mile of where we are sitting to fill up the government. i said that is not true. well, it is true. there are a lot of people in washington who want to serve. we thought it was important to go outside of washington, so we had specialist, we had people coming in from the professional search world to go outside of washington. we looked at people who worked in the campaign. always after an election there is tremendous enthusiasm and you get thousands of letters of people who want to serve. are filled, the enthusiasm dies down. we went back into the computer and found people who sent letters at the beginning of the reagan administration and call them for five years later. we were able to find some outstanding people that way. there are many ways. we would go to organizations that are probably represent here and ask if you have someone you are interested in serving. when senator baker became chief

of staff, we were looking for position at the tennessee valley authority, which was not in very good shape. senator baker sent us some of the people who were serving. with some trepidation i walked downstairs to his office and said we have a little problem here. he said i know you are right. he said call this guy who works for the head of the national paper and he will find you some people. sure enough, i call this guy and got the fellow who was running an automobile plant in tennessee. he turned out to be the one that president reagan turned out to that president reagan selected to run the tva. >> first of all, i want to commend all the young people here and i want to thank the ronald reagan library for being here. i got to meet ronald reagan when i first went to sacramento with jerry brown in 1974.

you had to like ronald reagan. he was a good man with a sunn disposition, like all people, no malice in his heart. i would like to see politics get back to that. no matter what your point of view, to be seen as a good person trying to do the right thing. we are thrilled at the right libraries in california. i will encourage anyone who is thinking about running boar office to do it. when i was calling up -- growing up in the tom daschle era, great things happen for politics. john kennedy put a man on the moon. sputniker, after seeing circle over us, which could see with the naked eye in 1957, said if you want to be an engineer so we can, at this russian presence in our sky, we will pay for your education. private, public, we will pay for your education.

sign the first bill in america on greenhouse gases. my point is, find a way to serve, even if it is not in government, because today with the adoption of rapidly evolving technology, there's all kinds of ways to serve. anyone who has spent any time in silicon valley is just impressed with the attitude every person in those companies, google -- google, apple, twitter.com facebook, they go to work believing they are going to change the world, and guess what? sometimes they do. there's no question that the changes in north africa last year had to do with the google search and twitter, because the government could not block all forms of people's ability to communicate. they could call meetings, protest, demonstrate, they could do things that in the past cannot be done.

world in achange the whole host of ways, and government is one. i was in switzerland a couple of years ago. alwaysland you think of being peaceful and neutral. i know israel requires that every man and woman serve the country. vietnam and a respect anyone who served their country in any capacity. in switzerland, you have to serve the country for three years. i think in our hearts, we ought to have an unwritten rule that we have to find some way to give back to america. you are so lucky because you have a host of ways and no one should tell you how to give back. you should follow your heart. clearly there are ways you can impact the world. just sitting at home on a computer, you can change the world, and i encourage you to do so. >> thank you, governor. we will try to get to the questions here on the panel. also when we go to philadelphia,

to think about other institutions of public service that we can create. and asked to follow up? for governorho ran or senator did not do that as their first office. they started somewhere else. talk about getting in at the lower level and also what you see in california for people of today who are looking to get into politics, breaking in at a lower level who might then use those as stepping stones to move to higher office. >> my primary motivation came when i was in vietnam because i believe i read the newspaper, and when i got over there i found a very different situation. i did not find anyone from stanford and columbia law school in vietnam. i found mostly southern whites, a lot of minorities. this is when we had the draft. you might end up in vietnam what

do you wanted to or not. let's put it that way. everyone is under the burden of serving the country. i had this old fashioned notion that everyone was doing their part, which was not the case. that was in the back of my mind when i went back to los angeles and started practicing law. tom bradley lost in a very close race to the incumbent, who won the second time. i'd treat my motivation to leaving the practice of law because i felt so strongly that this was a way i could give back to the experience i had in vietnam. that led me to a succession of different offices and i ended up being chief of staff to jerry brown and then running for the legislature. i do think there is a sense of having to pay your dues. you can just run for president of the united states as your first office. you might not make it. the same thing with governor or senator, but generally people like to see that you have been

elected to some other office first. you can accomplish something with people's confidence that might merit a promotion to whatever office you are running for now. local school board, legislature, congress, those are good points of entry and you will learn a lot about the process and prove to people that you are willing to do the hard work, pay your whichand wait your turn, still resonates with some voters. it is always funart to st the top. i remember being at new governor school, sitting next to jesse ventura. he was elected in 1998, a former wrestler in minnesota. he was governor for one term. he was reading my resume. he said, my god, first you read this, then you that. finally got to be governor.

wrestling, get famous, and get elected governor. [laughter] to accommodatee to the notion that you have to try at least one office first before you run for president of the united states. veterans have a strong record of having run for public office at higher rates than the population. what can you say about today's veterans, coming back? do they feel less likely to run than an earlier generation? what is their motivation? what are they thinking? >> governor davis mentioned the draft in vietnam. something like a draft does put skin and the game for everybody. everybody has to be part of it. civic engagement and in a way, we don't have

that. we have an all volunteer military force. everybody serving in the military chose to do it. they signed up to serve and they have served. many of them, when they come home and pick up that uniform -- take off that uniform, their service does not stop. that is contrary to popular belief in the public, where people say thank you for your service, that was enough. these are people who are preprogrammed to serve. that may have volunteered in girl scouts are boy scouts, and that is what led them to service. what is striking today is that in 1970 to, the early 1970's, 75% of congress were military veterans. idea what it is today? 19.4%.

it is higher than the distribution of veterans in the adult population, but it's actually significantly lower than the veterans who are running for congress. so one in four congressional races in 2012 had a military background, the primaries, not just the early races. but only 12 for elected. and 23 left. row we have had a decrease in the number of veterans in congress. we have the lowest rate of veterans in congress today since the 1920's. we also have the highest level of hyper partisanship. i would make an argument and others might agree that all veterans won't solve the problem and the lack of veterans did not cause the partisanship problem, they help. they are used to being part of

something greater than themselves. many times you may get a democrat and republican who served next to each other in iraq or afghanistan who are going to figure out how to push through a bill this bipartisan tendencies. my thought would be, whether we are talking about military service or the peace corps, people who have served know how to work together and be something greater than themselves. these are the types of people we want to see in our legislatures. >> i am going to turn back to mark gearan. i did not mention he was the director of the transition from the clinton administration. there is the planning from going from the campaign to the administration. what are some of the challenges, the ways in which may be our system, while allowing people to

come in, is making it a little bit harder? >> i think the ambassadors. is well taken in many ways, in terms of looking at the federal government as a generational shift we are right on the beginning of the terms of the many interesting areas that exist. you get a great deal of responsibility at a young age. while there has been recent efforts in congress to help incumbrances for political appointees in terms of confirmation, people's lives being on hold. i think we could do a lot to make it easier. i was very honored to be nominated by president bush to serve on the corporation for natural and community service. it is a board that meets three times a year and requires senate confirmation. in my office in new york is the .ollege president, the fbi

had been cleared by the senate to be director of the peace corps previously. it just struck me that perhaps the level of detail required for a boar that meets three times a year may not necessitated. one of the questions that ask every nominee, they said we would like to speak with your neighbors. can we talk to your neighbors? i live on campus as the president. i live next to a fraternity. [laughter] of sendingis image the fbi to knock at the door of a fraternity house, but i digress. i think there are incumbrances that efforts like this, querying whether the senate confirmation of as many appointees as are required might lift the are rigidities in the very long

confirmation process that sometimes suggest that may have been in retired people interest from serving. >> if they were trying to find people to be nominated, send them to the senate, do you think marks. is right that maybe we want ethics, we want transparency, we don't want them to have conflicts of interest. are we overdoing it, are we using ethics as a weapon against people who really want to serve? what do you think the senate's role should be in the confirmation process? >> i would divide that issue in two. first, how much information do we need? that is not a political thing. bipartisann a fashion. to meet three times a year, my

neighbors are visited by the fbi also. it was not as exciting as a fraternity. the other part is the senate. for political reasons, you put a hold on somebody. it may have nothing to do with rollappointee, and you can it around. i am going to take my hold off that nominee, would you put your lawn? and we just keep passing it around. here is what it does to the nominee. let's say someone who has been nominated for u.s. attorney or judge, and again it has nothing to do with a really, it is just you cannot bring the judiciary committee nominee list for. many months is that person to be put on ice? maybe he or she is a practicing everybodyand while

thinks they are going to be confirmed as the next u.s. senator or judge, who is going to go and sign up with them as the attorney and give them a contract for a year? suddenly there been is that -- suddenly their business begins to dry up. that is their income. at some point they just say, i cannot do it. there were some individuals back in my state who truly wanted to serve. that is what i think is wrong. when your party has the white house, you absolutely are convinced that that president has every right to have their .ominee voted up or down but when you are not in the white house, you will do whatever is necessary to delay it, use it as leverage. -- everyhy i take

party has been on record as saying the president should have their nominees voted up or down. they are not consistent. they don't see it -- that don't say all the time, but you've got it on record. put it together and you have the case, you say we are not going to vote on it but we will make the effective date five years from now, eight years from now, so that does not affect any incumbent administration. that way it is going to be an advantage for whoever happens to win the white house next time. that is the part of reform would suggest. about the issue that governor davis raised, universal service. can we speak about other institutions of service that we can create? of governmental institutions, but are there

other institutions that we should create, are there things in government that people you thatthey are longing to do we should have additional institutions for them to serve? institutionslot of that people can serve on and the volunteers. let me go back to the issue of government service. a lot of young people want to work in government. i started in the senate judiciary committee. i work for ted kennedy. i was one of the people that had to vet the judges and individuals. i loved the time that i worked in the senate. i worked with senator thurmond, hatch, simpson. it was a place where you worked together to find solutions. i can tell you, i would not work

in the senate today because of the fact that people go in to make a difference. aboutou said, it's not you. it's about wanting to change the world. it's about wanting to see results. if you don't see an institution functioning to get to those results, you are not going to be inclined to do that. it is wonderful that young people want to surf. it is a wonderful a firming of the fact that people want to serve, but the question is, why? is it to change the world? and people are turning to other institutions, and i think one of the biggest mistakes -- my son .ent to iraq he is still in the reserves. i think one of the biggest mistakes this country has made

is a volunteer military, in mandating you serve your country, to meet people from different levels of society, to see europe itself in the same boat, you see yourself as part of a whole. my foundation has been very our veteranselping returning from afghanistan and iraq. one of the things i find very disturbing to me is the isolation of the folks that serve in the military and a lack of support that is given to our military individuals. they are coming back with immense problems, and the support is not there. because not everyone has served for the possibility of service, there is not that sense of commitment. we thank them at the airport, we thank them when we see them in

military, but are we really understanding the sacrifices that these military people have made? so my thing with the people is, there are tons of things that you can do. this generation is not waiting for us to tell them what to do, they are doing it. that are developing new not for profits. we get hundreds of applications to my foundation from young people who started a tutorial in the inner cities. the food bank. last year we honored a young high-school, 17-year-old high school. from the age of 14 he lived in the san diego valley. lots of fruit trees. he went and bought the equipment and started knocking on doors, saying can i take the fruit? can i take the crop? and then he would deliver it to the food bank.

so there is not a lack of commitment. it's not a lack of wanting to do it. it's going back to the issue that we are here today, what is it in our government, whether it's local, whether it is state, federal, the assembly or the senate. ?re the institutions working are they solving problems to convey to the young people that these institutions are worthy because they are solving the issues? i think that is the question about public service and government. not whether young people are committed to serving. >> a quick follow-up. >> i just want to pick up on it something antonio said and something that was said about skin in the game. i don't think we should have a draft, but i think we should , someif not a compulsory

understanding that everyone ought serve six months doing something. the peace corps, teaching, the homeless, educational institutions. everyone gets a certificate of service. is one thing we can all do together, all americans, no matter how busy or how into our own thing we are, we all give something back to make this country better. the advantage of having the draft, which i don't propose, is it we would not have been in iraq for 10 years. we might have been in iraq for 10 months. everyone gets to weigh in because everyone is concerned that their son or daughter may be forced to a place they don't want to go. it cannot have a world living in relative comfort with one or two% of the country doing heavy lifting for america, and i have great admiration for the young men and women who are serving multiple deployment. that never happened in vietnam.

unfair the disproportionate amount of keeping america secure falls on a very small part of the population. that having been said, i think reinstituting the draft would be a mistake, but we do have to find a way to engage middle- class america as if they had again in the game, so that they way in if they are not pleased with the way some military events are going. >> i want to put in a huge plus for all of you out there, when you graduate from college or cityschool, americorps or or teach for america are fantastic programs. those programs are so incredibly important in teaching leadership and then giving exposure to parts of the country and problems in the country that he

might not otherwise have seen. i have two daughters to have -- whorough and have have gone through city year and have been assigned to some of the toughest areas in the country. my kids are completely assessed now about poverty and education, about making a change in education. i don't think they will run for office, but i do know they want to make a difference in that area because they have been exposed to it now, they are burning with desire for change. for all of you, if you want to take a gap year or if you want to go after college, is a hugely growing experience, and i wish every young person in america could do it. i just want to mention, john bridgeland was going to be here

but he had a family issue he must deal with. john is working with admiral mullen, general mcchrystal, and others. these military leaders are developing what is an alternative to military service, which is civilian service to the country. it's what's being discussed here. good people have been to the meetings. i think there are affiliated with the aspen institute. there will be a proposal that comes from that and it will be a call to serve. country, theys are ready to stand up. >> let me turn to our twitter results. the question was, would you consider running for political office in the future? our audience i think is perhaps more public spirited and other polls. 58% saying yes, that's a good thing, and 42% say no.

we will also turn to the audience for questions. to questions that are similar, we will put them together. one is from tony in southern california. what can educators do to help the next generation of public servants get beyond gridlock? another question from sean from california. to serveillingness related to polarization? i want to put those questions together and think about some of the motivation of people are running of all. -- running for office. point where we have become more ideological in that respect? are we having fewer people who just want to give back? anybody can take this, but what is the relationship between today's polarization versus the

past? >> clearly since the day that tom daschle was majority leader , there is not a sense that we can work together on a bipartisan basis. ronald reagan used to invite tip o'neill over to have a drink. they would work things out and there would be progress. george bush the elder, i don't know quite when it started to change. of all thethe salary people we send to washington and sacramento. they are working for you. that ought to be able to come back and say here is what i was able to do for you and the country these last two years or four years. not just that i had an amendment that failed or i made a speech. what actually happened to move the country forward, to give your children more opportunity? i don't know how that is going to change unless america starts voting out incumbents. i don't say that lightly,

because there are a lot of incumbents trying hard and doing their best, but somehow the signal has to go back to washington that we are tired of excuses. we are tired ogf u us you cannot do the job. i don't see how we get past gridlock if we still keep getting your member of congress reelected. the only thing that gets their attention is losing, or their buddy losing. and then they say maybe i had better take a look another look at what i am doing. just spending half the time in recess and raising money during that time, and coming back with excuses, that is not good enough. have a different type of person running today? are we attracting more extremist to run for office? ?s it a problem today

>> i am just going to point out some of the examples, very positive examples. it is not that they are sitting on the sidelines. they may not choose to run for office. it does not mean they are not doing tremendous things and helping to change the world. we need to stand up and cheer those folks, the old individual initiative, not waiting around for the government to take care of them. is,hat i would say to you learn to listen. tolerance is the most important thing. and understand that politics is the give and take. it is sausage making. you don't get everything, but you have to come in with the attitude that you are going to take little and give a little. coming from extreme positions, you have already come into a system of gridlock. the modeling you have to

do. i think the schools to some degree are responsible for not teaching civics, not teaching government, not teaching the understanding of how our democracy works. it was made to work on a give- and-take. it is not an absolute, where the majority gets everything. that is really important, to listen, not just to be fox or cnbc, but to listen to other people and try to put yourself in their shoes. that is the real art of being a successful leader and understanding that people will vote for you, for the values you >>nd for and the judgment, don't sign pledges. >> never. >> another question from

twitter. brian ask, how do we get more middle-class people to run for office when campaigns are so expensive? is that one of the s, the the earlier panel idea that i have to raise millions of dollars, and where would that come from? against theaposing previous question, it is not the extremist that is running because things are extreme, but it is the same symptoms creating the hyper-partisanship that are also causing this kurdish meant -- discourage meant for people who may run for office, and that

affects the reputation, the gridlock, the necessity to raise a lot of money that we think are interbreeding to hyper- partisanship, also the lack of participation. that -- we are only measuring that in those who are winning races. not necessarily those who are running races, because there forl may be people running racist who may not see these problems, who are out to serve the public. they are just not winning races. >> to the question, i think we as a panel, we need to be careful we did not become so nationally center that we think every office is federal. it is not. there is a a lot of wonderful middle-class folks running for mayor and city council and t

county commissioner, governor, school board, that is where they are, that is the grooming ground where if they have a record they can offer themselves further. when i first decided to run for mayor, i was 33, and when i went to the political thinkers, they said that is the dumbest idea we have ever heard of, because if you were thinking of politics, don't run for mayor, nobody has been able to do anything in this city, you will be from the biggest city in the state, so you will never be elected to anything beyond that, and i took their counsel and ran. my motivation was a ball -- i could be part of the solution for community that i love, where my children would be born, and

if that was the extent of my service, so be it. every day for the rest of my life, when i would walk down that town, i would know somehow i did something that was good. >> isn't it a true at the local level, that is where compromise happens, that people know how to work together. >> absolutely. >> i believe in that. >> i think you can make a difference if your goal is to do that not to see how long you can stay in office, because it is amazing what you can do if you are willing to risk your office. people since the passion, see you are genuine, and are moved because they see you are vulnerable and you take a risk. one of the reasons i lost my race for governor in the recall was i insisted on raising something called the vehicle license fee, which should be

called the public safety tax. the money is sent back to local police. waswered it to 50% of where come and i said for one year i wanted to raise it to where it was. people said we did not tell you to give us the money, hasta la vista. the point is i raised it because i did not want to shortchange public safety, which is important. people understood that. arnold, who like, came in and repealed it, but people agreed the state would have been better off. it is not that we put a stamp on the money, the people sense your passion, know why you are doing it, and the you're willing to take the risk. if you want to make a difference and hang around for 30 years of those are inconsistent goals. >> i know where we are going, so

i want to think about these questions in the future, so the commissioners have a question about this. we will also turn it over to the audience for questions. >> there is a mike floating around. i will go to the back left here, and if you could identify yourself when the mike comes. larry kennedy. all of you agree on universal service to the government in different forms, military, vista, peace corps, and i wonder if there is policy level that could link that with the problem that students are having with loan debt. it is so huge. how can we incentivize so i myself -- who was strapped with debt -- how can we incentivize

it so everybody who does serve feels like they got something back? >> it is a great question, and there are ways. i would observe to the governor 's point, we have great programs, peace corps, americorps, this stuff, that are highly applied for programs. when i was a director we had 10,000 applications for 3500 positions. i do not know that the 6500 others were ready to be peace corps volunteers, but why in tod's name are we saying no americans who want to go to some of the desperate places on the planet to serve? the peace corps is 1% of 1% of the federal budget. the military marching bands, which i am a big fan of, or a bigger part. there it is an imperative, americorps, vista, each and every year have challenges.

i think -- this is not contradictory to your point of incentivizing. what we see is a burgeoning interest of young americans and those not so young wanting to give back in these ways outside the military, but we are not responding to the kind of fortified, bold increase that governor granholm suggested. i think individual colleges and universities providing ideas, provide incentives, to less loans, there are programs that can be tied to that for loan purposes or incentivizing on the front end which the mayor court grants. >> we have time for one more question before we bring in jason up here, and we will get in the back on the right. i starter on a left, i will end on the right. >> i was wondering you had said

that the people that volunteered to go into service are less committed because of the lack of incentive or the lack of support from everyone. andou initiated a draft there was more support, don't you think the people who did not want to be in service would be less committed? is universal service -- the volunteer army today -- do people want to be there? the idea of universal service -- will it bring a lot of people into the service you do not want to be there? is that a fair and a summary? possibly,wer is possibly. i think to make a broad enough -- universal service is not just the americorps and this data. you can serve your local school

board, a church, synagogue, mosque, boys club, crosscut, what ever. some of those people may not be able to compensate you, but hopefully that could be worked out so you can get scholarships, universities and colleges will recognize the significance of your service and waved tuition or find ways toward you. i think it is important that this generation of americans, which understands the importance of service, is recognized for that, we appreciate it, and we say one of those options is to go into public office, when is to work for a public policy institute, one is to be a mentor to someone who will benefit from your expertise -- there is a lot of ways you can serve, but it is important we find a way to recognize that service, give people a certificate saying thank you for serving america. i would say to the young

country, in this democracy, you have two r's, your rights and responsibilities to the communal, and we all should have a stake in the game, whether it is in your school, the food bank. we have to have a commitment, and one of the things that today is we are not all going to be able to do only what we want to do if we want to maintain this democracy, if we want to have a communal sense of being responsible for the well-being of the communal, and the communal is the united states of america. we all have to do different things, and one of the things is our responsibility to make whole lot better, and some people may not want to serve and what ever to pass the top but you know what? that is the only way would will

improve this country. >> i will bring out jason appear the will close the day, but can we think the panel for their service? [applause] >> is has been a big day for everyone. we could not have done it without you. want to thank john for d.tier for leading this panel, to put this day together. to our commissioners, i want to thank you for joining us. an apology to make. we told you we would not take too much of your time, and i fear that may have been a slight understatement, because you have raised such a profound number of questions, we now have an obligation to answer those questions. the next march meeting of this

gathering of the full commission will be on july 23 in philadelphia. for those of you following us out there in the real world, if you want to learn about what is happening between now and then, please call on to bipartisan policy.org, we will post papers and questions. i want to thank the media " and susana today page, and mostly in this room, it is nice to think about the legacy of president ronald reagan. so much of his spirit of pragmatism and conviction and has inspired the work we intend to do. it is terrific to be in this fabulous library to start this process. thank you, reagan library. thank you. [applause]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> tomorrow morning, and look at tax credits for people to buy health insurance included in the affordable care act. our guest is ron pollack. on thee club of growth gop agenda in congress. then we will talk with elizabeth about food safety. also tomorrow, the primary election in the race to fill the massachusetts senate seat.

seeking themen are democratic nomination. they debated a week ago in boston. here is one exchange. i am the principal author of the legislation, intended to make sure that rail security is much more secure within our country. i am the author of the legislation that moves towards insuring chemical plants are more protected within our country. records, i think we both tried our best to work hard. my priorities wound up being the law of the united states in order to protect the security of our country. >> you voted no, though. you voted -- on creating the

joint terrorism task force, the group that enable our response. if special agents, a commissioner, if a colonel, if all those federal, state, local agencies cannot work together, we would not have had the effect of response we had. on that bill, i voted yes -- i do not know how you are wrong to spend district i voted yes, you voted no. >> i support the existence of and the creation of the joint terrorism task force, but i do not know this is of a sudden stances at that point in time -- >> you seem to understand everything else. >> when there was an objection y the bush administration of insuring the joyous, the cooperation amongst all agencies within the department of homeland security, i was the principal person that was pushing the administration -- in

terms of the joint terrorism task force, ensuring there was complete cooperation amongst all agencies, i was in support of doing that. >> but when we created it, you voted no. you can say europocentric that, i understand policy, but when the issue came up to create that joint task force, i voted yes, you voted no. i do not know how you spend that the by doing a good job -- >> the reason i know that on this issue that i stood up for the american people, was that i was the one fighting in the trenches -- >> let me get this right. the other 470 members, including myself, we were not standing up. you and the nine others that voted no on this, you were. i did not get that. every single member of congress, that supported funding for homeland security, that

supported having a coordinated effort between federal, state, and local officials, we voted for that, you voted against it, and somehow you are the champion, because you voted against it. no, the reasone was they were excluding a provision that would have made the bill even stronger. that would have been the only reason why i was -- >> it was good enough for 417 members, but you and herself and nine others voted no. after 9/11. even the representatives of congress from new york city that had thousands of people killed, they voted yes -- >> there are times when i was one of only two people that voted no. on port security, i was one of only two people who voted no because i did not believe that the bill was strong enough. a hard-issue, i am

liner. interest in ensuring the bill -- the democratic primary in the massachusetts senate race is tomorrow, and the special election to fill the seat of john kerry is may 25. you can see all that debate at c-span.org. another special election to tell you about, the race to fill the open congressional seat in south carolina's first district. debate tonight. that is from the citadel on c- span at 7:00 eastern. at 16 and helps teach her husband to be -- she mar rries at 16.

the time she is first lady, she is in poor health great meet johnson as we continue the series on the first ladies. tonight live at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c-span3, also an c- span radio and c-span.org. >> [indiscernible] if confirmed by the senate's, he will replace late -- ray lahood. >> good afternoon. [indiscernible] that is fitting because rate may be the best secretary of transportation they nation has ever had. from the day he was sworn in,

ray as fought to rebuild america plus infrastructure, creating good jobs, strengthening the economy, and allowing us to better compete in the global economy. over the past four years, thanks to his leadership, we have built or improved more than 350,000 miles of road, enough to circle the world more than 14 times vary the of upgraded more than 6,000 miles of rail, and often go coast to coast and back. we have repaired or replaced more than 20,000 bridges and helped put tens of thousands of construction workers back on the drive, and that is all due in no lahood's to ray leadership. every american can thank him for making a transportation system safer.

on a personal note, ray lahood has been a good friend of mine for many years. before he served in my cabinet, which served together in congress. he is a republican, i am a democrat. these days that sometimes keeps books apart, but what always brought ray and i together was a shared belief that those of us who serve the public service over their allegiance not to party, but to the people who elected them to represent them. it helps that we are from the stain state. -- from the same state. ray is from peoria. we both love illinois and we both get out there on the golf course and we are not that good, but we do not take ourselves too seriously. he is a good man, and has been an outstanding public servant as -- and a model for the kind of bipartisan approach to governance that i think we need

so badly in this town. on a personal level, i cannot be more grateful to you for your service and for your friendship. [applause] now, unfortunately, for us, but fortunately for them, ray is now looking forward to spending more time with cathy and his family, a gaggle of grandchildren, and today i am proud to announce my intent to nominate another impressive leader to carry on his work of the department of transportation, the mayor of charlotte, my friend from north carolina, mr. anthony foxhax. [applause]

reflects thee values he learned in west charlotte, when he was raised by a single mom and his grandparents. i should add his grandmother is here, and she informed me she worked in the white house in the truman administration. she is just coming back for a visit. [applause] and so the dow use they have instilled in them, take pride in hard work, take responsibility for your actions, to take care of your community, and over the past year some of those values helped anthony become one of the most effective mayors that charlotte has ever seen. 2009,e became mayor in

charlotte was going through a bruising economic crisis, but the city has managed to turn things around. the economy is growing, there are more jobs and opportunity, and if he asked anthony how that happened, he will tell you charlotte made one of the largest investments in transportation in the city's history. since and he took office, they have broken ground on a new street car project, they have expanded the international airport, and they are extending this to the's light rail system. all that does not only helped a great new job of it as of charlotte become more attractive to business. i know anthony's sprint's will make him an outstanding secretary he has the respect of his peers all across the country. as a consequence, i think he will be extraordinarily effective. one of the thing rate taught me in watching him do his job is that establishing personal

relationships with mayors and governors and county executives makes all the difference in the world because transportation is one of those things that is happening on the ground, and the federal government has to be responsive and has to understand what it is like when you are a mirror or a governor or account executive trying to get these projects up and running, which means we have the potential of continuing to streamline our approval, getting rid of sometimes difficulties in permitting that slow projects that, because we want to get people back to work. i am confident that antonin will do an outstanding job. i want to thank his mom and grandma and lovely wife, two good-looking kids for being willing to serve as well, and i hope the senate confirms him quickly, because we have a lot of work to do. our top priority is doing everything we can to grow our

economy and create good jobs and rebuild opportunity for the middle class. one of the best ways to do that is put more americans back to work rebuilding infrastructure. that is why i proposed a fixed it first program to put more people to work as soon as possible on our most urgent repairs for it and to make sure taxpayers did not shoulder the entire burden, i proposed a partnership the private sector. congress needs to step up and find these projects. power grids and tunnels at ports that help us ship products all round of world, if with a three crown words, "made in america." that is how we will stay competitive in this economy, and to ray lahood, i want to thank you for doing an extraordinary job, and to anthony and his

family, i want to thank you guys for agreeing to serve, and i note today's announcement is not the biggest thing that anthony's family has going over the next week, because tomorrow is anthony's birthday, so we are happy we can kick off the celebration here at the white house, and with that what i would like to do is ask both of them to say a few words, starting with our outstanding current secretary of transportation, mr. ray lahood. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. mr. president, your staff told me i've only had one minute, and since this is the last time i will be at this podium, i will take a little bit more than 1 minutes. i know they will not forgive me, but i know you will.

there is no way i can ever thank you for the opportunity that you the provided to me to write final chapter in my book of service. you're right, this is the best job i ever had, and if you are not the best person i ever worked for, you are right at the top of the list. you have been extraordinary. i know that every mayor in america is thrilled today, because one of theirs will become the secretary of transportation, and what a message to send around the country. what you say to every city is that mayor's county, city scout, and at the box -- and anthony foxx will do a great job. -- i am confident he

will do a terrific job. ago, you rolled the dice on ray lahood. i am not sure if you knew that i was a lousy golfer, if i would be a good secretary of transportation. you give me plenty of license to be a good secretary, and we have been very proud to carry out your vision and very proud to be the 16th secretary of transportation. the president and i did not share a a political party. i am a republican and he is a democrat. what we did share while we served in congress from illinois is a friendship, a deep friendship, and that french of has become much stronger over the last four and a half years. i wanted to name four things that i think we have been able to do. there are many more than four.

mayor fox, you will inherit some of the brightest hard-working people at the department of transportation. we have worked hard to carry out the president's agenda. one thing that we are very proud of it, in three and a half years, and the president told us within 30 days of this being sworn in to his first term, raise the cafe standards, and what we're proud of is by 2025, every car and truck in america will get 54.5 miles per gallon, and it did not take one vote in congress. all it took was leadership here and leadership there at epa and vdot and we made it happen. that will be part of president obama's legacy, what a legacy, cleaning up the air, getting cleaner-burning cars. we have spent a lot of time on safety. we will be known for trying to

persuade people to put their cell phones and their blackberries down while driving. we're at the starting gate on this. distracted driving is an epidemic. we've spent time working on it, and i hope mayor foxx look into that. the crowning glory for the president -- and he will have many legacies -- but his transportation legacy will be high-speed rail in america, bringing passenger rail all over america. let me tell you what i mean. i visited 18 countries looking at high speed rail, and the common thread throughout every country is a national vision, national leadership, national commitment, and that is what the president provided over the last four and a half years. the central america it is we know you want a different kind of transportation -- what he said is we know you want a different kind of transportation. lincoln started the rail system

in america. obama has started high-speed rail in america. what a great legacy. thank you. [applause] so we are proud of that vision, mr. president. they before giving us the encouragement to continue to carry on. obviously, it goes without saying, when i talk to the president right after his reelection about the fact i was very conflicted about this job, not about the job, but about the fact that i've would like to stay, but i told him kathy and i have been married 46 years, and she wins out trade he said, and kidney your cell number, i will call her. i said, i did not want you to do that. i do not want you to hear these arguments she will make to you. [laughter] but conflicted about this, it is the right decision for our family.

we have been in public service 35 years, and we think we have done it the right way. we have done it in a bipartisan way, in a weight that reflects the best values of america. the final pages of my book of service i think will be remembered for bipartisanship, for serving in one of the most historic and mistresses and history of our country. i am so pleased the president gave us an opportunity to have a front-receipt on watching history and a front-row seat on making a little history. and what an opportunity that we will never ever forget. and so, we leave while there is still applauding, which is not always easy in public service. they are not only applauding for me, but for president obama and a team of people he put in place here. that is what they are applauding for.

we go out while they are applauding and also with the fact that my successor will continue to do a great job representing america, the american people, representing president obama for his vision for getting the economy going and continuing but we have tried to start at transportation. is my pleasure to introduce the 17th secretary of of transportation, and when he is confirmed, which is what we always have to say, a thing around here -- [laughter] great job.a the mayor of charlotte, at the -- -- and the need fox anthony foxx. [applause] >> thank you. thank you.

thank you, mr. president. i am humbled and honored to be your nominee for secretary of transportation. first over thew last four years cities have had no better partners than you, mr. president, and you, mr. secretary, ray lahood. you have drawn the admiration and appreciation of america's mayors, particularly secretary lahood for his vision and approach and that of your entire team. if confirmed, i will do my best to uphold the standards you have set at transportation. thatecond thing i know is there is no such thing as a democratic or republican road, bridge, port, airfield, or a whale system. we must work together across

party lines to enhance this nation's infrastructure. i stand here today with many people to thank. 2ost especially my wife, by t w -- my two children. throughout my service in charlotte, i've worked to use and for shorter to put charlotte and our country on the path of job growth today and tomorrow. mr. president, i look forward to engaging with congress on both sides of the aisle during the confirmation process. if confirmed i will work with you, congress, state, local governments, and the great team at transportation to keep the

wheels of our national renewal and turning it. take you for your confidence in me, mr. president. thank you. [applause] >> palm voters go to the polls in the primary -- voters go to the polls tomorrow in the massachusetts primary election. twohe democratic side, congressman are seeking the nomination. here is an exchange that happened a week ago dealing with abortion. >> when you had a choice to

ensure a woman in the military, on a base overseas, had a right to access that procedure inside a military hospital, you voted to deny her that right. this is not 30 years ago. this is in the last few years you have done that, and that is why planned parenthood has endorsed me. there's a difference between us on that issue. >> the issue on the military base, those women are in uniform. they are under command. they did not just wake up some morning and all the sudden decided to dressed in green. you did not submit each other. the idea for women to get an abortion on a base is a bad idea. we ought to give them medical leave, let them get off that base, and if you are in favor of free choice, but then get off the base cannot make their decision out from under the power and command of a superior officer. >> one minute, gentlemen.

woman is in the country, noany foreign and been told she has to go into that country to get that procedure rather than having access to the medical care within that hospital as far as i'm concerned, fire that general, fire that colonel, get rid of people who abuse women. when of the greatest tragedies we have in our military is the abuse of women in our military, and that is what we have to correct. onthey are of being abused military bases, get them off there. both the democratic and republican primaries in the senate race are tomorrow. a special election to fill the seat of john kerry is june 25. you can see that they act c-

span.org. another special election come the race for the open congressional seat in south carolina's first district. buschanford and elizabeth debate tonight from the citadel in charleston, south carolina, live at c-span at 7:00 eastern. >> joining us from south carolina is a political -- contributor. this is the first and only televised debate between the former south carolina governor and the democratic candidate elizabeth busch. why tonight? guest: >> from scheduling standpoint, the election was set inmay 7, and that is right sweeps week.

some of the tv folks who were normally involved in this thing were not able to have the type of commitment they normally would. we looked at that as an opportunity to play a role. the uncovering this election in an in-step away from the time scott appointed as center. we have been on the ground here that has helped having a relationship with the candidates. >> give us a sense of that political geography of the south carolina first congressional district? >> the district is running along the south carolina shoreline, starting south of myrtle beach, down along the coast toward savannah, but not quite into savannah in georgia. the district is made up of a

concern of district. ted for romney. has been held by republicans for the better part of 30 years. 13 red bishop. the most conservative parts of the district are in an area considered a conservative stronghold, but in charleston county and other parts of the district, there are some moderate voters and even in charleston itself, some pretty liberal voters. that will be an opportunity for well inbusch to do very charleston county. her ability to compete in the other counties will play a big factor in the race. >> this is the district previously held by mark sanford was apologized for his own indiscretions, his absence when he was in argentina.

give us a sense of the polling. are you looking at with a be to go before voters go to the polls? withe polling shows busch an advantage of nine points. even the democrats i have talked to think she is ahead, but not by that margin. i personally think the race is probably up for grabs, and a lot of people have decided who they like in the race. it becomes an issue of whether or not they will come out and vote. that motivation will come, i think, tonight. a lot of people who may have been on the sidelines and are not too interested in getting involved, i think will be compelled to do so after this debate tonight or they will not. >> what are you looking for this evening? what issues will you be pressing? but we will talk mostly about economic issues for the folks in

district 1, 7, here in the charleston area, the maintenance and growth of the port of charleston is extremely important for the area's economic the ballot. right now it is waiting to be deepened, which will make it able to accept larger carriers and larger imports and exports. that will help the industry around here grow, specifically companies like boeing. those types of things that evolve around workforce development, education, all those things that people are very concerned about nationally are in play here. a lot of the concern is people have across the country as far as the quality of life, education, economic development, the possibility of getting ahead, all those sorts of things, those are what we're talking about here mostly, and that is what we are focusing on the debate tonight. predominantly

registered. it is a tighter race because of the past indiscretions of a former south carolina governor? as that made this a race? >> it is. the recent information that came forward a couple weeks ago about his watching the super bowl at his ex-wife's residence, that for thegood governor, and has allowed democrats to talk further about the character issues regarding him. that is an issue that most people in this race have decided about how they feel about governor sanford. i do not think people will be swayed at this point. >> has it been a visible race in terms of advertising? but it has been. busch as raced over a million dollars trade she has been advertising continuously for over a month. sanford in the past couple of

weeks has been on tv as well, been advertising not only out of her own pocket, but has received support from outside groups that are looking to flip the seat, and they realize this would be a big coup for that democrats nationally, the idea to take a seat that they have not held for 30 years in one fell swoop, that would be a pretty big deal for them nationally and give them that jolt they are looking for heading into the midterm elections of 2014. drury, thanks very much for being with us. >> thank you. >> coming up, and look at tax credits for people to buy health insurance. ron pollack. then the president of the club for growth on the republican

agenda in congress. then a look at the effects of sequestration cuts on fda food safety inspections. journal"s "washington at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. host: well would anybody want to run for congress? that's the headline of a recent cover story in the national journal. here to discuss his story on how both political parties subdues and sometimes browbeat potential recruits, we are joined by shane goldmacher of journal.nal if you say in your piece that congress can be a tough sell these days. why is congress such a tough sell for a would-be candidate? guest: because we are closed to the capital and you hear a lot about the dissension that going on. there was a poll earlier in january where they discussed what is congress compared to? it traded on the same scale as a

colonoscopy. not the most popular of institutions these days. these folks are trying to recruit candidates to run for congress. their job is to convince people this is the place they want to spend their lives and their careers. host: whose job is it to recruit potential members of congress? guest: interesting question to the political parties are the leading arms for the recruitment process. the democrats have the senate and house to try to recruit candidates. republicans have the senate and house. those are the leading edge of getting people to run for congress. the process is fascinating. buts a lot like politics all. -- it is a lot like college football. they go out to identify talent all across the country and pick the best people to run for congress. when they do, they have to tell

them that this is what they want to do. and in order to do that, they have to convince them, their wives, their children, their family members. host: you say this is a thankless job, in your piece. guest: it's a lot of work. when you work for the political communities, the campaign arms for congress. host: these are the democratic congressional campaign committee, national republican congressional committee for the house, and the senate has -- guest: >> the exact same groups. the democratic senatorial campaign committee. the national republican senatorial committee. those four groups, the institutional arm of the political parties. when people talk about the permanent campaign, that's what it is. by now this is the time of year where voters are not paying a lot of attention to politics or who's running for congress, but this is the peak recruiting season for these recruiters. so they are going out trying to make the cell to people. steve israel, the house democrats oppose the campaign arm, he walked off the floor after the speech, whipped out his iphone and start typing out an e-mail to all the people he wants to run for congress and

said, did you watched the president's speech? because if you did, indeed of years you will be watching from my seat here in the chamber. host: what is the biggest concern from candidates when he's trying to recruit them? why don't they want to run? guest: over and over when i was talking to people for this piece, the answer was family. often it was candidates' wives or husbands. sometimes it was more extended things. a fun story. the wife of senator sherrod brown from ohio, she has become a go to woman on the democratic side for people running for office, because her husband is a u.s. senator, she's a columnist and she was telling me that when her husband was running, she was the person trying to pull back the reins and tell not to run. she said when they got into the race, two people jump out of an unmarked van in suits to steal

her garbage. this is the big leagues and people take this seriously and it may impact your life. the husbands and wives, they have to try to convince them. it's not as the candidate, but the family that does not want them to run. host: we're taking your calls and comments in this section. we are talking with shane goldmacher on his speech on why anyone would want to run for congress. the numbers are on the screen now if you would like to give us a call. i want to read a tweet -- the talk about some of the concerns these candidates raise. chairman, is recruiters, quell the

concerns? guest: they're basically matchmakers. they want to find candidates's wife or husband who can reach out to the particular person and say this is somebody who had the same experience that you are worried about. debbie wasserman schultz, when there is a wavering mother who's got young kids and she's sure whether she wants to run for congress or not while the kids are young, they have debbie wasserman schultz to call her and she says "armen young mother with the two twins and kept my family. back in family" if it's a different situation they might have senator kirsten gillibrand call from new york. she she had a young family, moved them down here. so they deploy different people depending on the situation, depending on what the person's question is: . most recruiters say the number one thing they do in the process is figure out what people are concerned about.

if it's family, a person who has the same situation. if it's the salary, $170,000 is a lot of money. some of these people are multimillionaires. ron johnson from ohio is a u.s. senator. he is worth millions and millions of dollars. they have to figure of how to balance all those things. host: we should run through the rest of the recruiters. for the national republican congressional committee is greg walden, a republican from oregon. the national republican senatorial committee, is jerry moran, a republican senator from kansas. democratel bennet, a of colorado for the national democratic senatorial committee. we're taking your calls. daniel is up first from michigan on our democrat line. good morning.

caller: i just want to make a comment. you posed the question, why would you want to be a congressman? why would you not want to be a congressman? it is more profitable than organized crime. you can wait around for -- serve your term in congress and then end up getting cozy with lobbyists. and end up as the ceo of sun company you get a contract for and then you are amultimillionaire. host: how hard a sell is it? how deep are the recruiting lists? is it a matter of getting anybody to position or the right person? guest: that's the key question.

what the people would love to be a member of congress. question for the political committees and outside interest groups that want people to run for congress is finding the right person. host: and when in their mind makes a right candidate? guest: a democrat who can win in a republican area or a republican who can win in a democratic area. this year you saw a lot of pandering in kentucky for the democrats. senator mitch mcconnell, the minority leader, that the state he represents. in kentucky, the democrats are looking for a strong candidate who can win in the republican- leaning states. they have had a little trouble. ashley judd is the latest person who tried to get into that race and decided not to run. the problem extends elsewhere. democrats are looking for strong candidates in georgia. they have very few options next year in the u.s. senate. similarly, republicans are looking for strong candidates in democratic areas of the country. the political plainfield will be fought in the middle. if you can find a strong republican who can win new york city, that's a great candidate.

most folks, even the ones who want to run for congress, might not be that strong a candidate. so you want to find someone who can win and who can win in parts of the country that are challenging for that party. host: the last caller talked about some reasons you might want to be a congressman. this on twitter -- guest: that's a huge part. we asked about the local reporters is a thankless job. they're spending their entire time trying to find money from special-interest, from zero people, and from the internet, to grow grass roots support. it's a huge amount of their time. during the time congress is in session, lawmakers in the evening as fund-raisers. in the morning a breakfast sometimes steps from the capital. it's a lot of work. some of it's not all that much fun for the members. none of them like fund-raising. host: these committees you point in your story spans $600

million in 2012. as we are preparing for 2014, the first fundraising numbers just came out. the democratic senate committee raised $13.7 million in the first quarter this year. the national republican senatorial committee, $6.9 million. the democratic house committee, $22.6 million raised in the first quarter of the year. the republican house committee, nrcc, $17.5 million in the first quarter of the year. guest: the money makes a big difference especially in the new era of superpac's, which often outspends particular candidates and it makes a huge difference for them to have more money. they get cheaper rates for ads. all that calling and dialing for dollars ends up benefiting the particular candidates even though it may not be the best thing for democracy.

host: we're talking about congressional reporting. phyllis is up next from illinois on the republican line. your honor with shane goldmacher. caller: good morning. i have a suggestion. i pulled up the years of congress, the senate and house, recently, it was 6000 years of old men and women sitting there. it is an oligarchy. why don't we start switching to a unicameral? form unicameral? dump the delegates. then you knock out the lobbyists. for our country to get better, perhaps to be dramatic changes. nebraska and a couple other states have very successfully operated under that. form of that i would like to hear your comments.

host: phyllis talked about your suggestions for the government. here's another for you to consider -- guest: yes, fair enough. i think there is a lot of efforts to be made out there to figure out what is the best way to change our government system. frankly, is pretty well set. folks are not looking at changing the system. nebraska is the only state in the country with a unicameral legislature. but there's no serious discussion in congress about that. she mentioned term limits, but that's an issue being played out at the state level. lots of states in the 1990's created term limits and quite a few have been peeling them back in recent years. it does not guarantee there will be less money raised. it just means there's more constant race to raise money because everyone is always looking for the next office hey want to run for.

host: on twitter, the idea of one term. number of times you are running for congress, whether everett two years for house member or every six years for a senate member, is that a selling point for the senate campaign committees? guest: definitely. epicycle the campaign committees compete against one another. this year in georgia, where one of the potential a strong democratic candidates for open seats is a congressman named john barrow. he has proved an ability to win over and over in a conservative district as a moderate democrat. the democrats in the house want him to run for his seat again. in the senate where there is an open seat, the democrats would like him to run there. the chief democratic strategist says it's a pretty good selling oint, six years. he asked to run once every campaign cycles vs every single. time for the single for the senate, they have a little easier time getting people to make the leap.

it's a more appealing john. you are one of 100. especially with the rules in the senate, if you get the ability to come up legislation and have your say a lot ore. host: we're taking your calls and spots on congressional recruiting, the lay of the land for 2014. republicans can give us a call at 3881. democrats, 3880. independents -- we're talking with shane goldmacher of national journal. n twitter -- guest: no, they're not recruiting people to work in the congress, but often they follow them. if they have a strong staff, they bring them with them to

the capital. host: they bring their campaign staff over to be professional staff? guest: yes. congress is a political place and a lot of them cut their teeth on political campaigns, not just working on the policy arena. in terms of staff turnover, i don't know. it's a fairly young institutional. a lot of the staff are young, particularly for house members. the more senior people tend to work on committees and with senior lawmakers they have been with often for their whole career. host: let's go to john from herndon, virginia, on our democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i just want to follow up the previous caller. the reality is politicians listen to the people who pay more money. as a voter, usually when we elect someone, we want to make sure he's listening to us rather than people who pay more money for corporate america.

when we learn something about last election, the people spending millions of dollars always kept a first call. others don't get nothing. the fact of the matter is when congressman stay there 30 years in office, he's out of ideas. we need young people. we are part of the problem. we don't have to only blame the congressman. we have to blame ourselves. we know that when a person gets more power, he wants to extend his power to get more stuff. the reality is what we see in america and it's a shame. e elect someone for 30 years and all of a sudden he doesn't care for us. thanks for taking my call. host: now a question on twitter --

guest: that's an interesting question. for the democratic side, in his been much more of a challenge. on the republican side there's been a big schism between the tea party, which is a more citizen-run apparatus, and the party establishment. there's been a successful group of individuals to a broken through against the wishes of the party. some of the biggest names on the washington side of the aisle ran for congress or senate such as marco rubio, a very mainstream now and seen as a party leader, when he ran in 2010, the senate republican campaign committee endorsed his opponent and try to muscle him out of the race. he said he nearly dropped out. the establishment republican party decided to push him out of the race. he said that helped to galvanize conservative supporters for his cause prepares an ability for individuals to break through, especially republicans because they're such a warring faction now. they are people on the right edge of the party able to push through and pushed against the

establishment. host: in your pc to say a few -- in your piece you say some have caused problems for the nrsc in recent yearssuch as christine o'donnell. guest: she's a good example. when she ran in 2010 in delaware, she beat a very popular republican congressman , mike castle,who had been governor before. this guy was on a path to the u.s. senate. she beat him in a republican primary. if she was not supported by the party apparatus. the leading tea party groups did not support her either, but some did. and she won a primary. the problem for republicans is she lost in the general election. she made the famous ad "i'm not a witch," which was not a big selling point for being a u.s. senator.

host: would you put ted cruz into that category of folks able to break your? guest: absolutely. he was a person who ran against the party establishment. host: now he's working for nsrc. guest: one of the most interesting things to watch is his role in the party. he won in an extensive primary last year against a well funded, wealthy lieutenant governor from texas, a mainstream establishment figure ho is also a conservative. but ted cruz said i'm going to run anyway. he was an four-star general. he won despite the fact he was outspent and the party was not supporting him. they did not support him and he won anyway. his role as vice chairman of recruiting for the republican party. the party would like him to provide cover potentially to make sure they can avoid a bloody primaries or have people come out who are anti-party establishment like christine o'donnell and todd akin, last year lost a race that was very winnable, for the republican party.

it's not clear what ted cruz will do. he did not make it clear, but it did not sound like he wanted to leave it to washington from should run and who should not. host: we're taking your calls. joel is up next from plano, texas, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. you had a good program last night with brian lamb. former congressman on. there is a crook who was pressured by haley barbour and all these lobbyists to do the wrong thing. many of these people are doing. host: talking about congressman bob ney from ohio? guest: former. caller: and they should pass

legislationthat would put the normal person in jail a long time ago. he sits down there and still has privileges. a felon and he still gets a pension and still gets health care. these people get benefits. they have a vested rights after five years. then they complain about health care. last night on 60 minutes, the bill they passed about insider-trading, i don't know if they passed it retained the bill over the last session, repealed half the bill, so staffers can do this. this is an outrage. you hear this and everybody says how honest people are, they work hard. these guys crossed the line all the time because of the money. host: if you want to see the interview that he's talking about, you can check out our question and enter program our website, c-span.org. rich in cincinnati, ohio, independent. your thoughts on congressional

ecruiting in 2014. caller: first, i totally agree with joel on the amount of corruption in congress. i was on the ballot in 2010 and 2012 as a green party candidate, which just about make independent, for the simple reason there's not a lot of support, 5%. money is the issue of politics. host: were you running in a congressional district in indiana? caller: in cincinnati, district 1. steve chabot is the 16-year incumbentand the reason is money. he buys his seat every two years.. there's no way for anybody to o anything about it.

we could do away with personhood. i would add that if you can vote, you cannot be spending money on a campaign. host: since you ran for congress in cincinnati, what was your experience running against these campaign committees, whether it is dccc or another, did you interact with them? caller: i was pretty much ignored. i spent less than $1,000 on my campaign. people don't give money to people who are not going to do them favors. it is hard to get people. green party people and libertarian party people usually have an incumbent's illing $2 million. steve has $1 million or whatever he wants to win that seat. that's just the way it is. what i am for, a third-party movement for independence movement in this country so

that we can actually have a political infrastructure on the present level that displaces the democratic and republican parties. host: thanks for calling, ich. tell us about the lay of the landheading into 2014. he talked about running for house seats. what is the current breakdown of the house democratic and republican? guest: in the house, the democrats are 17 each side of getting a majority. to do that would be a historic achievement. since 1900, since the 19th century those number of seats have not been one in a midterm election in which a sitting president is from your party, literally try to buck history to try to take the majority. on the senate side, the

republicans ar six seats shot of a majority. that's more in line historical with what can be done. especially the party opposite the president. there's the six-year itch. the public ready to put in people who are not the president's folks and thoseare the challenges. for the democrats, it's a quantitative issue. they need 17 seats. that's a lot. if you recruit these candidates all over the country, you need to win republican part of the nation's. on the senate side, but he is avoiding primary battles. with ted cruz. to avoid a todd akin, christine o'donnell. they hope to mediate such an issue. that's the landscapes. right now they are seriously out there trying to find these candidates, scarring the company to get the best folks to run. host: let's go to david from long island, new york, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i have an issue with how much money a lot of these congress

people and senators make. i also have an issue with how much money they spend to run for office and how long they stay in office. it seems to me that the campaign has gotten away from what the actual candidate is going to do for the people but how to steal seats are get votes or make the population happy with the money they are spending for votes. if you talk to these people, they don't know the people. they don't know what they are doing for the people. they don't receive anything extra -- increases to social security, increases to food stamps has not been there, just the amount of people collecting hem. unfortunately life quality hasn't improved. the people that they are voting for, they just see a big party every two years or four years or six years and they just want to vote whatever sounds good at the moment. it seems that the politicians

are playing politics with google, twitter, and all sorts of other social media to obtained these votes. just vote for me because i'm the party with the most money who can demagogue the other party very quickly and shut them up very quickly on talk shows or news shows and nobody from the other party shows up to the other news shows to do nterviews. host: a chance to jump in. guest: one of the issues that comes up as people are worried about money in politics and lawmakers raising money and answering to pecial-interest. there's no question and it plays a huge role in washington. we ran through the top what's the most campaign committees raised in the first quarter of the year. we're talking about the quarter farthest from a national election. the numbers for even the senate and democrat are still over $13 million. it's a huge amount of money and there's no question it plays a big role.

and frankly the lawmakers are displeased how much money they have to raise. but the reality of our system in which the supreme court ruled money is speech and these candidates can raise what they want and raise money for what they want in somewhat limited increments but it plays a big part and there's no question there's a lot of the frustration from the public about it and not sure what can be done in the short term to change that but the courts made it clear there aren't limits on the ability to use money, to buy campaign commercials and to express yourself publicly. host: we have someone from new york from the independent line. good morning. caller: i wonder if a law limiting people being able to contribute money only to candidates who represent the area in which they could vote. since corporations have been deemed people, a corporation could only give money to

candidates that represent the area where the headquarters is located, something on those lines. i realize it probably couldn't -- wouldn't be -- it's not likely to pass but i'm wondering how that could play out if it could pass. thank you. >> you answered your own question, it's not likely to pass, a. and if it did, the supreme court has been very clear that money is speech. so limiting my ability to spend money somewhere else would be unconstitutional. you see this playing out a lot with michael bloomberg, the new york city mayor who is spending a lot of his own money across the country on the gun control debate and talked about airing ads in arkansas mark prioror who voted against background checks. there are a lot of people who don't like that. in arkansas they are tarring him as an outsider and to do that to spend that money on speech is pretty much protected by the supreme court. >> in your article, why would anyone want to run for

congress, you talk about the outside interest groups that often play into this recruiting process we're talking about, the club for growth being one you talk about and emily's list. talk about their role. >> these are two different groups. emily's list is a group for democratic women who are pro-choice and they're big about trying to get these women to run for congress, run for u.s. senate and they make the sell and in fact last year was the most women senators ever on the senate now and was a big year for emily's list. in massachusetts, the president was among many who spoke with elizabeth warren who made the leap to run for u.s. senate. they don't stop working and try to build a bench from the local level to the state legislature to congress to the u.s. senate and their golet ultimately would be a democratic woman president. on the right, there is a different group, a anti-tax group, pro growth, pro free trade and their goal is to recruit candidates to run and

raise a lot of money from individuals and conservatives and bundle it together and give to these candidates. and there again, trying to get those people to run for office, they're not as aggressive as emily's list about going out and finding the candidates and make them come to them. they've got a conference room downtown and in washington and invite all comers to come and have been a thorn in the side of the republican establishment and spent quite a bit of money in races they backed their candidate others didn't want. we talk about money in politics, the party candidates raised money and these outside groups raise a lot of money and opened the playing field a bit, not to everybody and no to some folks who are calling in and saying regular folks are running but changed the dynamics quite a bit. the power is far more diffuse in getting people to run for congress than it used to be. host: let's go to mary from coronado, california. on the democratic line.

caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i watch the house and the senate. and the republicans, they just work one day of the week and they're gone to their states every weekend. i mean, that's our tax dollars we're paying for them to work in washington. work in em in to washington and they're in a hurry to get out of there and get on a plane and go lie to their constituents. that's all they do, and then very have their lobbyists in washington. they don't do anything. they used to go home once every three months. why is it every week they have to go home to do nothing and they don't do anything in washington? especially the republicans. some of the democrats stay and want to stay and work. the democrats can fix this money situation, if we get to 2014, they want to fix that, the money situation where it

used to be 2,500 or something like that, the limit they could donate and now it's just money, money, money in washington. it's just too much corruption and i am really frustrated. i don't like what's going on in the house and the senate and i see it and people need to get educated on, you know, before they vote. host: that's mary from california this morning. congress is on recess this week, its members already going home and raising money and campaigning this week? him host: they are long gone from washington, last week at the end of the week. there was a question how late friday night they'd have to stay or if they had to stay into the late evening to pack this legislation regarding furloughs for air traffic controllers and they made a decision to make sure they got out of here and didn't have to stay too late. in washington they call these recesses a district work period. most people who describe it as a recess, they're going home and talking to their

constituents. one of the caller's issues she raised is this idea people used to be in washington more. if you talk to old-timers around the capitol, they say it's a big problem, that relationships used to be formed on weekends, that people used to spend their time here and their families near one another. nd creating compromise doesn't exist anybody. pete sessions who used to be the top recruiter for the nrcc and i spoke tom and he said look, i've been in congress quite a few years and i've only spent one weekend in washington the whole time i've been here. and this is one of the party leaders and he spent one weekend a while back for the president's inauguration and pomp and circumstance needed to be here. folks don't stay here but go back home, whether for family or constituent work or recess. you can decide. they're not in washington nearly as much as they used to be. their families aren't in washington and does have an impact. >> one of the issues you talked

about in your story especially involving pete sessions with his recruitment strategies, in particular trying to get more female candidates into the republican party. can you talk about what he said? guest: so much a startling example he is recruiting a woman to run for congress named martha robey in alabama. she's a younger woman, i believe she's 36 now. she won and has two children and said when he was trying to recruit her ran into quite a bit of resistance in the republican party, with his own colleagues in congress and people questioned whether it had what it takes to run for congress as a young mother. this is symptomatic and is a party that tried to diversify and recruit more women candidates, more african-american candidates. the party went through a recent autopsy for $10 million to those outreach communities. thears the lead recruiter, he ran from resistance from the hall of him power to get a

young mother to run but thought she would be distracted. he convinced his colleagues to accept her as the party of pick and she ran and won in a seat they wanted to pick off. host: we're taking your calls and comments and have about five minutes left with shane goldmacher of "the national journal" and if you want to call in with questions from candidate recruiting. good morning, gene, from our independent line. >> can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: i want to demand from texas, they just called a few minutes ago, and the woman that called a few minutes ago that just got off, the ma'am and guy from texas, if you all want to know the truth, go to facebook and look up jane br o. i have othing to lose, i'm a veteran.

o to gene brook. host: gene brook running for president. let's go to lee from our democratic line. good morning, lee. caller: good morning, sir. i wonder if you could address the issue of gerrymandering and how it renders the improvement of individuals with alternative or moderate points of view from running, especially in republican districts. but certainly democratic as well. thank you, sir. host: that's a really good question. there are 435 house districts in the congress but the vast majority of them are not competitive by these party officials because they're overwhelmingly democratic or overwhelmingly republican. the number of competitive districts has been going down according to political analysts to the point they're somewhere,

by some estimates, no more than 90 seats and the whole country could be remotely labeled as competitive and some say it's 50. out of 435. it play as huge role because those seats those folks are talking about for people that are in congress for years in a safe district because if it's a 70% republican seat, it's hard for a democrat to get to 50% for only 30% of them. and it's hard for these democratic seats to break through it all if they're controlling 40% of a district and play as huge role and makes the recruitment process more important. if there are only 50 seats competitive in the house you darn well need to find 50 strong candidates to run. we talked about the best d.n.a., they're political unicorns, the republicans who win in new york city, the democrats can win in kentucky. those are the folks they're looking for and are the few people who can flip these seats who are gary commandered in one way or -- gerrymandered in one

way or another, especially in south carolina, overwhelmingly republican won by mitt romney along the line of 18 percentage points and the democrats don't have a chance there because the republicans nom notted -- nominated their former governor mark sanford who had political baggage and went to argentina and disappeared a while as governor. and the democrats have steven colbert's sister who is the candidate there and turning up a lot of excitement in the democratic base. host: those candidates are meeting for the first time today in their first and only scheduled debate at 7:00 p.m. tonight. check out c-span.org for details about that debate. live today at 7:00 p.m. let's go to monty now from portsmith, ohio, on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you today? host: go ahead. caller: i've been a republican since i was allowed to vote and started voting when ronald reagan was running for

president. i've been in the military and reported the republican party religiously, but now i'm to the point because of all this congressional campaign committees, corporation funds, to the point where i don't think they're playing fair anymore. and now i watch and i watch my candidates very closely here, and i try to pick the one with the lest connection to some affiliation. most people here, they vote party lines, i'm a democrat, i'm voting democrat. i am a republican, i vote republican. i've decided not to do this because of the democratic committees. like your california caller earlier, i'm with her. people need to be more conformed -- informed about who is in these candidates' corners. you've got to know who they are. you have to know everything. it's not just going out and casting a vote anymore. you have to be educated in this. i'll take my answer off the

air. thank you. guest: something they're seeing more and more, people being turned off by their government. guest: this is the mark rubio thing i was talking about where his party came in to support the opponents and backfired and one reason the candidate recruitment is such a tough job, robert jesmer was the former chief strategist the last two games and he said look, i'll travel across the country and meet with these candidates and wives and convince them to run. they wouldn't meet in a main plaza downtown but a small diner far away from town to avoid media scrutiny so it wasn't seen as pick of the party bosses. it's not a positive thing these days. washington is disliked. we mentioned at the top colonoscopies and where congress rates in terms of popularity. folks don't want to associate with washington. host: they want the money and support. they want the money and support. karl: they don't want to be i.d.'d as the partss