out to be a one-day gig in the senate from georgia. she came man and made a wonderful speech. today, our members may be few but our numbers will increase and and you will get dedicationh >> real humphrey and pin and he returned for died. return to the current situation.

there have only been about 34 women in all that have served in the sent and half of them are serving their now. i take it that we will never drop below 17. hopefully, that is a portion of the house of representatives women. if you look at the state legislature, women have a much greater role. . . . gavel to gavel in 1979. a number of sena

proves our point. the house is going to do it. we want nothing to do with it. in the house, they could only speak for one minute or five minutes. in the ascendant, once the senator has the floor, he or she can speak for as long as they can stand up. so it is not for us. the senator agonize from 1979 to 1986, when there was pressure from the public, what you tried to hide? it is the state legislatures putting pressure on us for senators meeting behind closed doors. so they finally opened the proceedings to c-span. all the sudden, the senate chamber started looking more attractive. they got new carpet and there. they use the baby blue washed out carpet, and in the senators would claim that on c-span they did not look too good. particularly good junior senators who sat on the back

row, it's look like they were sitting in a bus station. there was nothing to hide them. and almost miraculously, but damask pattern wallcoverings appeared. anyone who is going to make a maiden speech, they take the trouble to make sure to borrow a dislocation said that that damask pattern will be framing that person on television perfectly. they paid attention to it for sure. c-span is certainly making -- it has made for much more informed public. you talk to many congressional staffer who has to answer letters or e-mails from the public, who have been falling in great detail the health-care debate, for instance, on c-span. does this mean we end up with a

lot of showboat's senators, particularly if they are up for reelection, grabbing the camera in the late afternoon? there is a little bit of that. there are charts in the chamber, a special position now that manufactures the chart, and by regulation they can only be so big. you can see some poor stafford dragging them over from the office building to the capitol building and putting them on the easel. and in the center can make a point. -- and then the senator can make a point. i cannot imagine the senate without television coverage. when you take those cameras into every committee room, c-span has been doing that for a long time, and do you take it in due every private meeting? of course not. it would force the discussion off campus somewhere. you have to have some privacy to

have some of the preliminary discussions. >> all along that question, what is the effect of new media, of blogs, all the information out there, how was that affected the senate? >> i suspect it has affected individual senators and a major way. i think back to the day prior to the 1960's when a senator could come to washington and be an expert on whatever he/she wanted to be an expert on. that would choose committees based on their states constituency interests. and that was it. you did not have to be an expert on every subject across the horizon. now there is that 24/7 news coverage, loggers, the corridors of the capital filled with people standing there with

microphones and tape recorders, you have to have a view on almost everything. it is very frightening. it is so hard -- they say it is like drinking from a fire hose. there's so much coming at a senator. those that had previously been house members, who could grab on to the issues before, and house members serve on fewer committees, so their attention is not fragmented. but you get into the united states senate and fragmentation is the order of the day. you have to hope as a senator that you can hire and retain good staff members. it would be impossible to do the job without good staff. >> how was the growth and the importance paying too -- paid to lobbyist affecting the senate? >> we read recently that toyota

normally has 34 lobbyist on capitol hill and they are bringing in some actress, as many as 50 lobbyists. everyone is trying to grab the attention of senators. it does not matter whether you're senior or junior, you are in the spotlight. and if you need money to run your reelection campaign, and the cost of the campaign varies according to the size of the state and and media markets that cover that state, but it is not unusual to spend $10 million for campaign every six years, or $20 million, like jon corzine in new jersey's spent $63 million. you figure that out in terms of how much you have to raise per day. and there are thousands of >> -- thousands of dollars per day. how do you keep your sanity?

maybe we need to go back to when states were elected by state legislatures, spread all that time and money around. it is a real issue of major concern. >> this is one of the most polarized. odds and terms of politics. that affects the senate heard what you see is the principal causes of that? >> that is the big question. that is the major question. certainly the fact is that the nation is polarized, and the senate is a reflection of the nation. the nation is heavily engaged in the middle east, huge deficits, major issues with the quality of education, the average american student getting, health care the

number one issue on the list -- labor, all of these problems facing cop -- facing congress. they all received time. we got a bushel basket full right now, what all the blockers with all the blogger -- with all the bloggers fanning the flame. with the senator being deluged with attack ads, it starts with the public and then the senate can serve as an echo chamber for this. >> i just have one more question and then we will open it up to your question and answer period.

i believe that our students are ready with cordless microphones. during polk the reagan and clinton administration, there was a lot of bipartisan work ticket a stack -- a tax cuts, president clinton would never have balance the budget without republican support. what will it take to get back to a period where republicans and democrats can work together on some fundamental things? >> i hope it is not a major national crisis the size of the 9/11 attacks. like the budget deficits, what are we going to do about that? if that does not provide the incentive for either getting things together in congress or for other people to decide i will run for congress, because i don't think the wave are senator

is representing our state is very effective. that is a complicated process, and again as a historian, i will take the wreckage of the past. the future is uncertain and daunting at this point. >> very good. we will open it up to your questions, and we will go from side to side. let's start with a question for richard baker. we have one right man -- we have one right here. pleased to wait for the microphones. >> what is the history of the cloture rule? >> that is the $64,000 question. and i restrain myself from giving you an extended answer, because you could, for short. when was the first filibuster in the senate? i think the first filibuster took place about a week after

they arrived in 1789, when one of the issues was, where is the permanent capital of the united states to be located. people favoring philadelphia or harrisburg had not arrived yet. so the partisans of harrisburg in the senate said that they would delay discussion until these guys' stagecoaches manage to bring them here. the very first rules of the senate did have a role that could cut off debate aired the senate never used that role, and eventually they just like it out. senators prided themselves on being different from the house of representatives. you only had up to 40 at one time, and everyone had a chance to speak and feel better about getting things off their chest.

when it came to world war i and there was a major national emergency, and woodrow wilson wanted to arm merchant ships, and some senators blocked a vote on that, then the senate finally rallied itself -- and this point about public pressure -- a rally themselves to create the first cloture rule since 1917. the house had been closing off debate since 1811, but the senate in 1917 finally getting around to it. so they pass the rule and said that in order to cut off debate, if you have to have 67 senators voting to do that but then you can have every senator speaking for one an hour after that. and then it went from there. from 1917 until 1962, cloture

was successfully invoked only four times. it was tried many times. southern senators tried to block civil rights legislation. people remember the day in 1964 when the senate invoke cloture on a civil rights act of 1964, with major health on the republican side. and then the story gets all little murky. mike mansfield, majority leader of the senate, said that we cannot be having these round- the-clock filibuster. the whole idea is for the opposition to talk and talk so that the majority cannot call that the majority cannot call we're going to -- this happened

gradually in the 1960's -- 1960's. people want to talk can do that but they have to do that at night, and we have to get the business of the country going, particularly talking about the great society legislation. but it was really only the 1980's the we began to see instead of long debates on the floor, the use of cloture if you do not have the votes to pass legislation, then pulled off the floor and go on to the next item. now the big complaint is that there are more cloture votes for congress than there have ever been. to finish this, should the rules of the senate be changed to make it easier to invoke cloture? shut up long winded senators --

and often the way it should buy it by majority vote? i will tell you today that that will never happen. members of the majority today remember that a couple of years ago there were playing at the same deck to keep the then- majority under control. r uses of it to keep the then-majority under control. >> a question on this side? question over here. if you confine this gentleman? -- if you can find that this gentleman? >> a question on the role of the majority leader. could you talk about that and how it is such a difficult role, how has it never really of all to allow the majority leader to be more effective says the days

of lyndon johnson? >> if you read robert caro's masterful book which focuses on the 1957 civil rights act, it feels like you are right on the floor. the field general calling in the troops and getting the votes scheduled just the right time. there was a big reaction to that among democratic senators in johnson's own party who did not like to have their arms twisted once a day, thank you very much. the republicans were not too happy about that. so when johnson became vice president in 1961, the senate selected mild-mannered mike mansfield to be majority leader.

let everybody have their raw opportunity. robert byrd became majority leader and said, "i would like to have the strength of lyndon johnson and the understanding and engagement of mike mansfield." it was howard baker hughes said that leading the senate is like herding cats, and and trent lott came out with a book, "herding cats." it is a good metaphor because the cats may go in a direction for a limited period of time but that does not last long. one of the most difficult things is to have a large majority. throughout history, you get factions within that majority. it is much better to have a tight margin and then everyone

has to pay attention and be serious. but it is a very difficult job, and my hat is off to the people who try to do it. >> questions? we have a couple on the side and then one or two right here. >> how has the role of the committee staff members changed over the years, and can they provide any leadership or are they just fall worse? -- follow worse? ? followers. >> it has a variety of answers. there is a lot of power in being a committee staff members. before, they were patronage appointees. the amount of money that they

were responsible for deciding how to spend is enormous. the biggest committee has about 150 committee staff members, just for one committee. but they're dealing with the budget of the entire government. you do not want it to be amateur hour. the turnover within the appropriations committee staff is relatively low, as i understand it, because they are experts. it is pretty hard to replace them. i am speaking slowly because i am not sure i really agree with that. the words -- there were no professional staff to speak out until after world war ii. congress got so frustrated with

franklin roosevelt calling the shots, he had all the expertise and congress had none. they pass legislation in 1946 that allowed for the first time committees to hire four professional staffers. it does come a long way since that time. members could also hire professional staffers, because it is a separated and balanced government. members of the house of commons in great britain, that come over, they ask why we have so many staff members. i have to share of member with another member of the house. and the british government is a unitary government. we need to check and balance the executive, particularly at a time at a wildly asserted executive. terry wills recently wrote a book on that, and i have not

read the book so i cannot say it is the best book but he is on to something. when president bush issued signing statements -- i will sign this legislation but do it with these reservations -- where is that called for in the constitution? in times of national peril, the president takes on more responsibility. it is not the senate of the 19th century for the sure, but congress of the 19th century. it is a constant struggle. one scholar famously said that the constitution is an invitation to struggle between the branches for power. and that struggle is alive and well today. >> a couple of hands right here.

>> if you could speak to the history of that -- the senate may be the greatest debating society in the world, and it came -- and it became a shock to americans when the cameras went on when they saw a senate turf speaking in an empty room. when did it began to depart from the full group really debating? >> march 4, 19 of 9. that is that date that the person of office building opened. senators had real offices and real desks to go to. prior to 99, -- 1909, they would meet with their constituents on the floor of the senate and that would have issued their constituents out.

now have a lot of things to do, but television became a fact of life in 1986, you did not have to be in the chamber. you could have -- you could watch it on television and you could be there in three minutes, at the most five. prior to that time, senators would have floorwalkers who would sit in the galleries and call them on the telephone any time there was something that the senator should know about. but it does make the point that there is some much going on, committee hearings, schedules, there is a very long list of committee hearings bad boy. so it is discouraging for sure. >> a question right here, and

tree. right here, this gentleman. >> what are your thoughts on bipartisan commissions and being governed by them? >> i -- a bipartisan commission, they have been used in some high- profile events in recent years, one that i followed for a while the commission to set congressional salaries. it is too hot a topic for members to debate on and vote on themselves, so let's have a commission to debate proper source. and there have been proposals for ethics commission's, may be made up a bipartisan groups of

former members. i can tell you one thing -- current members are not terribly happy to be advised by former members. if you're any good, you would still be here. [laughter] we're the ones and a line of fire. it is convenient for commission to do that, to study -- but that is what congressional committees are for. that is what they do all the time. it depends on the reason for particular commission being created and it varies widely. it is extra-constitutional, outside the normal path of how loss or ideas are debated and digested. it is one source of expertise, so in these complex times, the more the merrier. >> there's a question right back there.

>> reconciliation is a hot topic right now. in the 1970's, senator muskie and others at the congressional budget process passed. and the first time it was used was by senator baker with the help of a guy named marty go uld, that guy most of the reagan things passed by a simple majority. can you comment on that? and i would make a comment on that, i think in recent years the center most interested in the history is robert c. byrd, and i suspect that he has given you a lot of support in the years. >> we have work with him a a lot. his interest in history is

typical -- while his interest and history of the senate has cancer -- unsurpassed by any other member, to be sure. and not just journeymen senators, they have to look and have the broader perspective and that often turn to history of the senate to get a sense of all fat. -- all of that. reconciliation, you mentioned robert gold, and you have to care about senate procedure, but he is the master, a very bright guy who is taken on some tough assignments, and howard baker was lucky to have him. he basically turn reconciliation on its head. there reason for reconciliation was to reconcile differences between expenditures and tax receipts, and it was a minor matter to be done during the budget cycle.

no one intended it to be used as a way to get around the 60-vote majority to pass major, controversial legislation. the republicans used it quite a bit in the 1980's. the democrats have not been shy about using it either. congress may be defined about how successful they aren't making reconciliation work with regard to health care. the whole business of how when the senator can visit the chamber and try to figure out how your survive in the environment, how'd you get your will it imposed on the other 99 senators? the -- you need some very seasoned staff like martin gold, and the democrats have their counterparts as well.