>> the bipartisan policy center recently commissioned on political reform. next, the kickoff event as the commission got ready to travel around the country. susan page moderated this meeting. from the ronald reagan's library in california, this is one hour and 40 minutes. [laughter] [applause] >> thank you. it is nice to be here today. usa today is so proud to be able to work with the bipartisan policy center on these big issues facing our country. someone who has served in the military, especially those who served in iraq and afghanistan, i would like to say, thanks for -- your service.

[applause] the fact is, we could say thank you for your service to all 14 people who are upset -- who are up on the stage for their service in the senate, the house, and the private sector, voluntary organizations. so thank you for your service. [laughter] [applause] we invite everyone who is watching us to join our conversation. if you are with us in the audience, you can fill out a card with your question or comment. policy.org, you listen is an an e-mail, finance on facebook, twitter, use the #engaged usa. a veryi start with brief video that two colleagues of mine prepared.

it sort of highlights the greatest hits. let's watch. >> bipartisan solutions. >> bipartisan support. >> broad bipartisan support. >> bipartisan. washingtonveryone in says they want bipartisanship. not everyone acts like it. >> president oh -- president clinton -- >> george bush is not care about black people. >> the reforms i am proposing would not apply to those -- >> i have news for you. you and your cronies in the government do this kind of stuff all the time. the presidentced is absolutely sincere in his beliefs.

.ait a minute >> filibuster tactics were used to get the president's nominee for secretary of defense. we are still some late from one fiscal cliff to the next with no long-term fix inside, and last year's congress had the least productive legislative record since world war ii. to be sure, politics has always been a contact sport in america. on the house floor in 1798, a federalist commerce man from that used his cane to hit a different -- democratic republican from vermont. matthew lyon had to retreat to the fire pit and grabbed fire tongs to defend himself. but even some of the leading practitioners of politics worry that the traditional partisanship have gotten out of control. they say it has polarized our nation and threatened our ability to address serious problems. that, they say, is a change. >> by and large, it is really

becoming harder and harder to govern as a result of the extraordinary -- of the legislative process in this country, and especially in washington. >> analysts point to a series of reasons. the rise of cable tv and talk radio with an ideological slant. the permanent campaigns. all of that have had an impact. >> how often do john boehner and nancy losey talk> -- nancy pelosi talk? i suspect not for much. we talk all the time. >> in the first term, we would advocate for the exact pieces of legislation that republicans have offered. they would quietly say to me, it is politics. >> if i were going to make suggestions to the leaders -- find a way to have more communication. it would make a huge difference.

>> in the country outside of washington, there is a real contingent to move forward on a host of issues. >> can anything be done about it? let's hope so. >> senator daschle, let's start with you. we heard that there was a red phone on your desk and on his desk. these days, it would seem like harry reid and others look at their color id to avoid picking it up. so what happened? >> the phones were taken out, unfortunately. i think a lot of the communication, i think the senator is right. we lost the ability to communicate. some of the means by which we use to communicate have no longer become ones that are being employed by the leadership by the members. it has become much more hyperbolic. i think a big part of this is that members no longer spend much time in washington.

now it is almost a badge of honor to sleep on your sofa in your office and not move your family to town. in the last congress, not one new member of congress moved their family to washington. because everybody wants to be anti-washington. so you start with this mindset. they were they freshman member of congress who said "we don't want to know how washington works. that is not why we are here." i think therein lies the challenge. we have got to make washington part of the process again and make it a valid venue for accomplishing the work that needs to be done. it starts with better communication. >> senator snowe, you said this gridlock situation was a primary reason you decided not to run for another term in the senate. it seems like there is almost no one left in the middle. there was a national journal study that came out last week that said there was not a single republican senator in 2012 who had a more liberal voting record than the most

conservative democrat, and not a single democratic senator who had a more conservative voting record than the most liberal republican. and i wonder -- we see senators like yourself, members of congress, choosing not to continue in a public service. is it miserable to be in the senate these days? what is it like. >> if you are result oriented, it is miserable. that is the bottom line. i am a fighter by nature. , the process has changed in the united states senate. it is no longer reconciling differences. it is either side has a position, generally reflected as a party position. once that fails, and neither side has the vote, then they do not move to try to resolve those differences. they become irreconcilable.

the question is -- how do you get past those differences? that is a fundamental problem that has occurred in the united states senate. you have more and more new lawmakers in the house and the senate -- in fact, 43 new senator since 2008. so many who have not been part of a legislative body may be familiar about how to make a law. schoolhouse rock, how a bill becomes law. remind everybody how it works. it is true. we do not have amendment process, a committee process process, everything has broken down. so i came to the sad conclusion that the fight needs to be taken on the outside, and that is why this is so it appropriate to engage the public, to demand change, and reward those who are willing to engage in consensusbuilding and compromise. and penalize those who don't.

>> you could have been a youtube sensation, citing schoolhouse rock. did you want to weigh in on this? >> i am not a policy maker, nor have i ever aspired to be one, because it is clearly a complex world to live in. but i would approach this more philosophically. i think that we are in the midst of a cultural revolution where, with the advance of technology, there is a tremendous amount of fragmentation of personal activity. all of us now have to deal with multitasking, being in too many places at one time, having the ability to be in many places at one time. so i think the whole editing function of life has made it complicated for decision-making. if we watch our children, we are kind of amazed at how many devices they master, how many activities they have during the

day. i would extrapolate that into the of adults, as well. but that brings me to a similar conclusion to senator snowe. i think ownership has to return to community and to people who want to model the behavior. emulate -- and to emulate the behavior. for us to start to take possession of these problems that occur, first locally, and set up mechanisms where we can have an impact, of collective decision-making -- have collective decision-making, demonstrate a way we can change thing at the grassroots level, not only in our cities and towns, but our states. we have clearly acknowledge that a lot of good work is being done by the governors of our states and the mayors of our cities. i think that is a place that has some value moving forward. >> thank you. we are going to pose some

questions to our audience. here is the first question. it is a yes or no question. you can go on the website and vote yes or no. the first question is does the extreme partisanship in washington reflect the true makeup of the country? when we have some results, we will come back and show you them. voting has a ready started. here is a comment we got -- a tweet we got from allentown, pennsylvania, on twitter. , "any impending crisis warns meaningful action. why can't washington understand ?" you work with veterans and their family members. when you look at something like sequestration, which is, of course, all the rage in washington right now. what message does it send about the government and how it works to have these automatic spending cuts that everyone initially said would be so unacceptable?

>> you bring up veterans and the military community. it is a group of people who have chosen voluntarily to serve our country. i think that both parties are really able to look at the military as a portion of the population that is sort of above the partisan politics. and so, when you see something like sequestration, you see the lawmakers have taken to try to relieve the military and veterans of the burden the sequestration will have on many americans. but there's definitely going to be a fair share carried by the military. you look at the idea that, when everybody is talking about the deployments that will stop, there are a reduced evil presence, permanent changes of station when the military moves will be delayed. he * functional parts of both the military, from a defense

perspective, but also everyday life in the military. the millions of americans that are part of the military families. cutsver, some of these are going to hurt veterans at a larger proportion than they are going to hurt everyday americans. of the department of defense civilians are veterans. they will be furloughed. that is 10% of american adults are veterans. times the effect on the veteran community. when they are furloughed, they work on military bases. we will have longer lines at commissaries, reduced childcare hours, maybe school hours cut, family counseling might be pushed off or shortened. these things are going to affect the military families, if not

the readiness of the country. then you look at the idea of maintenance in the military as well. right now, they are not able to choose whether to defer maintenance on the hangar or the airplane. as a helicopter pilot, let's make sure we are doing the maintenance on the airplane, aircraft, the helicopter. that is a safety and readiness issue. hopefully, as we move forward with budgeting processes, we will see lawmakers that can make those types of additions. these specific readiness decisions, these family, quality of life decisions -- >> what would the business world think about this kind of decision-making in the ?overnment in some ways, lots of businesses have furloughed employees, have made every department tighten their belt.

how does the business rule -- world look at this sequestration it?te and ss it -- assess >> i think you may see it as an inability to have thoughtful debate and -- i think they may see it as an inability to have thoughtful debate and resolve it in a -- you appreciate the effort and activity people put in, but you recognize and reward the result that gets produced. in this case, we are not producing the right results for the american people. people are suffering. , am a business point of view business would say, first, let to the facts. i have the sense that everyone has their own set of facts. it makes it very hard to make decisions and be able to come together. i also have the sense that there is not a respectful level of dialogue and discussion. in a business, it is important not to demonize people who have

different points of view. you want to hear all perspectives. you want to assume people have positive in tents, even though may have different points of view then you have. some of the them in his asian -- some of the demonization -- >> we want to read tweets throughout this. here is a comment that was posted on our website. "partisanship has significantly impacted my conversation with family and friends, to the point where i actually refrain from discussing with certain people who are no will be difficult to talk to." -- who i know will be difficult to talk to." is therelllet's look at the rest on that first poll question.

is the extreme partisanship in washington reflecting the true makeup of the country. no.said 37% said yes. by a wide margin, americans say our politics is more driven by partisanship than the country is. we did a poll with the bipartisan policy center. it was a trick question to test this assumption by many american voters that it is not their problem, not their fault, it is the result of the politicians. we had two education policies which we described to half the sample. policy a is republican. policy be is democratic -- b iss he b -- policy democratic. othertched it with the half. people did what they accused washington politicians of doing. falling back into their partisan quarters -- corners. 75% of republicans and

democrats aligned with whatever we told them their party's policy was. and most of them held they -- said they held that view strongly. they were reacting to the label. i wonder, congressman, what that tells you about american voters today. >> i think they are listening to too many news shows that reflect their own perspectives. they don't have a variety of sources of information which allows them to think. it also reflects the american educational system. we no longer emphasize civics education and no longer emphasize learning and understanding what your government is about. jay leno does this thing called jaywalking once in a while. they ask these questions that you have to be born on mars not to know the right answer to.

.aybe it is staged and many cases, people look like ,hey were born on mars answering questions about who their president is, who the congress is, these kinds of things. they are compensated problems. ultimately, our media system -- i don't want to just blame the media system. there are a lot of problems. system does not encourage a serious study of government. how we actually operate as human beings within the context of a -- collective system. and i think that's a partial reason why you see this natural affinity to be in one camp or the other camp. we have become tribal. i think the institution gauge -- institutions of the media and education don't do anything to stop that. what about voters?

should they be looking at themselves when they see this problem and think it is so terrible? >> of course. we have met the enemy and he is us. we do give the greatest power to the people. our political system does not necessarily respect that. our elected officials often don't give the public the benefit of the doubt. the public has to ask the right questions. the public cannot just accept what some media star or some ideological zealot tells them is truth. that is why family, schools, faith-based communities, all the institutions we have in our great society need to be engaged. give me several opinions. the facts are the facts. it is up to a lot of institutions to do that, not just the politicians. they have been known to stretch the truth since the beginning of time. >> present company excepted.

, you are botholm of former governor and the media star. >> media definitely has a piece of the responsibility for this. there is no doubt they strive to achieve the most aggressive conflict they can. therefore, it is not rewarded. conflict is exciting. therefore, the media strives, certainly the electronic media, strives to get that conflict going because you get more calm -- more eyeballs. there was a poll done in january that said congress's approval rating is less than that of a number of unpleasant things like cockroaches, nickel ,ack -- nickelback, the band but it is better than gonorrhea and meth labs. the reason why the approval rating is so lousy -- i was

having a conversation with my students the other day. they said government has become irrelevant because the structures do not reward people participating. larry from harvard says, we reward the funders and not the people. the funders have a hugely disproportionate megaphone. the people do not. when the people continue to see themselves be carved out of having an expression, whether it is limiting the amount of time they can vote or requiring them to be able to exercise that right, that further exacerbates the cynicism of the public. there is a responsibility for us to devise structures that enable that voice to be heard in relative proportions to the population, and not in relative proportion to people who are millionaires or billionaires. >> before we leave the media -- didhow do you respond

you respond? did you find yourself wanting to -- people with the most -- d did you want good tv? >> people who are good talkers, who are interesting. ibo who are boring speakers, just mealy, soft, nice, that's not going to get you eyeballs. definitely, the cable tv network in termsf the problem of not seeking consensus, but seeking conflict. >> we want to read your tweets. .ust use #engageusa "we must not underestimate the influence of social media --

talking about the media, you are involved in media. pointn a site that has a of view, a partisan point of view. i wonder what role you think the media has played in creating -- >> i'm not the right person to ask. i don't think the media is at the heart of the problem. i think the heart of problem is that we have a pretty affluent, stable society here there are some people who are very much excluded from this prosperity. generally speaking, and you look at the median voter, people are relatively prosperous. ,hen you have a stable prosperous society, there is a lot of loss aversion. when you look at an environment in which we have sluggish economic growth, we don't have a lot of fiscal capacity. you had relatively robust growth, relatively low taxes, relatively robust social

services. hardhere are horde -- choices to be made and there is loss aversion. who is going to have to bear these losses and sustain these burdens? when that is the fundamental question, there are going to be his agreements about what we want our society to look like. partisan heat reflects the fact that loss aversion is a real phenomenon. are exacerbated by the ways we have tried to solve the problem. we engaged in successive rounds of financial regulation to try to address this. the problem is that this is, weakening, in some ways, the political parties. seeing to it that parties are oriented towards the median voter. when have a candidate-centered, campaign-centered system, there

is an everyman for for himself dynamic that undermines the abilities of the parties to discipline their members and this kind of extremist tendency. there are some deep, structural problems. we want the government to solve problems. the more it solves problems and expands its regulatory authority, the more valuable it is to control the government. more money will be poured into politics, whether through campaign observations or through purchasing media outlets. these are deep structural problems. there are things we can do to ameliorate them, but i don't think it is so much about personal relationships and what have you. we are faced with very difficult problems and deep disagreements about how to solve them. , doesthat is the case that mean this is just going to get worse and worse. a lot of the points you -- the hard choices have not yet been made. will this situation continue to spiral down?

>> the natural tendency of any open society is to only do something when you feel you absolutely must, when there is some hard constraint. when you look at the larger economic environment, it is still pretty cheap for the united states to borrow. when we have a bipartisan settlement, we will just extend everything the sequester is an example of -- they built in a different default. if you don't have a truly hard constraint -- it comes back to the parties. we need stronger parties that are capable of disciplining their members and to orient the parties toward the interests of median voters. that weuld mention have a second poll people were asked to vote on online. another yes or no question. do you only watch news from

sources that agree with your views? we don't specify what those sources might be. go on the website" for how you -- vote for how you feel about that. governor, and you have been involved in politics long time as a governor, senator. do you feel like one problem is that politicians, elected officials are really reflecting their voters, or do you think they have gotten out of touch with the voters when it comes to wanting to compromise and negotiate. neverow feel bad i was invited to be on jennifer granholm's program. [laughter] >> you would have been good tv. >> that's what i was looking for. you made the point that there's nobody left in the middle.

may i suggest you don't have to be in the middle to get along? the last time i was in this magnificent facility, ronald reagan's library, ironically, as secretary of the interior, i had received a personal invitation from a democrat senator, senator ted kennedy, who had been asked to come to this room and to address a room full of conservatives. think all he he was honored and delighted to be asked -- he said to nancy reagan said that she is going to have small, intimate dinner party for me upstairs in the apartment. i can invite a couple of friends. would you be interested? i said, there's nowhere i would rather be. he wanted a friend in the front row. among the conservatives. it was a tremendous evening.

when you talk about the middle americans for democratic action ted kennedy got a 90 and i got a zero. for americans for conservative action -- ted kennedy got zero 95. i got five.-- nancy reagan said, teddy, america does not know how much you and ronny like each other. how you work for the betterment of america. that is what we need. i do not know that mr. reagan would say yes, sequestration would happen on his watch.in really --

i think there have been efforts for bipartisanship. i think american politics today has migrated from an nfl atmosphere to the hunger games. [laughter] nfl, you do everything possible to be victorious. you outthink, out play, and outhit your opponent. even in the nfl, an athlete will reach down and lift their opponent back up. in the hunger games, you make sure your opponent never is capable of getting up again. we need to remember that we are still americans and working together for this country and not just a party. >> sequestration came out of talks. you're the senate working with ted kennedy, did you feel it was risky are you in idaho to be in an alliance with that liberal alliance? as someone with a different voting record?

>> yes.i think it is risky. but when you believe in the people you work for and explain it to them and you can show them and demonstrate this is where we are on the records, but i can show you where those members of the party on the other side are able to help -- our founding fathers said we would never again have power in one ruling entity. you have to find consensus. that is what we are moving away from. we need to get back to that. >> congressman, does it look different to you now than when you were serving in the house? i it has change drastically.

still roam capitol hlill regularly. senators and members, and it is almost as if people are afraid of their own shadows and worried about saying something or a phrase that might end up on twitter or youtube. it didot some of the stories i heard earlier today are hitting the head right on the nail. dirk talked about working with ted kennedy. some of the strongest allies i have today by democrats.-- are democrats. we built strong relationships during those days when we still worked on bills together. sometimes we were up until 11 p.m. or 12 a.m. at night. you would wind up thinking, you do not like being there that late or arguing and having votes on amendments, that you emerge from those times thinking, we got something done here. there were some colleagues in

the room that might have complete opposite voting records on occasionally, but there was still, roderick. we would get up -- we would --ill have comraderie. cammarata read. tom marauderry -- re--- cammarata re--- camaraderie. we would get up and do it again the next day. when you empower people to do their job and get it done, you emerge from that stronger. for some reason there seems to be a lack of that in this day and age. dirk made another good point. you do not need a middle ground, just a willingness to sit down and make tough decisions about major pieces of legislation.

though lacking in this day and age is that every vote, every speech made is recorded and given out to all the different groups. you may not even say something the way you meant to say it. people portray it as if you're trying to cut benefits or medicare and your supporting-- you're supporting something that will be on a tv commercial or some kind of at back home. it is unfortunate all of that is used against everyone almost on an hourly basis. many years ago we do not have this instantaneous reporting and debating. unfortunately, a lot of people are working the internet all the time. who does not get a million e- mails every day from people on one side or the other? did you see this report? did you see the president said this? did you see the majority leader said this? and then they pass it on to

their friends. you know it is out there. day in and day out. we have got to this point where they afraid of their own shadows. it is like, we're not going to work on anything this week again. >> a senator made an important point. he said one of the problems with the loss of earmarks.everybody decried earmarks as a terrible, corrupting thing. it did get members of congress to be invested in getting legislation through. there's something there. >> 99% of those earmarks that were done usually members and senators would go back home. there were a couple of bad apples that came along and that embarrassed congress. everyone ran from them as quickly as they could.

there was a sense back then of having some sense of accomplishment and ownership. you wanted those bills to get done so you could have that cancer research improved or that veterans benefits back home. >> should we go back to earmarks? >> beware of unintended consequences. earmarks is one example. i asked howard baker once how he was so successful in getting things done. he said, earmarks. people feel invested. if they feel invested in legislation because it brings some things their constituencies, they are more willing. i want that piece to be included. two other quick examples. one of the reforms that occurred in that 1960's and 1970's was caucuses. lyndon johnson had one caucus a year. he had in january. people say, we want to have more caucuses.

now we have several of week. now it is a pep rally. do you know what they just did? now we will do this. and it is a back and forth. everyone is charged and energized and ready to take on each other hunger games style. that is one. i love transparency, but it has a downside. all of the media scrutiny, even today, it makes people climb -- clam up. they do not want to say anything in front of the camera that they can possibly get in trouble with. everyone is very reserved. you cannot really be honest with your colleagues in you have all of this -- i remember we had to go through a terrible chapter of impeachment.

we have the cameras on during the day. we shut the cameras off late in the afternoon around 6 p.m. or so -- we shut the cameras off late in the afternoon around 6 p.m. or so. it was more candid and honest if there were no cameras. we still have no record of what was said that night, but there were memorable speeches and comments. we have to figure out how to deal with these unintended consequences when we consider reforms, he earmarks, caucuses earmarks, caucuses.they all sound good, but there is a downside wev've got to work through. >> if howard baker said earmarks was the way i got things done, if there was a new leader and they said, give me one piece of advice, what would you say? >> i would say communicate.

we do not do that anymore.we talk past one another. if i could go back and be leader again, i would insist that we have one joint caucus at least every other week. i would prefer them every week. we'll then have them disasters. right after 9/11. we bonded. there was a chemistry. people would go to the floor and say i'm not a republican or democrat. i'm an american. there was a sense of unity. after the anthrax attack at my office, we had joint caucuses. then they dissipated. i do not know when the last one was. we do not have these joint caucuses anymore. it is a small thing. there has got to be a vehicle, a venue of communication.

we do not have that. >> senator snowe? >> it happened so long ago.i can't remember myself. ing.ghter]this is depress every two years there'd be departing members of the senate. traditionally there would be a bipartisan dinner in the rotunda. even dinners in honor of departing senators have now become partisan. >> perhapste dinners. this shows my bias. did the women act that way? they have dinners that are bipartisan. is there a gender difference in how they behave? >> with all respect, we do have a dinner that is off the record.

we've never had a leak or a disclosure. that is the way it has been for more than a decade. we even wrote a book together. i know that made our male colleagues a little nervous. we met all the time. even women in the supreme court as well. there is that camaraderie that builds trust. you know you can go to the person and say, can you help me? you work it through. no one has the patience or perseverance to work it through on any issues now. everything is separate. every day there are separate caucuses and separate lunches and discussion groups. everything is done separately to build up that divide. there is no need to build cross party efforts at all.

>> let me let you into this. >> i was driving down a busy interstate and there's a billboard that said, like the traffic? -- don't like the traffic? you are the traffic. think partt made me of this conversation to me is i'm not an insider, whatever that means. i do not live in washington. i think about how i relate to my friends and other people in my life and how we have gotten to where this topic can be toxic to our friendship. it seems so big and unfixable. how willing are my to ask someone -- am i of a different viewpoint to talk to me and tell me to understand?-- how willing am i to ask someone of a different viewpoint to talk to me, tell me your story, help me

understand? if we get enough people willing to do that, we are the traffic. we elect our officials. the way we keep talking about congress as them and the other people, we are all the same. i think it takes a small shift for us to recognize that we are all really at the root wanting the same thing. >> i come at this from a business perspective. you're trying to make a very difficult decision. you have side a that says you should be one thing and side b that says you can do something different. what works well is to have them have -- them switch sides and argue the other person's perspective and develop some appreciation for how the other person sees the world.

what happens as a result of that, you get much better decisions. i do not know how that applies to the political process. businesses are hierarchies. you do this and you do this and people cooperate. the other point i would make is that with all due respect, i think we are giving the hunger games a bad name. [laughter] people at least do get fed based on who wins. our model is more like "jerry springer" where there is a lot of noise, but nothing is getting ear.>> we have supported marks and the hunger games. interesting panel. >> both ron and molly talked about -- at the root of this is that we do not reward good behavior and punish bad behavior. some of these are basic concepts of life in terms of treating people well and being respect full.-- respectful. the public has gotten disengaged from this. they see the stuff that is going

on and they think all of us in this world behave badly. they also have a responsibility to hold our feet to the fire and to behave civilly. that is the faith-based community, the validator's in american society, the news media as well. congress is no different than any other institution. people do not behave well, they are dysfunctional. they do not develop relationships in that kind of thing. the civil behavior concept is it often gets neglected when we look at some specific reforms we have done in the past. >> let's look at the results for a second poll question. obviously, a very broad minded audience watching.somehwat -- somewhat at odds with our national poll. republicans were much more likely to watch fox news and democrats were more likely to

watch msnbc. i would like to ask molly just quickly -- your organization works with the girls, third grade to eighth-grade. do they say, wow. i'm looking at politics. that is the path i want?is it something the kids you work with see as a real aspiration? >> i think -- the girls determine what the gifts are.and the best- utilize to of their ability. if that means serving in congress or being president of the united states, go for it, girl. but i really think that maybe part of the conversation i would love to have the people who-- with people who choose to run -- why does this matter to you? why are you doing this? what is your endgame here? i would be honored at one of our girl says she wants to run because her reason for running would be for the greatness of

this nation. >> let me ask you -- you worked at the george w. bush white house on personnel matters. and i wondered if you found the people you wanted to give appointment to come up for-- peoplepointsments to, the he wanted to appoint, was there any reluctance because of the tone of washington? >> it was less the tone and more the burden of the process. we recently completed a mission where we focused on theapp ointment process. we worked with the senate and house. cus -- ofed a number of success. i think there is an appetite among congressional leaders to

work together to try to find viable solutions. i do want to make a comment. a very important word is relationship. the investment of people in washington, d.c. we talk at one another.when i moved to washington, i ended up living in the basement apartment of senator claiborne's house. one evening i decided to organize a dinner and to invite a lot of my senior white house colleagues. someone said to me, you live in that house. can he do that? i asked if it was ok to invite colleagues to dinner. she said, eric, you know, we have always had bipartisan dinners are. we do not think of them that way. we thought of it as inviting friends to the house. how can we not work with people in our community? our kids went to school together. they played soccer together.we had wonderful relationships. they were girl scouts and boy scouts

together.we had an investment in american families and enterprise. i have been trying to get my congressman to have dinner with me and my apartment with some friends on the weekends -- i have tried to get my congressman to have dinner with me in my apartment with some friends on the weekends. he is never around. he has no investment in a relationship with colleagues on the hill. that is a real concern. >> here is our third and final question for our online audience. do you feel that your views are reflected in the political process? we hope you will vote and we here is athe results. comment on twitter. please solve the root problem. a similar common posted on twitter -- comment posted on

twitter. partisan primaries push candidates to the extreme. .he incentive is to moderate .ou were in charge of elections this idea of the primaries -- --it just the two finalist finalists who stand for the final office -- would that help? our goal was always to make sure that we provided our voters with all of the information that they needed so that they would go out and vote. we always are looking for ways to simplify things to encourage voters to participate in the democratic access. my frustration has been that we have discouraged our voters. and that our voters have been discouraged because of negative campaigning tom because they

don't understand what's going on. their lives are so busy. we were always committed to making sure this information was available to them. when they did vote, they would be able to make an educated vote. one of the most important privileges of americans is to participate in the democratic process. we must not give up. i answer to any question was follow the will of the legislature. those are the people you elected. i think that we always need to look at ways we can encourage voters. >> you see people going in the opposite direction in a number of states. vote doesople say my not count, why should i go out and vote?

my message was always your boat does count. every vote counts. but that is the perception. people are tired. people are angry. i often have people come up to me and say, i'm not going to vote. i'm tired of hearing about this election. i say, do not give up on voting because you're not happy. just don't vote on that particular thing. >> why do you think people say my vote doesn't count? >> they just feel -- texas, >> they just feel -- texas, we are not a swing state -- but it is not whether you are responsible for electing the president or not. it is the matter that as americans, this is a privilege that we have. we should exercise it. people like chris, they fight for this. we should not take it for granted. in texas, we always say that we are texans, but we are americans.

i get so disappointed when other countries are fighting for this and we have it and we don't use it. for our young people -- i was always excited when i see our young people at our polling places. it was always the regular seniors that helped out of the- - at the polling places. but we need to get young people involved in this. you are the future. we cannot give up. yes, our country is going to-- throufgh -- through some uncertainty and we are divided. but you know what? we will get back. >> sorry. i do not mean to enter.-- int errupt. >> we cannot give up. >> you are an expert on election law. is it becoming harder to vote with some of these new security laws? or is it appropriate measures that many states are considering? >> it is becoming harder to vote

because of security laws and various efforts to make it more difficult for people to get to the polls. it is too bad. the voter id i from academic-- d fight from an academic perspective might be one of the silliest things around for the simple reason that there is no evidence of people committing fraud. imagine you want to steal an election. you are not going to bust 100-- bus 100 people to 50 polling places and have them pretend they're some else and hoping the poll worker doesn't think that the remember that someone so died.you're going to steal ballots. >> some advice for people looking to steal an election. >> plenty of people know this.

it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. we're not looking for the right solutions. >> what is the right solution? >> early voting should be the grand compromise. a lot of republicans are rightly concerned about fraud. a lot of democrats are rightly concerned about access. every american is concerned about both. early voting is highly secure.it is a simple solution. unlike absentee ballots. on the other hand, it makes voting easier for working people who cannot take it on a tuesday because they had kids to pick up and buses to catch and so on. it is a beautiful solution. the american people love it. >> we saw two of our most important electoral states limiting early voting. hy thes that happened?w move to limi early -- limit

early voting if it works so well? >> it is for political advantage. the thing about election reform that you learn very quickly is that people who know the most about this reform are people who want to manipulate reform.-- re process aslp their legislators. and are able to use these things to their advantage, they will. >> you are a republican. there has been a real republican initiative. is it just politics? >> politics will play a role, sure. can i give you a poll? >> absolutely. >> super bowl ads. the number one ad was by advisor.-- budweiser. it was the new clydesdale that was born. they asked people to name the horse. ?ou know the number one answer hope.

that is where americans are. they have hope.they pbrought st udents here from simi valley. how many of you might consider some day going into public office? look at that. that is tremendous. there is hope. politics is part of this, but it needs to be pragmatic. it needs to reach out. we talk about relationships. tom, you remember when you and linda and john and pat, i was the only republican with you, but we went on a trip. we were in vietnam. we went to a village where many of them had lost their legs because of the landmines. there was an elderly gentleman. between us he put his arms around your neck and my neck because he wanted to get across the village. he had no idea what party we publican orwere re

democrat. he just knew that two americans were helping him. that is a relationship. when we come back from that sort of trip, you probably will see a little bit more eye to eye.we may not agree. i referenced ted kennedy. why would i do that? when iw was a nominee, it was te liberal lion that went to his senate colleague and said, this guy should be confirmed. we will look at this and look at gerrymandering and the election laws. but we must not lose sight of the young americans in the-- tan there.pirit that exists >> lets look at the poll results. by a wide margin, americans do not feel their views are being

reflected in the political process. chris, you are not a politician. why do people feel this way? do you feel this way? >> i do not know if i can answer it at the moment, but i am listening carefully as someone who is not a politician and has not spent much time in washington. i am listening to what many of my fellow panelists are saying. andrada mentioned military service. i served in afghanistan during the first election post-taliban in afghanistan. as a helicopter pilot, and we distributed a lot of the balance. i went home early because i was wounded. when my unit came home, they had people whoaques

served in numbers -- leadership positions. it was the ballot with photographs. they are really pretty. that was a significant thing we have done. we brought the right to vote to those people in afghanistan who have not had it before. what we have heard over and talkedecretary glickman about education on the processes. mollie talk about the responsibility. this is about engagement. that is what voting really is. it is our opportunity s. citizens to be educated, to make a decision, engage, and take our own responsibility. i think it is important we do not take that for granted, as the people in afghanistan try not to. >> i work with young people. everybody wants to change the world.

they all want to change the world. what better way to do that than to run for office? there are lots of ways, but that is one great way. i am 52. i have been terrified of the notion for running for office. i will not do it because i know i am best serve in the world in other ways. it is almost like we have an image of what people who do that are like. nottimes young people do see themselves doing that. there is a leadership box and they do not fit into it. this dialogue neighboring in a new look at what goes on. these are not things we currently see. that is what excites me about the conversation. we're bringing to light what must be going on but we are not aware of. >> i think people would be more excited about voting if they saw if they saw that things

were happening. in the past, we have had a lot of big ideas. the space program, the interstate highway program, a litany of things that affect people's lives. people are more engaged only local levels because they see the police and roads affecting their lives. when you watch the federal legislature in action, you get the feeling nothing is happening. therefore, it is great to say that voting is this great privilege that we should have him a which it is. if you don't see that it has that much impact, in terms of how of what is coming out of work that is coming out, then it gets you down. maybe it is not so effective. one of the things that we have to marry in addition to the issues we're talking about today is that the work product of government, it is very important when a person considers how he or she should get engaged with the political system. --recent years, a law folks

a lot of folks feel that it hasn't probably probably matter, because they don't see any impact in their lives. we have to address that. >> congressman? >> malaysia something humorous -- mollie said something humorous but it hit the nail on the head. a lot of times, we as americans do want to take responsibility for our -- what is happening to us. dan touched on a similar thing. no one teaches civics anymore. the school system somehow is lagging in teaching us about responsibility of government and so forth. more people pay attention in this day and age to what cell phone plan they have, good parking spaces, they know more about the cardassians -- kardashians. i am not just talking about federal. state important than a federal

election in any given year. electionst for those is in single digits. even my home state of texas, where we think we are always always so responsible, two percent or three percent turn out for a school board election that will determine a salary, school supplies, and the future of whatever district you live in. we really need to reflect as a nation what are we -- we have created this problem for ourselves. havecans want america to more bipartisan elected officials in washington, a who say weey would don't want you to compromise. there is a huge voting block out there that is not show up that wants bipartisanship, but they don't educate themselves enough to even show up and have responsible votes.

let us not forget that the root of the problem might be, it may not be in washington, it may not be in the state houses it may be in our own homes and neighborhoods where the root of this problem is. >> thank you. >> i think that it is true that people are discouraged and don't show up. --re is some rash rationality. --y thought if there he show they show up, then their vote doesn't really count. they are making a decision that michael is not going to count -- going toote is not count because it does not reflect the community that i and man. i do think that the tweet that talked about gerrymandering was a right on the money. california is doing an experiment that is worth watching. can you elevate the redistricting process to something outside of the purely

political arena in every 2010, 2020 question mark can you move it somewhere else so that you can make rational decisions on gerrymandering or not gerrymandering. we are rewarded for good behavior, we are rewarded for bad behavior in congress because of gerrymandering. i saw a comment by one of the president advisers who said should he call marco rubio by immigration, and he said, does marco rubio want to be seen out into the president? talking to the president? we are rewarded for being apart. early voting is a great idea to allow more people to express themselves. a different system on form and -- on forming congressional districts is critical. money is absolutely corrosive. the issue has to be fixed.

>> people don't have those choices anymore. because of the gerrymandering, but you don't have centerleft and center-right candidates in primaries. even in the general election, you'll have a choice. choice.o not have a in the final analysis, because on the -- because of times the far left is the only choice that emerges from a primary. that spells over into the legislative process. -- that spills over into the legislative process. the senate has become more of a parliamentary system. you mentioned earlier that there are no people in the middle. the point is, i agree with the director, you do not have to be in the middle to work things out. there was a time in my district where we could work things out

from the right and the left. whydisagreements, that is we were there. we are republicans, democrats, independents. it is how you work it through. as what is not happening now. -- that is why it is not happening now. the senate is designed to be a different institute focusing on issues and not parties. opening up these primaries is going to be crucial to -- so there are more choices. soquickly, i think she is right. there is one other element to this. elections have become so sophisticated that it takes jennifer's point about money and the sophistication that comes with voter turnout, and groups can now hijack the primary process. non they hijacked it, it

longer reflects the views of the people who live there, because they do not turn out because there is utility to it. that whole environment allows for groups to capture that elective process and exacerbate this process significantly. -- exacerbate the problem significantly. >> gerrymandering is also pointed to as the one source of the problem. we see high levels of polarization in places that cannot be gerrymandered. senators are highly polarized. the problem may go back to primaries. you can organize a small group of people. it does not take much work or money or effort to get a small group of people out there so the interest groups earn a huge amount of power during the

primary process. i will say, the effect -- i have been puzzled by this conversation about the conversation of washington now and 10 years ago. people haven't changed. the incentives have changed. wen the people that understood to be moderate in the past, the fear of the primary challenge has yielded such control over the imagination of folks in washington that the reason they are so nervous of taking any position is because of the primary challenge, which is where they get punished any way that the middle voter would never punish them. it the primary voters will because of the power money yields. >> that is a trend that has developed in recent years. >> that is what i think is the incentive. >> one indication of that is there are only 21 senators and

the knighted states senate that senatehe united states that are one party affiliation and their states voted for the presidential candidate of the opposing party. 79% of the senate isn't going to be willing to take a risk by incurring a primary challenge by crossing over. there is no benefit. in the public, it is true, the public feels differently. when you have $.5 billion outside advertising in these campaigns, the difference between this election and 1990 is 75 times the amount. candidates can't even fight that in primaries, or in general elections. int is where it is emerging these primaries. that is the recent.

we always had differences. we could work it out. >> we have spoken a lot about this corrosive cynicism that seems to be perpetuating itself. lest you feel that all is lost, i want to assure you that some of the was rewarding years i have had in federal government was being on the side of the desk and meeting people every day who wanted to serve their country. but not given up on the american enterprise. i was so happy to see the number of you who raise your hand in the audience. our mission is to engage everyone in a conversation about how we ensure that people who want to serve can serve effectively and get good results. there are people every day sign up to serve, who really believe that service is the best commitment, and the greatest gift they can give back to their country. i do not want that to be lost

in the challenges we have here today. >> you beat me to it. that is what i wanted to reassure. there is a sense of pride. when i was growing up, someone would say, he is your senator. i look up with such pride. he was our senator, or she was our congresswoman. don't lose that. some years ago, air force one flew right over me as i was headed on a highway. tears started rolling, because it was air force one. it it matter who the president was thed not matter who president was at that time. it was air force one. it was the president's plane. it will come back. everyone is watching us. we have to come back. i wanted to add something that heather had said. that is the great thing about these forums. we may respectfully disagree,

but we are out -- all trying to work together to make this a better nation. i will tell you that for me, it wasn't about who was right and who was wrong, it was about protecting the process. making sure that voters have the confidence that this process was one that everyone could be proud of and respect. there was a report in 2005 that was done at -- a bipartisan report. it recommended a voter id to protect that process. just keep that in mind. we look at these things, it is not whether it is a republican issue or democratic issue. are we doing the right thing to protect the process? the early voting really is trend. i saw that more than half of our voters did early voting rate you could stop as you're going

to the grocery store, on your way to work, anywhere. i see that as a trend. we should continue to do that. >> we now 5000 people watching us on the webcast. a big audience across the country great we are still taking their tweets and reading their questions. the governor raise the issue -- of money and politics. let me read some comments. the first is, from jones and orlando flowed our -- from jones in orlando, florida. it seems like all interesting legislation these days is written by corporations or some special interest group. how do we stop this? another comment from twitter, how can we get our elected officials to vote against the interest of campaign contributors?

what would you say to these two questions? >> this is such an enormous issue. members of congress spend their time raising money. members of congress spend between 30% and 70% of their time raising money. whenever there is a bill to be considered, they chair people of those committees have a huge opportunity to raise money from --se who were effected area who are affected. death whenever there is a sunset provision on a tax extender, there is an opportunity. those who are benefiting want to preserve their benefits. the amount of money being raised is so out of proportion from those special interests to that being raised by individuals, and in fact the top 32 donors match the donations of 3.7

million people giving under $200. 37 people versus $3.7 million. he you are going to go where you can get the biggest bang for your buck. these races are too expensive. getting money or reducing the influence of money over elections is the most important job that this group can consider. >> how would you do that? >> you need a constitutional amendment, honestly. that would reduce or limit the amount of donations of that -- you have the whole issue of spending being speech. the supreme court has decided. if the issue corporations being people him and therefore being free to spend. there is a cluster of issues that have gone to the supreme

court that could be addressed by constitutional amendment. that would require a huge lift. it would mean that they people across the country would have to be involved. two thirds of the state would have to have congress to convene a constitutional convention, and three quarters of the states would have to ratify the amendment. that is a huge lift. if ever there was an issue that needs to purify our elections, it is removing the overwhelming influence of money in politics. >> just to add, some indication of the trend here, when i ran my last time in 2004, i race was the most expensive in the country. all the money spent on both sides was $50 million. i thought i was a lot. in the last cycle, the two most excites of races or virginia expensive races were

massachusetts. those two races, all the money spent in each of the two races was over $80 million. just a short number of years, we've gone from $50 million to $80 million. i have no doubt in the next cycle we will see -- we will exceed $100 million. there has to be an end to this incredible escalation. >> how would you end it? >> i do not think there is much support for public financing. i support it. i do not think you will ever get it done. jennifer has the only real answer. draw this tension between distinctionaw a between speech and money to read this a prank or has ruled that money is speech. you are limiting speech by limiting money. i don't view that interpretation to be the correct one. that is how the court ruled. the only way you can get around it is to offer constitutional amendments. --m sure people our audience

audienceoll our participants, i suspect that today there would be this support for it. not be support for this. i cannot think of another way to deal with the alternative. >> we should pull that question. >> when gene mccarthy ran for president, he was going up against an incumbent president. the only reason while he was asked why he was able to run was because it is centric antiwar millionaires. they allowed him to do it in a short time. thatyou look at a system is very tightly regulated, it is going to tend to benefit people who don't have to worry about spending as much money because they already have name identification. we tend to be talking about them, politicians. politicians. there is a legitimate amount of problems. there is interesting issue here.

your political party, these are the broad relations that represent people of different views in our country. these political parties are not allowed to engage in corrugated spending with their candidates. if the democratic party were able to engage in unlimited spending with candidates, they could say, we're going to turn this this into a competitive race. we are allegedly that by a to do that're going by taking a young iraq war veteran who does not have a big fundraising network, isn't a multimillionaire. let's had all the expenditure limits are placed right now, but say say the democratic party can run a candidate with a promising candidate, and we're going to engage in coordinated spending. -- with sealer packs, the super pacs, uncoordinated spending does not work very well. it is highly inefficient. this is how you will see the article consultants -- political consultants owning up to this. there was so much money going

these arevision ads, public and super packs were buying ads in windsor, ontario because it would make it into the markets. saturated. it did not work well. coordinated spending can see thatfolks who cannot finance themselves can run campaigns. if you are an incumbent politician, you don't necessarily want situation in which both our teas are able to are able toies run far more competitive races. it is absolutely right. think about how much individual candidates have to spin. read about the quality of candidates you're missing out on when you only allow candidates that can raise a certain amount of money on their own. regulation that will give people who are the know how to work the system-- to give

them more power would be a mistake. there is a room for finance reform. let's think about what we want to accomplish. >> i have a secret to tell. i have never told anybody else. >> you can trust us. >> when summit came into see me -- >> when someone would come in to see me to ask for for my boat or my position, in the back of my mind, i would think, that would be a good person to invite my next fundraiser. here is the point. it it defies nature that people give the money with the expecting without something in return. that is the way it has always been. the question is what has become everything else. what can we do about it? without getting so overregulated. i would love to pass a constitutional amendment.

topened the public is going e publicnot think th is going to be inspired to do that. there are some things, for example, ali congress is in session, why should they be able to go out and raise money? well you're in session, you can't raise money during session. at least the time you're voting on bills, you're not out seeking money and resources. everything has consequences, so they can find other times to do it and work around it. we're going to be more creative in finding ways to reduce the impact that it has on the time and the occupation box ability -- flexibility. andve a constitutional minute, but i do not think it is likely to be in the cards. >> we spent a better part of a decade trying to pass a bill. ultimately we did. one of their provisions was mine struck down in citizens

united. the underlying issue was on an issue advocacy ads. we drew a very bright line, saying if a group ran an ad 30 days before a primary, 60 days before an election, and said tell senator snowe to vote no on this legislation, then, it would have to be able to be a political action committee. they would be subject to the same restrictions and disclosure requirements. regrettably, that was struck down in citizens united. what was worse was what the court did. they would 100 years back and unraveled case president on corporations and unions being able to provide unlimited funding. the biggest change that has occurred is outside money. candidates no longer have control of their races.

you have outside groups coming in to your state, and spending thousands if not millions of dollars. the --y of toward but not only do you have to worry about the to have to worry about how much money has the -- you spent a lot of time raising money. as i have mentioned, with every it is going to be a question of both sides working against -- ticket is going to be a question of whether both sides are working again together. there was a mention in the last congress, the disclose act. it was not something that was put together by both republicans and democrats. we would work on that to make sure there was a balance. this outside money is a crucial question. one is going to have to be addressed by both sides if

we're ever going to tackle it. i don't think an amendment would work. opening it to a convention could open a host of issues in the constitution. >> i think the way to think about a money problem is that you cannot get a constitutional amendment. think about where the money is coming from and where it is going. it would be very useful if we started matching small donors so they have an incentive to come out to small donors. the obama campaign figured this out. there were moments where money was just rolling in. itthat money were match, would create a lot more incentive to patent into the -- to pay attention to small donors. you do care about where the money comes from. the other point is where the money is going.

parties can pop up and disappear into the night. the parties can sullivan accountable for what they are doing and stay on message. moneyn also hold the accountable when they cross the line. those components, where the money is from, and where the money goes has to be on the table. >> we've gotten a whole series of questions from twitter, and from facebook, and from our audience about filibusters. let me ask one of the questions about the filibuster. what is the worst example of the filibuster in the senate? who is a candidate for the worst use of the filibuster? >> we have two former senators. [laughter] >> that is interesting. however you wish to answer is fine. >> while others are thinking, the worst is the number. the sheer number. from 1917 to 1967, going through difficult times,

including the vietnam war and the civil rights movement. there were 50 filibusters. and the 112th congress, there were 129. viewheer number is in my the worst aspects. gore is plenty of blame to around with regard to why that is. i think that would be my candidate. >> anybody else? >> i think the question is really the number. the sheer number. --gets down to breda in the senateeakdown in the and the lack of communication

and 20 liters in trying to -- it gets down to the lack of communication. as you know, the leadership reached an agreement at the beginning of this year, albeit temporary, where there will be a motion to proceed, there will not be a filibuster him and the majority has agreed to allow amendments, but i hope that is not the ceiling. it is designed to be a deliberative body. it is what it is all about. is to provide stability and security to sort through the issues,to slow down the process and to work it through. it is not the rules of the senate. it is the human behavior behind it. the fact is, we are not having a deliberative process. you get the threat to filibuster on our side. if there is intransigence, they

disagree, or, there is a concerted effort. that is going to change. there is a reason for the culture to end the filibuster. it is to protect the rights of a minority. that 60 vote threshold is important. that is what makes the senate unique. it is majority rule, but it is predicated on accommodating the rights of the minority. hopefully they can return to some traditional means by which to consider legislation in the senate. for all article purposes, that -- for all practical purposes, that is not happening. compared to the previous majority leaders, where it was 40 times over 22 years, we have a problem on both sides. it gets to trust and

communication. pick up on what she said, the house of representatives, 435 members, they are often limited to one or two minutes of comment. that is it because there are so many. if at any point, one party gets over 60 votes where hypothetically that could change the rules and eliminate, they would never do it because they know someday they will be in the minority. they want to have the 60 votes. along with the filibuster, let me add one other element. it is the tool putting a hold on the nominee. this is what drives a lot of good people away. .ou put a person's life on hold somebody is going to say, we will not vote on this nominee until this issue is dealt with.

it may have nothing to do with playing, somerole time should argue the other side. congress does this all the time. when we foot sizes will ago from minority to majority. -- when we flip sides, we go from minority to majority. they believe the president's nominations should be taken up or down. as soon as they lose the white house, they are the obstructionists. here is my suggestion. if you all agree and have them on record, both parties are on that they support it, put an effective date that is five years from now when you do not know who will have the white house. do not affect the incumbent. you will never get that. put it far enough out there. i think a number of these reform measures could be done that way with an effective date so that

it does not affect incumbents right now. it is tough to reject it then. >> we're just about of time. has a to ask if anyone point they want to make or in response -- or a response we have not been able to get to. >> could i add one other thing on campaigns? we must not forget the effectiveness of public media. in the last election, among 80% of the voters, they did not get their information from tv. when you look at all this money being spent on television advertising, it may or may not be effective. it is , twitter, all the other things. there is a science growing on messaging and media. at some point, the dollar may not be as relevant. it will be who understands social media most effectively. >> our founding fathers wanted our system to not work very

well. we have to start without rework. they created a system that institutionalized conflict and gridlock because they created the separation of powers. they wanted an equal congress and executive. then they divided congress into a typical bodies. the whole thing was designed so we would not be able to run roughshod over anybody and could not move fast. it is the proverbial 1 foot on on theke and one foot accelerator. that is what they wanted. to get things done, you have to work through the important relationship-building and develop trust to get through the constitution had in mind. what has happened in recent years is those barriers have

been more difficult to jump over because of all the factors we've talked about today. even if we make changes and get through this barrier, this country still operates well. there is a fundamental distrust of giving too much power to the government. i do not want people to think if we make any of these changes, everything will be hunky dory. system was meant to be slow, deliberate, complex, and at times very frustrating. >> did you have a final comment to make? >> use start of the video talking about the caning incident. there have been a number of those. there is a fantastic man who worked in the senate for 67 years. he writes with great clarity about the things he saw on the floor. senators used to pull the guns

on each other. they passed a resolution of fisticuffs hadll to occur often the floor. i can testify in the last 40 years, there has not been one cane or gun pulled on the floor. >> something to brag about. >> i would make the final comment. what a pleasure we have watched this at the ronald reagan library. issued a letter to us welcoming us. our collective love and affection for nancy reagan. when you think about nancy reagan and the role she played support, soagan's mate, if some day you have a panel with our

spouses, i think he would get that perspective, the role of families play and how they need to be factored into all this as well. it is not as political science. it is people trying to live. to nancy reagan and all the you.es, god bless [applause] to closes a great note on. the people of been sending us questions and comments are also talking to each other. here is a comment posted on twitter. two parties have become like the red sox and yankees fans. neither one will support the other. but got a response from allison in new york. maybe there is hope. today" andf "usa the