more accessible to the american public through which content presented on the website, in a congressional office building, by appearing on c-span, and most importantly, through a tireless devotion to answering questions from senators, their staff, reporters, historians, student, and even a tourist visiting congress for the very first time. what many people do not realize is that the records of the congress that record how and why legislation comes into being are not subject to any over-arching legislation. the senator is free to keep or dispose of those records at his or her discretion. we are lucky that senator dole chose to preserve his archive and to make that archives available to the public here.

it is now one of the largest congressional archived in the country. a strong belief in making history accessible is something that our guest shares with senator dole. tonight we will hear firsthand from hampshire as he is directed -- as is interviewed by the director of the institute. please welcome them. >> richard start by giving us a little bit of your history, how did you get the job as the first historian of the senate. >> very few people knew that there was a senate historical office. there was not much competition

for the position, but i was hired by the senate. i did apply for the job. a number of people applied. they basically said, do what it is that historians do. keep in mind that in 1975, when the senate was really feeling a sense of institutional patriotism, the end of watergate, the watergate committee with some help from the house side basically brought to the president down, and the senate reasserted some of its constitutional investigative powers. it passed the war powers resolution and also of the congressional budget and control act, and mike mansfield said, we do not know enough about our history. we ought to have an historical

program. hugh scott, who also had a graduate degree in history -- they were the ideal majority and minority leader to bring something like this into being. i had previously worked for the senate for a short time in the late 1960's as acting curator in the it and my job was to help set up a curator's office and then i went off to work for a company called national journal as their research director, and by years later, i got a call from bob dole asking me to throw my hat into the ring for this job. i did, and i got the job. then, we started out with note files, no real information, and yet, reporters knew that we existed and that they started calling. they were asking how many senators had been convicted of a crime? who knows?

[laughter] i put together a staff. none of this would have been possible without a terrific staff. we put that together over the years pipit my assistant is now the senate historian. he was one of the backbones of that operation. we went out and introduced ourselves to other government has durant. many people do not know that other agencies employ historians. we went out to find out what it is historians are supposed to do. we quickly learned that our responsibility was not so much to keep the history of environmental legislation in the senate, or name the subject. that is what the congressional research service at the library congress, with a staff of 800 experts, does.

they are there to provide that kind of assistance to congress. our focus, we realized very quickly, was on the institutional history of the senate. has the senate always been like it is today? what has been at the career path of the senators? how many senators have served for 20 or 30 or 40 years? nobody really knew that? it was a noble, but the information was scattered. we went to work but the -- we went to work to compile the data base. we have compiled a biographical information of all of the people who have served in that the senate and the house of representatives. for years, the congress published a biographical directory of the congress. it was up to our office and to update the senate information.

but that only took you a little way down the road in terms of finding information. how many books have been written about a particular senator? what is the location of that senator's office papers, personal files? all of that was a very difficult for researchers to find out. we set to work with armies of intern's over about 10 or 12 years. we went over the card catalog at the library of congress across the street. we rode down titles of books by and about individual senators. we put that all into a large database called biobase.gov,

that anybody can check out. >> we are going to start with a couple of questions about bob dole, and then focus on the institution. what are some of your favorite memories of senator dole? >> well, one involved a lunch that he invited me and my good staff to in 1989. it is related to the historical almanac of united states senate. we were working with him on that. we drafted a lot of of the text, but we also got a lot of feedback from him about things you would like to do it a little differently. he put his imprint on that book in a direct way. at the end of the project, he said, i am so grateful for your help. if i can ever find you and the office space -- fine-tune any--

find you any office space -- that was the currency of the time. we did not take him up on that. the other thing he did was in by dust to lunch. -- invite us to lunch. there was nothing rushed about it. that was sort of the high point in our relationship, but then it continued. one of my all-time favorite moment in a senate chamber was in 1996, when he gave his farewell address. i was fortunate enough to be sitting right behind his wife in the gallery. i think that the applause after his speech probably went on for a good tenant to 12 minutes. people had not quite heard -- a good 10-12 minutes.

it was filled with his experience is going back to 1969 pyrrh. we were back to the senate of the classical days, when you hear a speech from the heart. >> when he resigned from the senate -- he resigned from the senate 14 years ago. what do you think his legacy will be? >> is a legacy as a leader of the senate is one of civility. the balanced budget amendment of 1995 -- he spent a great deal of time rounding up votes, republican of votes. he joked at one point that some people go to sleep by counting sheep. he goes to sleep by counting centers. [laughter] -- by counting as senators.

[laughter] does he have 51? does he have clo enough forture -- does he have enough for cloture? there was an account of the republican from oregon saying he would vote against the legislation but then it resigned from the senate. if i resigned from the senate, then you will have just the right number to pass it. senator dole said, no. that is extreme. he had great respect for the senator and for the integrity behind his position. although politically it was the worst thing that could happen, there was a sense of great respect for a fellow senator. i understand. go the way you have to go. and that was it.

>> how did the founders kind of divine and structure the role of the senate -- define and structure of the role of the senate? >> in the constitution, we had the articles of confederation. we had a one-act chamber congress, the congress of the confederation. it had very little power and it did not get very much a done. the framers said, we have to have two chambers, one will check on the other. there was the sense of a balancing power. there is a story about a teacup. thomas jefferson was in paris at the time that the constitution was being written. we do not know if this was a true story, but it should he came back and at george

washington, why did you create two chambers? washington said, you just created your -- you just poured your hot tea into the cup to cool it. that is why we created a second chamber. it is a place for reflection. it is modeled after two state senate, that of maryland and massachusetts. the original senators or not elected by the people, but by the state legislatures. they worked the elect of the elect. -- they were the elect of the elect. they met behind closed doors for

the first five or six years. the big innovation was when the house of representatives started holding its legislation in public. the senate had meetings in secret. then at the state legislators who had sent them to the senate said, how do we know that you are voting the way we want you to? the senator would say, well, i talked to my colleagues, i learned more about the subject, and i changed my mind. this was the classic dilemma of any elected official. do you vote your constituency or your consciences? state legislatures and said, we think of you as an ambassador to the government. we give you instructions, and if you cannot follow instructions, you should resign. the senators -- and some did. but others said, sorry, we have

a six year term. there is no provision to recall us. we will stay. independent developed a very, very quickly. needless to say, the senate come up with a lot of pressure from the public, eventually opened its doors in 1795. there was a big rush into the galleries. they could not open the doors until they built the gallery into the chamber in philadelphia. it took them nine months to do that. people wanted to see, what is going on in this chamber? after about a day, they said, what a boring thing. [laughter] there are 14 or 15 people sitting around being a very deliberate. we are going back to where the action is 14 below where over 100 house members are grabbing a fire tongs and chasing each other around the room. it was a lot more exciting. >> historically, there has been

egregiously bad behavior on the floor of the senate. i know one particular episode was triggered by an incident in kansas prior to the civil war. >> that is right. it was a big day for us in terms of the historical calendar. it was in may of 18th 56, the day after the sack covet -- may of 1856 after the sack of lawrence. it came at a time when kansas was the focal point of a question of how do we decide if a state is going to enter the union as a slave state or a free state? the missouri compromise separate that states would come

in a slave state paired with a free state. stephen douglass came up with the idea of popular sovereignty which would let the people of the area decide. the result, as of this audience knows, was a divided kansas. charles sumner stood up on the floor of the senate and gave a very long speech in which he attacked stephen douglas for his support of popular sovereignty. he made some very tough remarks about other senators. that triggered an assault on a sumner several days later by a house member who was related to one of the senators who had been verbally attacked. he came into the chamber, sat there, did not want to offend the dignity of the senate, so he waited until they adjourned, and

then he marched down the aisle, walked up to charles sumner, who was bent over his desk signing his signature on a bundle of envelops so that he could mail the very speech he had made a few days earlier. as he was signing that, his opponent had at came up with a solid gold handle, brought it down on the senator's head. the other senators a workshop. sumner fell to the floor every -- bleeding profusely. people thought he would die. he stayed away from the senate for three years. his empty desk became a tourist attraction. the senate considered creating a rule to say that this was not proper behavior, but then they thought, no, we should not have

to try to write that thinking -- we should not have to write that kind of thing down. people should know that already. 50 years later there was another incident in the senate chamber. two south carolina senators got into a verbal tussle. one of them punched his colleague in the mouth. well, then the tears fell over and a desk got knocked over and people were flying all over the chamber. the senate recommended both members, censored them, got them to apologize. but today apologized in such a sarcastic manner that the senate said, all right, we are going to suspend you for a few days, and we are going to pass it this rule. today it is known as rule 19. they should have passed it at the time of the summer caning.

a finely pastorate -- and they finally passed it, and it says that a senator shall not speak ill of a fellow senator. if he does or she does, it will be required to sit down. they will be considered out of order. that was a huge step forward in helping to read-define re-define the norms of civility in of the senate chamber. >> what are the foundations and support of civility in the united states senate? >> one of the major foundations is that it is a small body. you very quickly get to know your fellow senators. over the years, until the convention coverage -- until the invention of the airplane, the

senator is used to spend a great deal of time playing cards on the weekend. they would be in washington for maybe three blocks of time per year, and then they would go home for the holidays. they would have a long train ride across the country. they would be gone for months and then come back. they lived with each other and really got to know each other. that worked in favor of civility. there was no sense of, i am a quick, you are a democrat -- i am a whig, you are a democrat. we are brothers senators. we need to work together. senator dole was involved in organizing evening events for senators and their spouses at the smithsonian, the national archives, just to get out and get away from the office, and to

see each other in a setting where they could relax a little bit. but to the airplane has made it possible for senators to not spend a lot of time on the hill when congress is not in session. that has weakened the stability. >> many americans are justifiably concerned about the lack of civility and bipartisanship in of the senate. based on some of the stories you have told us, how would you say that this period of time stacks up historically. >> right now? not good. how about that for a two board answer -- a two word answer. but, if you sit around with other historians, you can immediately come up with a long list of other bad times. when things are not going well for the nation, it is reflected on the floor of congress, and i

think even more so honest the united states senate -- even more so in the united states senate. i would not deny that we are in a uniquely low point in of the cycle, but i am a firm believer that the pendulum will swing away from this low point. >> you believe that some point things will start to improve. there will be more bipartisanship, civility, comedy, all of those things. >> i always say that historians should not predict the future. they are in charge of the past. i think the answer lies with the american people. they have a good ability to make some corrections. maybe they will adjust the kind of people they are sending to

the senate. it is hard for me to say this, but maybe people who are less bitterly partisan than may be the case in recent times. the senate does not reform itself. the american people have reform the senate. there are a couple of examples. i mentioned one earlier, the fact that senators were elected by state legislatures. was that ever a breeding ground for bribery and corruption? you only had a few people to bribe, and you only needed to brought half of them. then you had the election. from as early as 1824, there were proposals to amend the constitution to change the way that senators were elected. it took from 1824 until 1913 to amend the constitution. that only happened because of

very strong popular pressure. the house of representatives voted to change it in the late 1890's, but the senate, for some complex with reasons, it took its time. >> we have talked to senator dole about his career during -- his career here, and about the importance of working closely with the leader of the other party. how important is that in terms of maintaining a sense of civility and even cooperation, and the possibility of bipartisanship and compromise? >> it is vital. it is absolutely vital. one party leader knows what a thankless job the other party leader has and sympathizes. it is crucial. through most of the 20th century, the party leaders have worked pretty well together.

-- shall tells a story from when he was the democratic leader of the senate reject -- tom daschel tells a story from when he was the democratic leader of the senate. bob dole came to have a meeting in his office. at the time, daschel was the new kid on the block. he got senator dole was being nice, but then he realized what he was up to. by him coming in to his office, he had the power to end the meeting when he wanted to, when he could get up and walk out. they had a very good relationship, a model relationship. the senate organized a series of

speeches in the late 1990's and early 2000 called "the leaders lecture series." the transcript and streaming video are on the senate website. senator dole gave a speech to that series 10 years ago this month. i re-read it the other day. it is filled with insights about what it means to be a leader of the senate. i have worked with nine leaders, including former vice president. each one of them, as they prepared their remarks, went through the previous speeches of the previous leaders. this was done over about three years. in a way, they were commenting about each other's view of leadership in the senate. it is a terrific work on leadership that is available on the internet. >> i note -- was it very common

foreign -- was a very common for leaders of the two parties to make deals and not surprise each other on it too many things? they would let their colleagues know, hey, this is coming down the pike. >> right. when howard baker became the majority leader in 1981, no one saw that coming. i remember where i was when i heard it. all of a sudden, there was new management. howard baker walked up to robert byrd, the democratic leader who was pretty upset about losing the majority, and he said, i will make you a deal. i will never surprise you if you never surprise me.

senator byrd decided that was a good basis for operation. when dole became the leader a couple of years later, they extended that agreement between senator byrd and senator dole. it is essential. if the relations between the two leaders are not good, then everybody is in trouble. >> what is the relationship between majority leader harry reid and republican mitch mcconnell? >> you would expect that it would be tense. two years ago, senator harry reid did something that was rather significant, at least in the mind upon mitch mcconnell. at the university of lowell, there is a mitch mcconnell as the -- at the university of

louisville, there is a mitch mcconnell center for the study of public policy. an event was held there, and harry reid attended it. senator mcconnell never forgot that. even though things get a little testy between them on the floor, beneath it all, there is a sense that they are brothers in this battle. there is a time when you draw the line and say, i am not going to cross that line, because if a if i do, the opportunity for its ability and -- for its ability -- for civility is in jeopardy. sometimes a the tide washes pretty close to that line, but it is the glue that keeps things going.