think he has that capacity. >> senator lott. >> i talked to mitch, as you might expect, and have over the years. i must say that majority leaders don't generally ask for advice very much. they tend to think they already know it. but having said that, mitch

really does have a long record of learning, having been a staff member for john sherman cooper, and having been in the senate as long as he has been, being in leadership position, bothing a whip and minority leader, so, he knows have it can be done. and i think he'll want to take action that produces results. that's easier said than done because as we have seen, you call up a bill you have a threatened filibuster, you fill up the tree, and everything falls apart, and i'm sure he'll run into some of that. i've known mitch -- when i was in leadership, i was whip when he was minority leader the last couple of years and worked very closely with him. he knows how to get it done and i think he is determined to move things forward, and so far he

has hit just the right tone, his tone has been the best, and you might expect that from me, but when i say that i'm saying other people haven't had the right to tone, either party. so he'll be an interesting study but you know, he makes a point himself, the three biggest deals that have been made in the last four years were between mitch mcconnell and joe biden, and i understand in the white house they call joe biden the mcconnell whisperer. because they served together. they know how to make it work. that's a valuable talent that we need more of. and we need to take advantage of it. >> david jackson, u.s.a. today. >> a lot of people were wondering what might have happened to the healthcare law if you were in charge of passing it? how do you think things might have been different in what's