>> senator daschle and senator bob, thank love, thank you for joining me to talk about your new book as was described in the the opening segment. as i travel around the country and you watch the current affairs show, which i don't watch many these days, many people on sides of the aisle think there is a crisis point. however, people can say the house needs to be burned down

but you actually know how to build it back and you all have been in the stomach of the beast and have had to navigate the different he goes you deal with on both sides of the aisle and so as we unfold here today and evil through this process, what we say at the outset that usually when i am on some show, i'm sitting in your chair to answer the questions. bear with me as we unravel this or peel the onion and as i went to the book i saw so many interesting things about how the data to a better chemistry into civility and how do we get things done in washington. so let me ask you at the outset, starting with you, why write

about? >> guest: we write the book in part because we love the institution and want to see it continue to thrive and progress and be what it can be and what our founding fathers envisioned for us but that takes work and leadership and adjustment. and i worry because of the dysfunction we are at a crisis point and we will have to take some action to bring it back. but this institution is only as good as the people that served i think sometimes we take it for granted and we have to remind the american people how fragile the government and the institutions truly are. like anything it requires maintenance and commitment to the process and the whole spirit of what we need to do in the democratic republic. that's what the book is about.

>> guest: when you were chairman of the conference we got that background in the house and senate. tom and i went through difficult times together but managed to get things done working with naomi president bill clinton but president bush, too. over the process of dealing with things like the aftermath and the appeasement of william jefferson clinton, we came out of the other side of the previous list of things we got done and as friends. since we left the congress we continue to get together and our friendship has actually grown and i was with tom and his wife and my wife and we were talking about our concern of the dysfunctions and the gridlock and the experience is what he had had going forward and i think it's time that we do a book together so that that is the genesis of it.

so it affects their thinking about not only in congress but a governmental politics as a whole across the country now we are seeing some things that are very unusual but we think that we are at a pivotal crisis point domestically and internationally with how we need to do things differently to get the result of the american people so we put it in this book. when you talk about doing things differently, the older league, the more difficult it is for us to unlearn because we think that what we have been doing for the last 20 years is right. it's the best. democrats never think their addiction is as bad as republicans and they never think there's are as bad as democrats and getting to a better way i've

often said i think that it going in the public service i think that we all come with -- we are principled reasons debate co- people that when a better plan and urges its not -- it's not -- it's not principle, it is arrogance or pride says no, no. that is a better solution, but i don't like that. it's a better solution but i don't like that. that's not principled, but his pride. you all made some recommendations in the book. share some of those things with me on how we get over the hurdle to say let's look at the best models. >> i think if you talk to elected officials in the country, they realized that they have problems now in washington and in the congress and the relationship between the president and the congress so we

laid out a predicate before we got to the suggestions we had going forward about how you could change the dynamics and move things forward. first we went back and look at history and talked about what the founding fathers had in mind and the difficulty they went through. there are many times in the history when nothing's was were worse than the gridlock involved. but then we talk about what we went through and i just would sense that people are now looking for a way to change the politics and the openness of what we have now. but it won't be easy, you are right. some of the things we suggest just wake bring your families with you to washington or everybody for everybody to one year of public service or there there will be people that say wait a minute, it's going to wrong direction we don't want to do that. so we put it with things we

think would change the dynamics and the culture and we think it needs to change because we are not dealing with the problems right now in an effective way in our opinion. >> one of the things i think we have to do to fully succeed is to ask ourselves what happened that got us here and i think a lot of factors over time caused this evolution to occur. i think the airplane is partly at fault because it is easy for people not to be washington. people leave on thursday, come back on tuesday and somehow we try to run the country on wednesday. money has played a big factor, the media changed dramatically from what it used to be. be kind of reconfigure the lines from most congressional districts. all of those things i think i've contributed to this new environment and when you put them all together, you get the results that we are now seeing,

this dysfunction exacerbated in part by some of the factors that got us here. >> of the talk about spending time in washington. i was elected in the class of 94 that gave republicans a authority for the first time in over 40 years and in that class, we kind of sad we are not going to live in washington. i even campaigned on the fact i would be home on the weekend and i touched down in my district every weekend except for four. looking back on it if i had it to do over again, i wouldn't bring my family to washington -- >> that is the wisdom of having done it for eight years. i would have brought my family to washington so in terms of creating a chemistry or a culture, it is i find it's not the relationships in reading the book you all talk a lot about the relationships created in the

senate and each senator is assigned a number and it was interesting you all talked about who's desk you were sitting in the thomas jefferson etc.. you know, the senate is different in terms of relationships with the house. it's a kind of give us some thoughts on what he wanted to, some of the things you did to create those relationships. >> one of the things we feel strongly about is the need for inclusion. and by that, the president inviting the leaders down to the white house. we did that right after 9/11. president bush invited us down, he told us we had to be there at seven in the morning every tuesday. and that created a chemistry among us that allow the studio with a crisis and it made a huge difference in the relationships that came from it made a

difference in term of what we were able to get done. joined caucuses come opportunities for republicans and democrats to stick together and listen to the leadership to gather so that these separate caucuses, doing things to socialize, bringing spouses together and opportunities to get to know one another in a more formal basis, that's the way they used to do things and it really made a difference. we don't have those things anymore. none of that happens today and i think that is one of the problems. >> several times when we face the crisis we would have a joint conference meeting of republicans and democrats in the whole senate chamber. sometimes it was to have the cia briefing about something and sometimes it is try to see if we could find a way how to proceed with the trial. every time we had those joint meetings with her it was in the senate dining room or the old chamber one of those things came

out of them. we hurt each other out. we made decisions and moved forward. >> told them about the kennedy agreement. >> this is the one tom and i had come to terms with the house to impeach the president and we were going to have the trial that we were not sure how to proceed. we haven't had one of those for over a hundred years. so finally, we came up with the idea we were going to meet a whole senate chamber and have a discussion about how to proceed and we didn't know what the result was going to be. but i called on danny from hawaii to open it with prayer and guidance on how to proceed and then i said give us a little history and then we opened up for discussion and people started to talk back and forth and finally, kennedy made some

comments and then phil gramm made some comments. there is a liberal lion for the democrats and what it sounded like is the same thing. the senator from florida said that it, we have the solution so everybody was excited and we broke up the session and we said we want to go and tell the press they would put them in the room and write what we agreed to create what we got to the agreement and we proceeded. it was in a way that we felt was

fair to all and we came out on the other side with an ability to then go back and do the legislation for the people. >> many times in the last couple of days writing the book isn't to say this is how we did it. it's to come up with ideas that might work in the future regardless of who did them. we are not trying to call attention to anything. what we would like to do is say what lessons are there from the past experience that we can find, and then add a few wrinkles but that is the purpose of the book. >> one of the things i noticed in the buck. he would call them direct that was answered in one place but it was interesting i picked up on

what you said and i kind of read between the lines that when you explain or articulate something or suggest something when the senator said i agree that was kind of the pinky promise to say we are going to take the politics out of this and draw on the same base but today politics is exhibited in such a way the fox and the hound. they played together as kids and then they were disjointed and the fox wanted to still be friends and the hound said i'm a hunting dog now. [laughter] we can't be friends. so when you look at the fox and the hound, that's kind of the way it is in so many respects and politics that when you say i totally agree it felt like he's

given me his word and i'm going to sell it to my caucus. >> host: they were pushing back on what they were trying to do. they came outside of the room and we discussed it and basically we both knew we had to get it done and he said i will meet you on the floor of the senate in five minutes. we left the conference and said work on disability this bill and by 9:00 the bill was done. you've got to be willing to put up on the line. >> i respected him even though

philosophically we had our differences and we were leaders of opposing parties. but you've got to have that open door of communication. you've got to develop a trust. we agreed we would not surprise each other and every now and then i would get to drop on him unfairly and i was prepared to say that wasn't cool, i'm sorry about that. we can fix that. i am not denigrating the people in office now, but i don't see that happening now. we have that kind of courtesy not just being mean spirited with each other. well, you mentioned in the book you can probably turn to page four in the buck and because of those five bullet points get a good sense of what the book is about. but you said that you illustrated why kurt ridge is such a necessary component of the leadership that you all have

talked about and i think that's today it is a little tougher on paul ryan as the speaker. it's a little tough on harry reid as the majority -- minority leader or mitch mcconnell gets tougher on them because leadership and courage and the spread of things you are talking about and you touched on leadership little bit of the conversation. but i kind of unraveled a little bit more. just give us some sense of what you all have to deal with in the respective conferences and what mitch mcconnell and paul ryan and hairy reid and nancy pelosi today are dealing with. >> one of the things i think is different today even though it was bad then it is much worse now. it's just the constant need to

fund raise in order to stay viable politically. and what that means is that members get on more committees which they can't serve on and deal with the kind of job they should because they are spread thin. each committee has its own constituency and fundraising base. the amount of money my last race was $50 million. the last senate race in 2012 and 2014 were $120 million. they are now talking about $150 million in the senate race. so, it's just the incredible and insatiable demand for more and more money is one of the issues that has exacerbated all of this and made it hard for the leaders to bring people together because first they are not in town. second they are doing other stuff that doesn't allow them to be the legislators they were elected to the venue then you have the special-interest pressures talking about how the

name has become sort of a verb that no one wants to get today they don't want to lose the primary because he lost in the primary in part because he tried to find consensus. so all of those pressures make it hard for the leaders to lead just as you suggest. >> i've been watching what goes on in the city pretty closely and i think the atmosphere is as bad and for a variety of reasons the times are different. people are different, the media is different. you have social media, you have 24/accident coverage, tremendous turnover in the house and the senate. the majority of the senate has been elected in the last eight years and the same in the house and with that, what i prefer to call the senior statesman i succeeded john who was known as the constant in the senate.

they stood up to talk about the ethics committee work about armed services in the country and people. when pat moynihan would come to speak about the tax policy even though he was a liberal democrat in new york i go to the floor and listen. i respected his knowledge. i don't see that now. who are -- >> in the house you had henry hyde. regardless what i was doing on the floor i wanted to stop and hear what he had said. i served on the armed services and i might disagree with him. >> without some courage and determination to do things differently we do recommend the change of politics. we think there should be a single national primary instead

of all of this process to go through now that is endless. the campaigns are too long. we think that they are concerned about civic responsibility and millennial's. what do they know about civil responsibility and how they form in their opinions. what do we do to try to get their attention and future generations we recommend everybody to one year of public service when they get out of high school would've to be 17 or 18 so it doesn't have a greater appreciation for serving their country whether it is fighting fires in the west or the peace corps or the military so this is a combination of things. we don't want it to be like this is how we did things or even look at history this is littered with dysfunction and challenges they almost have to re-sign the cause of the treaty. what we want to do is look forward and say here are somethings we think would make a

difference. one of the ways to cut back on the expenses is to cut back on the length of the campaigns and then question is how do you do that? >> guest: when you talk about money i think people on both sides would agree or say that money does drive it and to get reelected without throwing the constitution out the window, both of you give me your thoughts on how we might do that. you suggested that if you shorten the campaign process, that would be one component, but that kind of unraveled a little bit. >> one of the simple things i think we used to have that we don't have as much now as we did before was transparency. just making sure that everybody understands who is getting what and i think that -- as we all know how the supreme court basically ruled that is a

constitutional issue as a result of the interpretation of the constitution. that's going to be a little harder to address. but some states have passed laws that prohibit why all while the body is in session. there is value to death to restrict fund-raising events of it may not have limits at least restrict when it can be done and if we can do that and set up a time frame the campaigns can be run all of those things are constitutional parameters but i think we have to explore as much as we can what can be done without major transportations in the constitution or statute. but i think there is a growing realization and until we do some of these things, we are going to continue to be very, very plagued with this problem of money in ways that it influences the process that's not just

healthy. >> this is a way to get a lot of money without knowing exactly where it is coming from. and i have found more than one occasion where the so-called beneficiary with paper they stop what they are doing that you can't have that communication. i would like to -- i think we need to take a look at the super pack and i always believed instantaneously parking and complete transparency so you know who is doing it. let the people decide. i'm not saying don't do it necessarily, but make sure that it's open and obvious who is doing what. >> that's been one of the things he's advocated for a long time, transparency and immediate reporting. you both have mentioned money

and the media. when i was elected to congress in 1994, the blackberry was a fruit. [laughter] and everybody's got an iphone and instead ran and internet etc. etc.. and i think something that's contributed to this end he was booked and you'll spoke to this in the book as well about how we can go for the next month and never talk talked to anybody that disagrees with us and i think we tend to in my opinion become very shortsighted and even the press today with the cable network of 300 plus channels, you can listen to news shows that only a great with me, the radio that agrees with me. and i find that people don't watch news shows today or

current affairs looking for the truth. many watch them to have opinions. >> my opinion is the one that is the truth. i watch fox 24/seven and get my partner watches msnbc. we at least talk to each other and agree to disagree. but that is the culture that has changed so much in the media standpoint. >> the media used to be the referee. i think that's something we still haven't adjusted to. there is no line any longer between the object and subject. >> and they like to cover conflicts. getting the result and getting the agreement is just not sexy but if you can have two candidates the others on the platform are chopped liver so that's where the focus is.

i want to encourage you, senator lott and senator daschle -- and i know that they served on the board, but i want to encourage you if you are watching fox and nbc, i demand you give any group of people time. [laughter] >> i do check to see what chris matthews is up to and i do get a little bored sometimes and i will see what cnn is doing but that is a part of the culture. when we deal with politics, the only people that think like us and go to church with people that look like us and think like us we are on social media our entire network and we have got 500 friends, 498 event think like us or watch the same shows.

and i do think that has hurt us in more ways than one. i have some rivers of congress -- i had waitstaff and black staff and i think that my white staff gained a lot of value from my culture and just my family and observations. i have learned a great deal from them and got a lot of value out of them. but it was just hanging out with people that look like us and think like us. i think that hurts us and the diversity of who we are as a nation and what we have grown to be and in 2016 it's not the weakness. >> the great debate is what we are all about. the problem is how do you get behind and move to get results and by the way, one of the things we talked about in the book and i've always advocated, there's a lot of things you can deal with them congress that are

not politically or philosophically a war zone. we need to do more in cybersecurity for america for the safety of the future? yes. it's not republican and democrat. do we want safe drinking water, yes. does the federal government have a role to help some of these communities that can't cope with it by themselves? shortly. the highway bill, who among us doesn't think that we need better highways and safer bridges aren't going to collapse and by the way, there are little glimmers of hope out there. last year they did come to a broad-based budget agreement which the president signed off on and the congress agreed to and by the way, jim and barbara boxer, total opposite. [laughter] >> but they did get a result and you have some good legislators on both sides of the aisle and the capital that you have the ability. i need simon schuster of the house that did the highway bill,

the best legislator in congress. but he had a partner, barbara boxer on the house side. we need more of that. >> there was a growth rate agreement that was important for important, 21st century cures in the house committee companion bill in the senate. so there are divisive issues that have been very confrontational and there are opportunities. >> instead of always taking the places that there will be a huge battle, think of places there is a need and something good can be done and when you get the result, it begins the ability to get up results and they've quit doing that. interesting in 1995 during the time you offer in over in the senate and i was in the house, talk about vision and the buck to beat -- in the book.

we talked about research and development to deal with america and some of the things we were dealing with in the health arena. we were talking about opportunities and for businesses to grow and create more jobs we were thinking futuristically it seems again i do not watch a lot of current affairs shows. watching current affairs shows is like watching a soap opera. you can't watch it for six months and then you tune in and realize all the talking points on both sides are still the same and erica is still doing the same old thing and add-on is doing the same old thing. [laughter] it seems we've gotten out of the mold of thinking about tomorrow.

everything is right now. so how do we make that happen? we have to have leaders to stand up and make that happen. i think paul ryan has that potential. he talks about a vision and i still believe that. it's one thing that says we are angry, frustrated, mad. what is the antidote? if you want to show the way to light, i want a positive message. when of the things that upset me with my republican colleagues in the last couple of elections was who looks at their agenda, what is the message and what do they stand for, nothing other than we are against obama. i understand that, but that isn't enough. tell me what you want to do for america. we need women and men that will

spend time thinking about that and talking about that and then you can make that happen. >> i remember when i was the conference chairman i was in charge of communications and painting the picture of what we were doing. and i used to say being against president bush's plan isn't a plan and now we say being against resident obama's plan isn't a plan. if i don't like senator daschle 's plan, he would probably say to me at least i have a plan. what these viewers. so i think people -- i think most voters do want us talking about the future. think about the world war ii generation. had they not given us the foundation to just get out there and do it militarily in terms of the community -- tom brokaw

called them him the greatest generation and i think they were. but they thought about jc watts in 1995, where he would -- the opportunities he would have. i do think that's important. >> share with us your perspective on why thinking about the future is important and not just thinking about it for doing something about it. >> you touched on one of the most important questions and i think that it's really -- if we are going to think about the future, we have to act on our future by remembering who our future is. our future is our children and grandchildren who are starting school and i think we have to teach them the importance of civic responsibility and the need to get back if we want this country to continue to be great. i had a first grade teacher used to say that public service was

the highest calling you could have in the republic and she inspired us to think about public service and it registered with me how it would be here today that were not for that inspiration i don't think we do enough of that today and do the emphasis on history and civic involvement and the kind of things that really inspire the next generation beyond. we have to do a better job of have of to have to say look, i think that most kids grow up thinking washington must be a horror show. why would anybody want to go to washington and we have to relearn that there is no sin to want to learn in washington and be part of the democratic process any meaningful way to be involved in the debate and changing the mindset is not only a function of congress but

teachers, communities, parents. we have to do a good job all the way through that process. >> we have lived the american dream. >> you were a republican from oklahoma with a very, the very quarterback and yet we have been able to be involved and benefit from this great country that our forefathers left for us. what are we going to do for the ones coming back for us? >> we can make some decisions to go forward to preserve this great republic that we've all benefited from and i worry about it. my grandson is 17 and i get him to watch the debate and give me his analysis and it is interesting to see how he evaluates the debate participants. but people need to do more of that and we think about where we

want education and where we want health care to be. where do we want our economy to the. there are some that say what we want is nothing. one of the arguments i make is if you would like the size of the government the way that it's being run doing nothing is not the answer. you have to take an affirmative action to change what congress is doing or what the government is doing or not doing. regulations are waiting down the american economy. what are we going to do about that? >> my faith teaches me that tom daschle may disagree with me or trent lott may disagree with me. but you all have just as much value as i have and as individuals and human beings. and you all talked about, again, one of the other bullet points you talked about harnessing the natural conflict that comes from a body of different ideas and

personalities and again you all have to deal with as leaders in the senate he had to deal with 98 other people elected to have to deal with 20 and 32 other people that got elected just like they did and so i think that there is a built in complex but then you put on top of that the personalities, the ego, the buying addiction isn't as bad as yours and my worldview is important as yours. how do you harness that conflict? i think the viewers are probably turning up their volume right now. what are -- what kind of answer are they going to give and harnessing the true conflicts that come from the body of

personalities and egos that you have to deal with. spin again i say that respect for the committee into personalities because we all have those costs to bear but a different geographic points of view like an agriculture. in some places they grow weak and you have to find a way to put the agriculture together. and it is acceptable to the south west and midwest. >> i worry a little bit of sounding too simplistic. but they start with tolerance and there has to be an importance of standing with tolerance and the differences in religion and the differences in the philosophy and politics. that is the core to the good democracy is a level of tolerance. and i think that it would look better than some countries but we are not as good as we should be and i think we have become less and less tolerant in the last several years and that concerns me. the other word i would use its inclusion his inclusion finding ways to include everybody at the

table so that newt gingrich was a voice and nancy pelosi has a voice and trent lott and tom daschle have voices but that this collective cacophony finally comes together so when you finally reach a common ground, the possibility here in the middle of the table everybody has another chance to get and to contribute and ultimately the consensus can be born the districts with the relationship and tolerance and the communication and recognition that we have got to find common ground. the lack of it saying my way or the highway is my idea of a dictatorship. that's how you find dictators who only get it their way. this country wasn't built on dictators was built on consensus. >> host: senator before you get your thoughts on that, you know, you mentioned relationships. i learned relationships from the football huddle and when you go

to war every day with people, they would say things that would be politically incorrect but he didn't mean anything by that. i know the military tends to have that. they talked about i am a republican diversity and inclusion and in tolerance, those are -- those words don't offend me and i think my training on that has come from my faith more than anything else. but in the inclusion he used to say it means inviting senator daschle and senator lott to help me bake the cake. don't just invite them into the cake. that's inclusion. but anyway -- >> host: those are the problems that have evolved over

these years. i don't think you can put it on the back of any one person. more and more of the process has been from the top down. the freedom caucus complaints about the wood be from the top. we have to find ways to bring it from the bottom up and all good legislation is hammered into committees. i'm glad to see paul ryan and mitch mcconnell and now you can hear you read has resisted even going back to the regular order. the senate bill in the subcommittee have the investigations to see what is happening. they don't have the time now. do they do oversight now, not very much. but go to the committee. that's where the real work and rough spots are so when you get to the floor you don't have 150 amendments and a lot of the work has already been done. but again, it'll does go back to

the relationship you were talking about and i will tell you another story. when i came to washington in 1968 when i was 26, i was the top aide to democratic congressman, chairman of the rules committee in the house of representatives. at that time it was for round trips a year. they did the work appeared in on thursday afternoon they would go to the capitol and what they call the medicine room and they would join cheap bourbon or something like that and smoke cigars and play a card game i couldn't even tell you how to play three of who is in the room? to conservative democrat from pasco. a japanese myth republican from california and it would be about eight or ten like that. they knew each other. they love each other. did they agree for the to

suffocate for a lot of reasons? no. but out of that came incredible pieces of legislation that made america what it became and what it is today. that's why i think we talk so much about relationships. that is invaluable and the job is not in .-full-stop oklahoma or sioux falls. the job is here and it involves critically the time to do the job. so we put a lot of emphasis on that in the recommendations. >> another thing you talk about those things that i got elected in the district of oklahoma by the wide margins. the folks in the fourth district had a vote.

they didn't have a vote in the district in massachusetts with the fourth district of connecticut and so it was very difficult. i always found myself difficult to say to the people of massachusetts or connecticut you don't know what you're doing, you send the wrong person come he doesn't agree with me. that is a part of being a free nation in the democracy. he will talk about relationships and again i am big on relationships and i think they cover a multitude. remember we've gone every thursday we had in the house a bipartisan prayer breakfast and once i went to the prayer breakfast and rows of the laura, her district is totally different than mine i heard her give a personal testimony about

her mother who was 86 at the time and she has involved the is a to a city council person and she was engaged in activity and the community service and up until that point, i had a certain perspective of what i thought were who i thought she was asked about the father. but the one moment in time gave me a perspective or perception about rosa that i wouldn't have gotten otherwise had i not gone to the prayer breakfast to hear some of her stories. you know, emphasizing where that people are coming from that takes a different union is easy to sympathize with someone but when you improvise that cost i have to put myself in tom's issues now come in trend's shoes and i think oftentimes we often times we come to our worldview

honestly in the past experience that informed our worldview and like i said earlier it's difficult on learning sometimes we realize i've been wrong for the last 20 years. >> he talks about how we have a million people have given it alive so that we enjoy freedom today. one of the last lines in the problem is we give you our debt, give them our meaning. every day when we walk through the door of the capital, have that responsibility to give all of them their meaning. they give up their lives fighting for it. now we have to work at it to give those their meaning and that's something i hope every member of congress can appreciate and remember to be

reminded that there is a lot on the line when you walk through those doors. giving them their meaning is part of it. >> and tom coburn committed senator from oklahoma prior to james langford was in the 94 class, and i would walk on calls for tom coburn. i just agree to respect for him and very transparent. but you know, he had a really good relationship with president obama. it was people who didn't understand it, but i thought that was a perfect picture of much of what your book talks about when it comes to relationships. >> they were at opposite ends of most of the philosophical spectrum. but they have that communication. that we have been talking about and that communication would relationship that ultimately led to some trust and they still

disagree but they did it in a civil way. >> as you all know, i learned this from her backing and the politics in his youth ministry and having made calls that the burden of leadership sometimes is heavy as you all know and it does take courage so kind of give a little more thought if you go on talking about in the book you touch up a bit on the conversation. give me a little more thought on your thought process was put in the book on the courage of leadership when you've got the craziness that you have in the politics. i'm not so sure that your

conference today would allow what you are able to do back from the mid-90s on. so can you give some thought can peel the onion of obit on why -- defined courage for me if you would. >> i used to ask myself when i was in the house and even when it came to the senate, when do you become a statesman. what is a statement? my predecessor had that accusation and then one day i found out what it was. it's when you are sent to washington to get to know a subject and vote on behalf of the people. that's what the former republican governor is all about. and sometimes, you come to the conclusion that your constituents may not agree with you. but it's the right thing to do for your country and you decide

i'm going to do it even in this seat and it's the job i have because the right thing to do. i think that's when you become a statesman. it's not that's not to say that you're supposed to come up here swell rather than growing and maturing. you have to always care about what people think that also you have to live with your conscience and you've got to have the courage to do something as best as you see fit on behalf of people but then you have to communicate on what is that and why do i feel that way? we have a lot of experiences in our time we had to show leadership and by the way we have leaders in washington right now there's not a whole lot of good followers and a leader is only as good as his or her followers and so you do need to reach out and explain what's going on on the one instance i was talking about, we had a have a 50/50 senate. can you imagine, but we had the vice president on the republican

side so we theoretically have the majority but we have to figure out how to make that work so i have to say look okay let's divide everything 50/50. we have half the had the committee seats, we will split the money. the chairman will be republican because we have the majority and they will get a little ticker to run the office. i almost lost my leadership position because it felt like i had given too much and too early. tom was having an experience. >> people didn't think that i was getting as tough as they should and so it's a -- we had a lot of persuading to do and we finally got through it all that but it was a struggle on both sides and that's part of what leadership is about, it's also realizing that whatever you are leaving at the time is not a

lifetime assignment. i think that it's healthy to realize you've got that mantle for pure code of time and you have to maximize the use of the title and responsibility for whatever length of time you're going to have it and then you have to be to walk away with your head high and the realization that you did the best you could. >> i felt like i needed to redesign and senator pat roberts from out in kansas stood up and said what are you talking about? we elected a leader and he did the best job he could we have the best job to do and 50/50 senate let's quit this argument and move forward. he stood up and pulled everybody back but unfortunately it is tough now you take paul ryan and john boehner and they say no to

everything. that's hard to manage when you don't have the majority with you the same is true with harry and mitch they are being pulled by the left and and right don't get the right kind of gets too far, don't give in too much and by the way we talked about the date. one of the things going on now in the senate is every two years, you can't be sure who is going to be the majority. it's gone back and forth. >> so everybody gets up in the morning and says if i don't let them have a good vote or find a way to beat them today, i might be the chairman of the appropriations or the majority leader. >> so, but again i don't want to focus on the negative, i would like to focus more on the positive and one of the things we really do focus on is getting the work done in the committees. and by the way, i talked to the members of the senate on the

committees including the appropriations and the security and there is no way physically he can do all that. so there ought to be a limit on the committee. >> i would remind you all that when we become the majority we have said they balanced the budget and pay down debt paid down the debt and the unfunded mandate etc.. all of those things happened. president clinton actually signed those bills. we could literally say that we are in congress at a time when we had a balanced budget and when we actually pay down the public debt but newt gingrich had to resign his speakership

because some didn't think we were doing enough and now we look back on that and those were the glory days considering what we are going through today. we had the democrats that supported it and thought it was a good idea, president clinton signed into law today. it's sad to say that some see that some of that would be blasphemous. but again he resigned his seat and i think a lot of those members today i think they have a little better appreciation for what leadership was challenged with back during those days, republicans and democrats. they have a lot to learn, we had a lot to learn, we made mistakes but nevertheless we saw a very productive time and bob dole, i

came to washington again just based on what people are saying that bob dole was a bad guy. he he wasn't or kind of republican. they would have had good relationships and trust on the democrat and republican side. when i left washington -- when i stepped down from congress, i had great respect for the the sake of abilities of senator dole. i thought that he was a master of the senate if you will and what they said about lyndon baines johnson. but it was relationships. it was was all about relationships. it was -- i totally agree. that's the pinky finger promise. i'm with you come hell or high water and we seem to have lost

that but again let's go back to the courage thing briefly as i think we've got about three minutes left. you think over the last 200 years the leadership of the courage starting with george washington and thomas jefferson, abraham lincoln. we just celebrated the birthday last monday. ronald reagan at a time it was a difficult time and showed a lot of courage for the relationship is often read about the relationship between president ronald reagan and speaker o'neill at the time. >> i talked with one of the former staff members last night just and i asked why did he even

him why did he even allow the votes to occur on the budget and taxes? and the answer was because he was president and the speaker thought he deserved an opportunity to at least have his issues heard and he won on them. does that exist today? that was a unique relationships by two human beings. it wasn't always pretty. i have to count the votes that the fact that he cooperated with the president was critical to the ronald reagan administration. >> ..

it's a complicated new world with technology that is an aspect of every part of our life. the way we communicate and work and live in the way we govern. it calls for different kinds of leadership and we have to install that pride in public service and a belief that through tolerance and inclusion and building good relations we can govern again. >> i want to thank cspan for allowing us to do this and thank you for coming in and being with us. >> my q is saying it's time to wrap so i'm going to hold the book up, the "crisis point"