searching in vain for a bright line solution but the beautiful thing about our constitution is that like our society, it can evolve. are you two ever going to agree on big issues and still maintain a friendship? >> we agree on a whole lot of stuff. ruth is really bad only on the knee-jerk stuff. [laughter] she is a really good textualists. where the text is there, she's terrific. she's obviously very smart and most cases, i think come a we are together. i think we are together in a lot of criminal defense cases, of holding the rights of the criminal defendant. ruth and i are quite frequently in dissent from the court's decision.

you have it wrong. >> these 5-4 decisions where she is on one side -- >> that's because the press focuses on the 25% of the heady cages, the constitutional cases. most of what we are doing is trying to interpret dense statutes congress passed, very difficult to parse. on those cases, there isn't the usual lineup the press expects to see in the most-watched cases. so we agree on many procedure cases. not always. you got one wrong last year. [laughter] and also, i have to say something else. we both care about the way opinions are crafted.

it's not easy to write an opinion. i think you care very much about how it is said and said why. the way we say it is quite different. >> one reason we became such good friends on the d c circuit was we were both former academics. harry edwards was another academic on the court. but in academia, when you wrote a law review article, you would circulate it to your colleagues and i would make comments, helpful comments, not just this is wrong. but there's an additional point you could make. ruth and i did that with one another's opinions. she would suggest different stuff i could put an end i would her as well. >> our time is up. i'm sorry about that. i want to thank our wonderful, attentive audience.

i want to thank the many who listened all over the world, but most important way, i want to thank our remarkable guests, to sitting justices of the supreme court of the united states, antonin scalia and ruth bader ginsburg. thank you both so much. [applause] and as we now close, i want to say thank you to all of the people who have made this kind of civilized conversation possible and they know they are. that's all we can do for now. i am marvin kalb and as edward murrow used to say, good night and good luck. [applause]

thank you so much. these are going out? this is still being seen on c-span. the first question in front of me is to justice scalia. why are you the way that you are? [laughter] you could hit a home run on that. >> the devil makes me do it. [laughter] >> justice insperity, the next question from josh gibson, a student at the kennedy school. the first amendment is a bit of a grab bag of free expression rights. did the founders consider and then decide against including others?

are there others they or you wish had been included? >> that was the concern about having a bill of rights. you wrote down what the rights were and may be there were some you left out. we do have this statement in the ninth amendment that says the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others. one thing we didn't bring up before, the first amendment is the first amendment. the first thing that was on the minds of the framers was not freedom of the press, it was about not having an established church. the first thing is no law respecting the establishment of religion. then the freedom side of it or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

the first thing they did not want to have was the church of england. >> but that is kind of a negative. something that you cannot do. >> yes. >> what is the positive side of that -- freedom of religion? >> it is all negative. it is all saying what the government cannot do. limitations on the government to read that is what the bill of rights is. the government to not do this or that. they are all negative. >> except for the government, everybody can do what they want. >> absolutely. >> to take an example, we have an antidiscrimination law. of 1964. until then, discrimination was ok and the private sector. because the constitution restricts what government can do.

a private employer could say, i don't want any women. that would be ok until 1964. >> did you have something to do with that? [laughter] >> i would say president johnson in the congress did when they passed the civil rights act of 1964. >> i have a question from catherine of the newseum. to whom does the first amendment apply? do undocumented immigrants have this protection? >> americans abroad have this protection. other people abroad do not. >> when we get to the 14th

amendment, it doesn't speak of citizens. some constitutions grant right to citizens. ours says persons. the person is every person who is here. documented or undocumented. >> thank you. i have a question from david. a prominent lawyer who is here with us. where'd you look to decide whether freedom of the press is or is not identical with freedom of speech? i have a feeling that is a loaded question. [laughter] >> i have never thought it was anything except identical. i can't imagine you can limit some things that can be spoken but cannot limit things that can

be printed. i think it is the same criteria as to whether the limitation is unconstitutional. >> i think he must have a case in mind. [laughter] >> a question here from vicki of u.s. news & world report. is there any case that rattled your friendship, justice ginsburg? >> i think we were most -- over the vmi case. remember that? >> it was a great dissent. [laughter] >> you were the only dissenter. >> that is only because clarence was recused because he had his son there. >> that's true. remember that the chief of voted

for my judgment, not your dissenting opinion. [laughter] we went, i don't know how many rounds. >> we did, back-and-forth. >> i had a footnote that referred to the university of virginia at charlottesville. you said, you have to forgive this innocent person. there is no university of virginia at charlottesville. >> she even talked about the campus. >> he gave me a copy of his dissent. he was not ready to circulated. he gave it to me and said i want to give you as much time as i can to answer this. i went up to my conference.

it ruined my whole weekend. [laughter] he gave me the extra days to respond. i appreciated that. >> i have never gotten angry at ruth or any of my colleagues. because of the way they voted in an opinion. if you cannot disagree with your colleagues on the law without taking it personally, you have to get a another day job. it is not the kind of job that will allow you to behave that way. we disagree on the law all the time. it is never had anything to do with our friendship. >> we do have a different style. i say people might guard my opinions as dull or boring. yours are really jazzy sometimes. [laughter]

>> here is a question. justice stevens recently suggested a constitutional amendment to modify the second amendment. if you could amend the constitution in one way, what would it be and why? justice scalia? >> i certainly would not want a constitutional convention. whoa. who knows what would come out of that. if there were a targeted amendment that were adopted by the states, i think the only provision i would amend is the amendment provision. i figured out what percentage of the populace could prevent an amendment to the constitution. if you take a bare majority in the smallest states by population, i think something

less than two percent of the people can prevent a constitutional amendment. it ought to be hard, but it shouldn't be that hard. >> justice ginsburg? >> if i could choose in amendment to add to this constitution, it would be the equal rights amendment. [applause] >> what you mean by that, please? >> it means women are people equal in stature before the law. that is fundamental constitutional principle. i think we have achieved that through legislation, but legislation can be repealed. it can be altered. i mention this title vii of the civil rights act.

the first one was the equal pay act. that principle belongs in our constitution. it is in constitution written since the second world war. i would like my granddaughters when they pick up the constitution to see that that notion that women and men are people of equal stature, i would like them to see that is a basic principle of our society. >> would you doubt in your mind that would pass the judgment of the american people? >> it did not. it came pretty close. that is an illustration of how hard it is -- >> to get an amendment. >> yes. >> a question here but no idea

who wrote it. to what extent do social media platforms such as twitter, where speech can be broadcast to millions instantly, challenge traditional concepts of free speech? interesting question. what is your thought, justice scalia? >> i don't know that it challenges traditional concepts of free speech. it certainly challenges traditional manners of finding out who said what were certain people say things that are unlawful or punishable by law. i don't think it changes what the first amendment means. >> there is a great danger for people who use those devices -- you can't take it back.

once you let it out, it is there for everybody to see. >> you don't feel it changes the concept of freedom of speech? >> you would have to give me an example. >> senator newman asked this question. as it becomes easier to share opinions and events, should social media, i.e. twitter, facebook, etc., be required to limit what is shared? is that a legal question? >> no. it is a policy question. i don't do policy. [laughter] >> i would agree with my colleague. >> joshua of the washington center. do feel the separation of church and state has been misunderstood with congress and the supreme court taking a proactive stand

on the establishment portion but not on the prohibition part? >> i don't understand what he means by the last part. >> i was hoping you would understand. [laughter] i'm sorry, i'm not there. our last question. when you are a youngster, what did you want to be when you grew up? oh lord. >> maybe i am unusual. i don't ever recall wanting to be anything. a baseball player or a hockey player or a lawyer. certainly never a judge. i never set my cap on being a judge. i didn't even want to be a lawyer when i was in college. when i graduated, i didn't know what i was going to do. i had an uncle who was a lawyer. uncle vince.

he had an office in trenton. i used to go and hang out. what i was assigned to do. if i have any quality that accounts for my making it this far, it is my ability to interest myself in whatever was shoved under my nose, no matter how dull it was. i took pleasure in doing it to the extent i could perfectly. but i never set my cap on being even a federal judge, much less a supreme court justice. >> justice ginsburg? >> my growing up, there was so many limits on what a girl could aspire to be. she could not be a police officer.

she could not be a firefighter, a coal miner. she could not work at night. all these restrictions. very few women lawyers from a maybe three percent of the bar. even fewer judges. i never aspired to be a lawyer. certainly not a judge. if i had to make a living, i was going to be a teacher. that was a secure job for women. the exhilarating thing for me, what i think my daughter and granddaughters, is opportunities opened to them that did not exist. my favorite example is my granddaughter who is now 23. when she was eight, she was with me. she said, i want to be part of the show, too. the reporter said, what would you like to be?

her response was, i would like to be president of the united states of the world. [laughter] that to me is the change in what girls can aspire to do and achieve. it has been exhilarating. >> unfortunately, we have come to the end of the line. i want to share with you the essence of a conversation that was repeated over and over again with me and the producers of the program. especially mike friedman, the executive producer. that is the thought that we live in a time in washington when the idea that two people who have strongly different opinions on very important issues can actually be good friends and can actually respect one another.

that kind of mutual respect is so terribly important today. i hope, i truly hope, that this program, televised as it has been, can be a model for people all over the country who might have different opinions but do recognize that in this country there's plenty of room for different opinions. we ought to have more room for mutual friendship. thank you so much for being here. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, we ask that you remain in your seats while the justices are escorted from the ballroom. once again, we would ask that you please remain in your seats.

>> this month, c-span is pleased to present our winning entries in the documentary competition. annualcam is c-span's competition that encourages students to think critically. the question we asked students to base their documentary on was -- what is the most important issue congress should consider in 2014? craddock, mackie mallison wantaniel gotkowitz congress to make gun control their most important issue. >> violent crime is a killer. [overlapping voices] >> hi. i'm henry craddick. year, there have been numerous mass shootings. the shootings have left americans frightened and

unsettled. we think the biggest issue congress should address in 2014 is gun control. >> we first talked to dr. frank psychologist, about his opinion on gun cto ontrol. criminal psychologist has caused me to be involved in criminal cases and firearms. and it is caused me more importantly to study very carefully all kinds of literature that links to violence involving firearms. in the course of all that investigation and study, what i found is that --several things one, our society regulates firearms just fine. in much the same way we regulate motor vehicles. even though there is not a constitutional amendment that says we have a right to have a

one that saysis we have a right to have a firearm, they are treated more as a privilege than a right. and the majority of the people use them responsibly. people who use them irresponsibly are criminals. at the least, they do not get to use them or have them at all. usually whatever sentence is -- given is greater because firearms is used. the bottom line is -- firearms to not cause violence. violet people cause violence. >> the compromise i would say would be to make background checks a little lengthier. to go more in depth with mentaly who has had issues, or to mr. violence.

follow they do check them now. i think we could compromise on the fact that the background, in order to get a firearm, it may be harder to in the future. i support gun control. i support it because the number of gun deaths in the number of injuries is completely unacceptable unless we change the way we handle guns. those deaths will continue. the ones that make the papers that you read about, the big are horrifying, but the number of young people who are at the beverage shop or who tragically take their own the number of people who commit suicide is horrifying. and people really need to understand that having a gun

presents a risk. >> about 30,000 people die by firearms each year. 2013, president obama presented his land to prevent gun violence in the u.s. -- improvinglude the background check, banning assault weapons and large magazines of ammunition, creating and enforcing stricter trafficking laws, and increasing gun violencethe epidemic. >> guns are too easily acceptable to criminals, people with mental illnesses -- issues. >> i feel strongly about assault weapons and others that have military applications, not things that people need for hunting or if they want to use self-defense. the irony is, and those of you who have studied it, know the people with guns in their home are more likely to be subjected to gun violence. and that the victims are very often family and friends. >> the issue there with firearms

with large magazine capacity is not one that the particular gun is anymore dangerous or any more vicious or any more of a problem than any other firearm that can hold a single round. the issue is what the person behind the gun and what their intent is. >> i do think you can respect the second amendment and allow people to have a weapon to hunt or if they feel, despite the evidence, that they think they are safer if they have a gun in the house, even though they are more likely to have a family member die if you have a gun in the house, that is their choice. but i do think that we need to reassess the range of firearms that we allow people to have, how much they buy them, and what they do with them. violenceo treat gun

like a medical issue. >> the major county sheriff association felt that gun control in and of itself would not solve the complex problems of extreme gun violence across this country that is happening each and every day. >> a dozen more killers, a hundred more? guessn we possibly even how many? >> the nra's proposal for more armed guards and schools may be helpful in some instances, but it falls far short of the strong , serious, comprehensive action needed to stop the kind of horrific tragedy that occurred in newtown, last week. ♪ >> the second amendment is a

very controversial topic in the u.s. it states that people have the right to keep and bear arms. is this still relevant in the 21st century? to watch all of the winning videos and learn more about our competition go to c-span.org and click on student cam and tell us what you think about the issue these students want congress to consider. post your comment on the face of page or tweet us using #studentcam. moments, the bipartisan policy center focuses on how to reform congress to make it less partisan.

and more than an hour and a half, a manhattan institute discussion on the future of conservatism and the republican party. re-air "the kalb with justice scalia and ruth bader ginsburg. the brookings institution tomorrow morning is looking at how russia's annexation of crimea is affecting u.s. foreign policy and how it might be a factor in present obama's trip next week to japan, south korea, malaysia, and the philippines. that discussion is live on c-span at 10:00 eastern. meetingcent town hall with the bipartisan policy center's commission on political reform focusing on congress. the commission includes former members of congress and white house advisers. the john f. kennedy center in boston, this is a little more than an hour and a half.

>> welcome back. "usa today."e of we have been honored to participate in this project with the bipartisan policy center and its commission on political reform. laim to have solved the issue of congressional dysfunction and political polarization, but over the past year we have tried to foster thoughtful and productive conversation about it among policymakers and engaging a lot of americans, including you. today we have another very impressive group of panelists. former members of congress and others, all members of the bye-bye -- seven -- the bipartisan commission on political reform. as we start, i want to say to our panelists, thank you so much

for your service to your state and our country. [applause] let me introduce them. the cofounder of the edward m kennedy institute for the united icky kennedy. former utah senator bob bennett. maine senator a lot of so -- olympia snowe. maine contingent here, i am gathering. former texas congas and charlie gonzalez. -- congressman charlie gonzalez. and former texas congressman hnerenry bania. n youre fuller bios i

program and online. we invite everyone in the audience are watching on the webcast to join our conversation. if you are physically here, you can fill out one of these cards with a question or comment that will be brought up to me. and i will use some of them to this conversation. if you're digitally here, send us an e-mail or a tweet. our twitter handle is bpc_ bipartisan. #engagedusa. and we will read your comments. in fact, we want to start with two contrasting comments we have already gotten from twitter. "givenrna smith, gridlock in congress, is a time to think about term limits, some other means to kick them out for poor performance?" but a contrasting view from doug who said, "why is division that? i am happy when congress is in good luck because america safe." [laughter]

you >> we found both of these points of view in a national poll. we will talk about some of the poll results and some of the comments gathered from a range people. let's watch. [video clip] for the past year, usa today and the bipartisan policy center have joined forces to look at the nation's political polarization. this has contributed to washington's or and fueled happiness on how government works or doesn't work. institution center philadelphia, ohio state university in columbus, and now

at the jfk library in boston. we cosponsored four national polls taken by whit ayres and mark mehlman. in our new survey, americans 2-1 say the government has gotten off on the wrong track. strongly approve of the job that congress is doing, nearly half strongly disapprove. when we ask people what they liked about congress, the top response was we can kick them out if they don't do what we want. what about solutions? offeredofficials have suggestions, including some broad ideas. >> the thing that will ultimately make washington work is for the democrats and republicans in congress to put the people of this country first and their own political ambitions second. pay more attention

to the structural limitations of the constitution, i think that some of the things that are so acrimonious today would become less acrimonious. >> but there is not much consensus on particular steps intended to make washington work better. instance, republicans think they senate filibuster is a good rule. democrats are inclined to think it is a bad role. independents are split evenly. ofle some experts say mems congress need to spend more time in washington to foster cooperation, two thirds of americans say their representatives should be spending more time home in their districts. suggest wemakers focus more on substance, less on politics. in a substantive conversation, you often have more convergence. you still have differences, but you can narrow down where they are and what they are. if i talk to a republican

economist, we speak a similar language. we will have different views on things like the minimum wage but it will be a similar language. so i think that helps. and that is what the bipartisan policy center is great at, bringing experts on both sides and bringing them to a substantive conversation. i think it would be a little utopian to think we would know exactly how to do that to my that that would solve all our problems. but my little piece of it is part of the answer. >> some things haven't changed. said ourfour americans politics have become more divided in recent years. in our poll taken this month, almost precisely the same number agreed. one finding has changed. a year ago, just 20% those political divisions are a good thing because it gives voters a real choice. now that number has doubled and the percentage who say it is a

bad thing because it makes a harder to get things done has dropped by nearly 20 percentage points. that could mean the polarized state of american politics increasingly is being seen as the new normal. express continue to concern about the showdown, the recriminations, and the gridlock that carry much of national politics today. >> people can't expect that we are going to be able to solve the really big problems facing our country. >> it is not just the eyes of america, but the eyes of the world that are watching the greatest country on the face of the earth, the greatest democracy in history. we can't have people in the country lose faith in our system . and when they see craziness like that, i wonder how much it affects the rest of the world and how they view our country and our preeminence in this world.

>> on that at least, just about everybody seems to agree. the stakes are high. >> not a surprise, americans say one in five americans approve of congress just a little bit. is there one reform that could improve congress's standing? >> i don't think it is one reform but a combination of reforms. i want to comment on those 2, 2 started off with about term limits and congress not doing anything. i disagree with both of them. hldy used to love to quote mencken. for every context problem, there is an easy answer and it's wrong. and i think those comments said in that description.

i personally am opposed to term limits because legislation takes time. it takes knowledge. it takes getting an expertise about an issue. the truth is we have elections. over half of the united states senate is in his first term. over half of the house of representatives i think are in their first few couple of terms. so we have an enormous amount of turnover with our election. so i don't think term limits are the answer. feels safecomment when congress is in gridlock and doing nothing i think is a simple easy answer. that, ignores the reality in this country, we need to have a functional government. we have serious issues facing us. we need a budget. we have major foreign-policy issues facing us right now.

we have the issues with the ukraine. we have other issues that are out there. so when serious issues come about, if we haven't been talking to each other, why would recently be able to start talking to each other? one of the things we have been doing as part of this commission is thinking of ways that we can actually have members being together, even in social settings where they can learn about each other as people because it is a lot easier to come to consensus on issues or two maybe listen and hear what someone has to say if you've actually met them in a non-contentious situation. >> the idea of term limits is interesting. the first question we have gotten from the audience rights "do you think imposing congressional term limits would increase productivity in congress?" >> term limits, first of all, i

do not summer -- do not support those because, in any given election, you can vote your member of congress out. in essence, by advocating term limits, you are advocating putting responsibility on someone else's shoulders rather than your own because you can vote them out. one comment i want to make about the video shown earlier in the discussion we are having here is some factors that cause the dysfunction now. someoneyou talk to matters. whether it is in your own home, your place of business or your church, siblings, coworkers, whatever. and what we have now is a lot of harshness from people who have strong views. twoou look in contrast to presidents, reagan and clinton, who even if they were having the most difficult time of their presidency with pressures, with losing political fights in

washington, with international crisis, when they came out and spoke to you publicly, they were the most nicest optimistic people and they had an attitude like tomorrow is going to be better. and let's talk about this. they didn't have that tense, harsh tone that you hear from both sides now. to start the dialogue in washington to improve it would need to just, hey, be nice with the way you communicate. a lot of us have very strong views and that i desperate it's how you put it. another -- have a lot of strong views but it's the way you put it. another point i want to make is these elected member suddenly turn harsh and they get ugly when they get to washington? you vote for these people. america, they reflect america's attitude now, unfortunately. they don't create it once they

set foot off that plane in washington and say, hey, i am going tv mean down and dysfunctional -- i'm going to beat me now and dysfunctional. they go back home and people cheer them. america has to reflect upon itself and how, at the grassroots level, they help create this situation in washington and try to fix it. >> why do you think this is happening? auto -- all of us would agree that the tone of this course in washington and politics has gotten so much harsher and so much less civil. why has that happened? of answersll series to that question, some of them very provocative that i won't tell you. [laughter] this is not the right place and the right setting. there have been changes in media. the internet has made everybody into walter cronkite.

this is an old enough crowd. h of you know who walter cronkite is -- each of you know who walter cronkite is. [laughter] the genius of the two-party system over american history has been to force compromise within the parties. you had to choose which party you were going to be in and then you get into the democratic party. the democratic party is the party of government. they believe government is the best instrument to solve problems. the republican party is the party of free markets. they believe that the free markets, left by themselves, are the way to solve problems. they are both right because sometimes the free markets make better decisions and sometimes the government makes better decisions. if you are a special interest and you think the government is the best place to go to get your interest met, you become a

democrat and you run into other people who have become democrats whose special interest is very different than yours. and the democratic party has to work out that conflict within itself. the same thing is true within the republican party. we do not have a european system of multiple parties where every special interest has its own party. the two-party system doesn't perform that function very well anymore because you have bitter fights within parties and people insisting the rise of the word rhino and now dino. in namea republican only, senator bennett, because you disagree with me on immigration. you did the terrible thing on immigration. you voted with teddy kennedy. i said, no, i didn't. i voted with the republican

president, george w. bush, who has been a border state governor who understood the immigration problem far better than any other rest of us. and i was delighted to have senator kennedy built with us. no, no, no, you are a republican in name only because you didn't agree with us. that division becomes so strong that we don't have the kind of cohesion that used to take these in both parties where the leadership of both parties would sit down and say, ok, guys, we've got to stick together. we've got to make this thing work. we've got to compromise within ourselves and have a position -- oh, we want to pass something. that means we have to talk to some democrats. we have to work this out. but the old ronald reagan line, which in my view labels him a

is better to get 80% of what you want then 20% of nothing. i remember when we were debating was are part d and it republican proposal from a republican president and there were democrats who are saying, no, absolutely not. it's not enough. teddy kennedy said, to get the republicans to give us anything, let's take it and then argue about what more we can get later on. but as long as it is on the table and the republicans put it there, let's take it. and that is the way it used to work. now everybody has their own slice of ideology and an insistence on. he got on purity. and the two-party system isn't working as well as it used to. i do have some ideas on how to deal with it but i do not have a

quick answer for fear that it might be wrong. [laughter] divisions in the republican party cost you your seat in the senate and these divisions contributed to your decision, senator snowe, to leave the senate. is there anything the congressional leadership can do to make this work better? >> certainly. obviously could have communication and working across the aisle. that is especially important in the united states senate where it requires a building of accommodation and consensus. and unanimous consent to move anything forward in the united states senate. so much of which has to occur by agreement. rests withinower the individual senator in the senate whereas the rules of the house protected the rules of the institution because the institution is much larger. crossdoes require that

party, cross leadership communication. certainly, they could allow the process to work. the fundamental factor is in the united states senate today and in the house of representatives, the process isn't working. they are not legislating. we are not having committees that are operating and functioning where they consider legislation, report it to the floor, and then have an open debate and have an amendment process. at which point, i think senator lott was mentioning earlier, you know, you work through those issues and reach an agreement with the other side in terms of how many more minutes. sometimes, it is very cathartic in the senate. you can talk, talk, talk. just let them talk it out. give them a month to talk it out on a particular issue. the --s that are sorely sorely neglected of the ones who

deserve a month. let them talk it out. let them amend the bill. have their perspectives and the views of their constituencies represented through the force of these amendments. ultimately, you get to a point where it begins to coalesce. that is how it used to work. the fact is, when i first began my legislative career in the state legislature, the first year -- and it was true throughout my 34 years in congress -- the first year was devoted to legislating. politics isg that in the second year in election cycle by a did not deter us in the first year about working on a number of issues that are important to the country. it was synchronized between the president and the condescending leadership to work it out, knowing that these are the major issues on the agenda and that they needed to be addressed. but that is not happening today. in fact, the legislative process has virtually been abandoned.

it is all about politics, about the next election. it is not about how to craft the best policy to solve problems. they are not problem-solving anymore. it is all scoring political points for the next election and to leverage one side and disadvantage the other side politically so you capture that 32nd soundbite. 3 >>--- 30-second soundbite. so that is what is sorely lacking. you have to return to a normal legislative process. i often threatened to go to the floor of the senate and conduct a billsher course on how becomes law, you know, "schoolhouse rock." [applause] of the reasonsne

you have to have a refresher course on how things are done is because 50% of the folks that are there are in their first term and don't know, don't remember. that's the strongest argument possible against term limits. >> we have a suggestion from an e-mail. to legislation ideas become longer, less to the point, and more color for you -- more colorful since television cameras have been doing -- we want to pose a question to our audience online. here is our first question. can the senate retain its reputation as the world's greatest delivered a body without the filibuster or other minority rights?

we will report those results in just a few minutes. let's go to the point that senator bennett was just making, the fact that so many members are new and we see a lot of very senior members of congress, including the most senior members of congress, congressman dingell, announcing that they are going to retire at the end of this year congressman gonzalez, is there a loss with so many senior members deciding not to run again with the fact that so many members are relatively junior? >> i do think, of the members that have announced retirement, it really is a loss because these individuals have such a respect and love for the institution of congress and especially the house. and its legitimate function in american society. that is what you lose. now who replaces them will be important, but i think one source where we are today is a result of what happened.

you have individuals who are have alected that don't love, respect for the institution or the role of government. they are elected on a platform to make sure that there is gridlock and that government will not function. theif they could reduce number of legislative days to three or four, they probably would. that sounds like an extreme statement, but i assure you a post analysis of what is going on. you don't even have the speaker thehe house -- that is individual that was elected by the majority party. thatdon't even vet individual anymore to go out there and broker and negotiate. i think that is the real issue. i think it is a great loss. there are some people who was say that mr. dingell served 50 something years and mr. waxman was there 40 years and george

miller was there -- but i will tell you something. those were very effective legislators. you may disagree with them, but in large measure, most of those that will be leaving were real craftsman, individuals that we all learn from. and if we took those lessons -- and that is my fear -- what is less of that kind of legacy, will it suffer? or will someone else carry on? i am concerned about it. >> here is an e-mail we've gotten from gavin of syracuse, new york.

how often will it happen that members of congress get together, not to talk about politics but to forge some personal relationship? would it make a difference? >> it would make a great difference. ,hen i came into the congress the other bush was president. when i came into congress, the older bush was the president. relationships were much better. and during that season while he was there, one of the things that he did -- he was in the gym with us. he exercised with the members. the connection between people makes the difference and that connection somehow got lost, somewhere between the years i started, the years i finished. and one of the things i bring to the table is an understanding of how you deal with people, how you make people work.

i was the dean of students and dean of the chapel for eight years. if you can deal with that many young people, helping them to understand the things that are difficult to them, i learned in that environment that it is always possible to help people bring them to a level of understanding about that which they have difficulties and problems with. and i do believe that much of that could work in a political environment. but it takes a person who has that ability to help people understand not only who you are but help them to understand who they are. i think in the congress, our problem is too many do not understand who they are. they don't understand what it means once you get elected to this office. and the things that they think makes them who they are. in many instances, it is not really the thing that ultimately

gives them the power or a sense of who they are and working in an environment where you learn how to do a deal, how to make the deal, how to make the deal work for my how to lure people in, so that together, you can make something greater than it would be if you try to do it by yourself. muches the president make difference -- we are talking about congressional function and dysfunction. how much of a difference can a president make? >> the president's role is paramount. you can't have the legislative and executive branches operating in a parallel universe. unfortunately, the intersection between the two branches has been diminished. that is unfortunate because ultimately it requires that kind of communication, collaboration, and build stronger relationships when they get to know one another, irrespective of their differences. , during reagan's

administration, for example, there were regular bipartisan meetings at the white house with the president. biweekly leadership dinners at the white house. president reagan was very much engaged and weighed in with members of congress and also specifically with leadership. that is an important issue going forward on both sides. both, the support in the leadership and the president irking together on the issues that matter to this country. does that mean that they will not have differences? no, but they have to communicate and understand one another. we as people have to demand it in the future. definitely a level of accountability, they have to be elicited from people who are atning for these offices to ensure that they are going to make government work.

we can't have both branches working separately and independently of one another as has been the case. >> the most recent bush presidency working with ted kennedy to get an education bill done, before that bill clinton worked with republicans to pass the free-trade agreement, nafta and before that, you had to go neil working with reagan to pass legislation. and you are just not seeing that anymore. you talk -- you asked about the president's influence. the presidents in those cases made a special effort to have those relationships with the congress and vice versa. for some reason, that hasn't stopped. when you have to sit next to someone in the white house or on capitol hill, look them in the eye and talk about an issue, you feel it more. and if you have a difference, it's going to be a true difference before you take a speech before the tv cameras. that is different than looking at someone in the eye who

sincerely comes to you to try to work out some agreement. it sets the table for something to actually get done at the end of the day versus each one individually racing out to the podium to make a speech that is going to look good on television. >> president obama does not, it's fair to say, have good relations with members of congress, including democratic members. now in his sticks the year, is it time for him to change that? could the remainder of his second term be efrin an and more productive if there were things he did? >> i think there is death only time to change it. and i would hope that he would continue to reach out. something struck by that henry said early on about just civility and people talking to each other in a nice way. i think we also have to acknowledge that we have had members of commerce actually decline presidential invitations. i've never heard of that before.

that is a place where the people need to speak members of to their congress, when the president of the united states invite you to the white house, you go. and they should be held foruntable, not be lauded not speaking to the president of the united states. or if someone calls the president a liar during a speech, that shouldn't be something to be celebrated. i think those are such acts of such incivility that we should be speaking out about that. i mean, i think that there is a lot of incivility and blame to go around, but i think that people need to speak out and say this isn't what we want of our government. this isn't what we want of our elected representatives and we need everybody to continue -- we want you to break bread together. because a lot happens over a dinner table. we talk about families staying together and eating together and

having good relationships. the same is true of a good rework asked a good working relationship between the executive branch and the legislative branch that also among legislators. >> i agree. i find it incredible that people turn down white house invitations. it seems like your kind of dissing the institution of the president. >> i really think, for many republicans, a photo of that republican next to the president , to president obama, will cost you the primary. it has happened at every primary since 2010. and for us not to discuss that environment, which is very after 2010 -- i am a democrat and i am not blaming all the republicans and i think the president did make a greater concerted effort at times and establish those relationships. but we should not fool ourselves.