>> it is hard to keep the freedom of the press because there are many people who do not like what the press is ublishing. there was a cartoon around -- just after the revolutionary war, and it shows a tory being arted off by the police, and the caption is, "liberty of speech to those who speak the speech of liberty." so the right to speak against government, against what is the prevailing view of society, is remendously important. >> including the right to speak against democracy. do not forget that. some of the biggest fights are whether freedom of speech includes freedom to speak against freedom of speech or

against democracy. it's flawsble that it does. we have rejected that view. communists were entitled to say this democratic system does not work, let's get rid of it. >> that took a good while for that idea, because there were laws against anarchy and edition. >> it takes us perhaps i think to the 1964 ruling of the supreme court on "the new york times" v. sullivan. you spoke about libel. in this particular ruling, very specific regulation -- that is the wrong word -- but concepts are written into this ruling. would like to read what justice brennan has said because

i think it deserves to be quoted as often as possible. "public discussion is a political duty, and it must be uninhibited, robust, and wide open and may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." you were mentioning this in a sense a moment ago. i am wondering, justice scalia, if this kind of an issue were brought before the court today, at that time, in 1964, i believe the court's ruling was a unanimous vote and what would happen today? >> i do not recall whether it was unanimous. i'm not sure it was. >> it was, it was 9-0. but i stand to be corrected. >> even so it was wrong. the issue is not whether it is a good idea to let the

institutional -- i'm sorry, to let anybody -- what the case holds is if you are in public figure and it is a matter of some doubt what it takes to become a public figure -- but certainly any politician is a public figure -- if you are a public figure, you cannot sue somebody for libel unless you can prove that effectively that the person knew it was a lie. so long as he heard from somebody, it makes it very difficult for a public figure to in a libel suit. i think george washington, i think thomas jefferson, i think the framers would have been appalled at the notion that they could be libeled with impunity. when the supreme court came out with that decision, it was revising the constitution. it might be a good idea to set

up a system that way and new york state could have revised its libel laws by popular vote to say, if you liable a public figure, it is ok, unless it is malicious. but new york state did not do that. it was nine lawyers who decided that is what the constitution ought to mean even though it had never meant that. that is the difference between ruth and me between a living constitution. she thinks that is all right and i did not. >> the situation did not exist in 1787 or 1791, that the court confronted in "times" vs. ullivan. it was a sheriff who said he was libeled in an advertisement in "the new york times." it was in the midst of the civil

rights era, where libel laws could be used as a way of squesming the people who were asserting their freedom. i think that "times" against sullivan is an issue of major ignificance. i will say that the lawyer who argued that case for "the new york times," a great constitutional law scholar, when the story is told, we won, we won unanimously, the response was a little hesitant. he said that it is great for "the new york times," but what about all those -- i do not know -- papers that do not have high standards?

but i think that "times" against sullivan is now well accepted, and i quite disagree with my colleague. i suspect that if the founding fathers were around to see what life was like in america in the 1960's they would have agreed with that. >> so you would have voted for it? >> god, yes, she would have oted for it. >> i will not say anything more about it, because this is a case we are going to hear next week, i think. a state has passed a law that says thou shalt not make false tatements in a political campaign against any candidate, any ballot initiative, no false

statements in the elections. the questions that the court will face is, is that statute prohibiting false statements in political campaigns -- is that constitutional? >> what are we going to expect on that? >> decision by the end of une. >> there is another decision. i don't remember where justice scalia was, but it was the alvarez case, the man who lied about having the medal of honor. it was called something. >> something valor. >> stolen valor act. >> before we get into that, i ould like to take a moment now to remind our radio, television, and internet viewers and listener that this is "the kalb

report," and i'm discussing freedom of the press with justices antonin scalia and ruth bader ginsburg. i want to point out that there is a new report out by an organization called reporters without borders, very highly regarded. the u.s. has experienced a profound erosion of press freedom in 2013, dropping 14 points to number 46 in global rankings. reporters are a little nervous these days, and they like to feel that they have friends. i want to know in your judgment whether reporters are right in considering the supreme court today as a friend of the concept of freedom of the press. justice scalia? >> you want me to say no to that? [laughter] of course, everybody on the court believes in freedom of the press.

there is some difference as to what that means, ok? as to whether it means, for example, that a member of the press, no matter what the national emergency may be, need not disclose his or her source. that is a question that has not come up before us, and i think it is very -- a very interesting and not necessarily -- not a question with a clear answer. so you can believe in freedom of the press and still have fun disagreeing. >> i would like to know how it was determined that that was -- that 46 was -- i was just thinking of the tradition in england, which holds to this very day, that --

the press can't report about ongoing trials. >> and they can libel public figures. >> since 1964 and the sullivan-"new york times" case, it's very difficult for anyone to libel a reporter on this issue. what i would like to get here is something that is current and very important to a lot of people in this country. i suspect the court is going to face a number of major decisions in the area of government surveillance, the national security agency, the nsa, it's newly disclosed activity, and all of the problems of whistleblowing journalism. it is worth noting the "washington post" this week won a pulitzer prize for his reporting on edward snowden and the nsa leaks. i would like to start by asking you do you think they deserve the prize? justice ginsburg?

>> that's a question the journalists in the audience are much better equipped to answer that i am. >> i don't read "the post" so i have no idea what they got the prize for. [laughter] >> i do, including the announcement at the bottom of the first page where it says what's coming up this week. it was announced as an event. >> they are very proud of that. i didn't get to it before, do you believe snowden is a whistleblower or traitor? >> i don't -- that's not part of what i worry about, really. that is a policy question, not a legal question. i stay out of that stuff. >> it's also possible, is it

not, that the question you raise could come before the court. >> that is possible. >> and we are not at liberty to preview. >> i appreciate that. let me ask the question from another angle. [laughter] >> he same question, you are to get the same answer. [laughter] >> but i'm going to try it anyway. [laughter] if somebody were to say to you that what i'm doing, you may disagree with, i don't mean you personally, you may all disagree with, but i am doing this because i feel a moral obligation to do this. i feel deep in my heart my country is

doing something wrong and i have an opportunity to change that. >> so did the germans who killed jews. is that the criteria? whether you honestly believe what you're doing is good? you have an obligation to form your conscience according to what is right. that's the issue. the issue is whether it's right, not whether you believe it. i'm sure hitler was very sincere. >> but the idea of it being right, you mean right according to the law as established? >> in the context you have what it, in the context, right according to -- >> some moral judgment. >> to the 10 commandments. [laughter] >> we brought up the point before about hateful speech. there was a case some many years ago involving the town of skokie, illinois, where many holocaust survivors live and do not see party decided they were going to take that town for the demonstration.

the case never came to the u.s. supreme court, but other federal courts said the demonstration is going to be peaceful, there will be police detection, we don't anticipate any violence. this group wants to march, we hate what they say, but we believe in their freedom to say it. >> but that doesn't mean it was good for them to say it or write for them to say it. it sometimes annoys me that when someone has made outrageous statements that are hateful, somebody says, sometimes the press will say he's just exercising his first amendment rights. like they are muscles, the more you use them, they are the batter, and it doesn't matter what purpose you are using them for. you can be using your first amendment rights and it can be abominable you are using your first amendment rights.

i will defend your right to use it, but i will not defend the appropriateness or manner in which you are using it now. that could be very wrong. >> justice scalia, praised by some and criticized by others for his decision the flagburning case. i imagine you thought the act itself was reprehensible. >> i would have sent that guy to jail if i was king. [laughter] >> but by your ruling, he had the right to burn the flag? >> that's what the first amendment means. you have your right to express her contempt for the government. it doesn't mean by burning a symbol that meant so much to so many people that it was right, but he had the right to do it. >> justice scalia, at a recent event in brooklyn, your recorded as saying the supreme court

should not be deciding matters of national security and you are quoted as saying "the supreme court does not note diddly about the nature of the threat -- >> did i say diddly? [laughter] >> it's truly stupid the court will be the last word on it." did you say that? >> i probably did. i certainly believe it. [laughter] >> i don't think we have a choice. the court doesn't decide whether to pick this area and straighten it out today. there are petitions for review and if there is a law the government says was violated and the other side says no, the government can't engage in that kind of surveillance, if that comes to us, we can't run away and say we don't know much about that, so we won't decide it.

>> this related to the fourth amendment, not the fifth amendment. the fourth amendment which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. the first time my court had a case involving wiretapping, it held the way the fourth amendment reads is the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects. against unreasonable searches and seizures. and the court said quite raab early about commerce asians are -- quite properly, conversations are not persons, houses, papers and effects. wiretapping may be a bad thing, states have laws against it, but does not violate the federal constitution, all right? about 20 years later, during the war in court, we did a 180 degree turn and said there are

penumbras and emanations and conversations are covered by this vague right of privacy contained in the constitution. that is the living constitution, changing what the text said and what it meant. the consequence i was pointing out in that, the consequence of that is that now the institution of the government that is going to decide is -- this highly significant nsa question about what information can you get by wiretapping? the institution that will survive that is the institution least qualified to decide. it will be my court. it is a question of balancing the emergency against the intrusion, when the emergency is high enough, you can have a higher intrusion. that's why we all get searched

when we boarded airplane. that's a terrible intrusion. we know nothing about the degree of the risk will stop nothing at all. the executive knows, the congress knows, we don't know anything and we are going to be the one to decide that question. >> so what do we do in the case comes to us? before you answer that, i would like to remind everybody in the wiretapping case, the argument that wiretapping was not an unreasonable search or seizure, there was a very strong opinion the other way by justice brandeis. if i were on that court, i would have voted the way he did. i would like to know how justice scalia distinguishes that kind of intrusion by the government. from the decision you made in the heat in missions case, the

helicopter that was flying over roofs to test the level of heat because if it was of a certain heat, maybe marijuana plants were growing. helicopter never touched the roof, and yet you said that was a violation of the fourth amendment. that was an unreasonable -- >> because the people were not being secure in their houses from unreasonable search. that is protected by the fourth amendment. >> you can wiretap someone in their house? >> if you have to break it to their house to wiretap, yes, but if you listen to conversations in the phone booth, intruding upon the right of privacy --

>> we don't have to worry about that anymore. there are no more phone booth. [laughter] >> you are right about that. >> we've gotten away from the fifth amendment, haven't we? >> let's stick with the fourth amendment. i don't know much about it and i acknowledge that up front, but my question is could data that is considered important by the media or by the government stored in a computer or stored in a cloud somewhere be considered effects? >> that's very perceptive and i thought about that. >> if you thought about that, doesn't it follow that the u.s. government would not be able to justify its nsa surveillance program and therefore

conceivably could be in violation of the constitution? no, because it's not absolute stop as ruth said, there are very few freedoms that are absolute. your person is protected by the fourth amendment on the but as i pointed out, when you board a plane, someone can pass his hands all over your body. that's a terrible intrusion, but given the danger it is guarding against, it's not an unreasonable intrusion. it can be the same thing with acquiring this data that is regarded as if that. that's why i say it's foolish to have us make the decision because i don't know how serious the danger is in this nsa stuff. >> does the supreme court have the ability to pick up the phone and call somebody at the white house and say i have a question? >> absolutely not. >> absolutely not. [laughter] we are at the mercy of whatever

people happen to bring to us. if they don't ring it to us, we don't know it. >> and we cannot make a decision based on something outside the record of the case. the parties and their lawyers have to know everything, have access to everything we will fact her into our decisions. i don't know how many times i would love to call so and so -- >> call your husband in a tax case? marty was one of the best tax lawyers and the country. >> but we can't do that because the parties aren't there. those have access to the same information, so we are hemmed in by the record of the case and the court cannot resort to information the parties do not have. >> i want to ask you the same question i asked justice scalia about the data, the storage in computers and linking that to

the word effects, and if that justifiably points to the effects, doesn't that follow justifiably that they government is in violation of the constitution by this government surveillance program? >> an argument could be made, certainly. but it is not an argument that either of us could answer. i think justice scalia said we can't answer it at all, but we will answer it if we have to. but we can get questions in the form that you pose them. we get a concrete case and not an abstract question. what can the government do? >> i would answer that one. that is persons, houses, papers and effects, not conversations. >> you could not answer it in the abstract. >> certainly not.

>> can we expect the supreme court to rule on the nsa issue? >> it depends. it will be in a federal district court in and go to the court of appeals. we do have the luxury of not having to decide rings and till they have been decided by other good minds, five judges in the federal trial courts and courts of appeals. >> and it's not our responsibility to shake of the executive and make sure they are doing what they're supposed to were shaping the congress. that's not our job. our job is to prevent people from being harmed. if nobody is being harmed, we don't get into the matter. even if someone is harmed, and less he comes to us, we don't have any self starting powers. we are at the mercy of whoever wants to bring a case or whoever doesn't want to bring a case will stop ruth and i visited

india one time a long time ago. the indian supreme court -- india has a bill of rights which says the apex court, their supreme court will assure the preservation of the liberty set forth in the bill of rights. that court interpreted that to mean that if they are sitting around on a sunday reading the bombay times and they see the police commissioner -- >> mumbai. [applause] >> i don't say that and i won't say mumbai. we have an english word for it. they say the police officer is holding people without charge. that court will on its own summon the police commissioner

to give an account of himself. our court cannot do that. it's only when people bring problems to us. but you can't do it because that's the way it's always been done or there is a rule? >> the constitution limits us to actual cases in controversy. there are courts around the world that do answer abstract general questions. constitutional courts have been set up, the constitutional council in france, that will preview a law if a certain number of deputies questioned the consistency of the bill with the constitution. the council will look at the bill, just look at the words of the bill, decide whether it's compatible with the constitution, and if the council holds it isn't compatible with the constitution, then the bill never gets enacted.

that kind of judicial preview is foreign to us. >> let's talk for a minute or so about televising hearings of the supreme court. other courts do permit television. why not the supreme court? justice scalia? >> when i first came on the court, i was in favor of it. i have long since changed my view on that. those who want to do it say they want to educate the american people. if i really thought it would educate the american people, i would be in favor of it. indeed, if the american people watched our proceedings from gavel-to-gavel, they would be educated. they would come to realize that although now and then we do these sexy cases, should there be a right to abortion of a should there be a right to suicide, should there be a right to this or that, most of the

time, we are not contemplating our naval, engaging in this broad, philosophical, ethical search. most of the time, we are doing real law. we are doing the internal revenue code, the bankruptcy code, really dull stuff. and nobody would ever again come up to me and say justice scalia, why do you have to be a lawyer to be on the supreme court question mark they think what we're doing is looking up at the sky and saying should this right or that right exists. they could guess that as well as i can. now, the problem is for every person who watches us from gavel-to-gavel, there will be 10,000 who will watch a 15 or 30 seconds takeout on the nightly news and i therein to you, that will not be characteristic of what we do. it will be man bites dog. so why should i participate in the miseducation of the american

people? >> what about your feelings? >> there's another factor. if you are televising, everything is unfolding before the camera, if you are dealing with an appellate argument, if you would come to our chambers at the moment because we start sitting on monday, you would see cards with reefs and briefs and briefs. the oral argument in court is fleeting. it's only 30 minutes a side. i don't know how many hours we have spent preparing, reading what had gone on in the case before they got to the supreme court, reading the briefs that the parties filed and then many friends of the court who want to be heard on questions of importance to them.

so the notion that an appellate argument is a contest between lawyers and the better one will win is a false picture of what the appellate process is. >> so you would be, as justice scalia, opposed to televising? >> i think it's probably inevitable because there's going to be so much pressure for it and because other courts do it. but i would be very much concerned with mis-portraying what an appeal is. it's much more important than the our total in court. >> in the couple of minutes we have left, i want to ask a question -- you have both been great buddies for a long time. when did you meet and what were the circumstances?

>> he doesn't know. [laughter] >> go ahead, ruth. >> when did you meet? >> we were buddies on the d c circuit. >> that is when you met? >> i met him for the first time when he was giving a speech to some unit of the aba. must have been administrative section. it was on a case that had recently been decided by the d c circuit. it was about -- >> we were both academics. >> it was the vermont yankee case. he was against it and i was listening to him and this agreement the good part of what he said. but the way he said it in an absolutely captivating way. >> as you know, composer eric

wang who is with us tonight has produced an opera called "scalia ginsburg." to beautiful music, you are both locked in a room and you're unable to get out unless you agree. scalia says, oh, ruth, -- can you read? the constitution says absolutely nothing about this, to which ginsburg replies, how many times must i tell you, dear mr. justice scalia, you are 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. 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. >> during this month c-span is pleased to present our winning studentin this year's cam video documentary competition. student cam is c-span's annual competition that encourages middle and will high school students to think critically about issues. asked students to base their documentary on was, what's the most important shouldhe u.s. congress consider in 2014? henry kraddock, maggie mallison

daniel gotkowitz are in 8th grade in portland. they want to make gun control issue.ost important henry kraddock. malison.ggie >> and i'm daniel got -- the past year there have been numerous mass shootings. are. >> these shootings have left frightened and unsettled. we think the biggest issue congress should address in 2014 control. >> we first talked to a criminal opiniongist about his on gun control. >> well, being a criminal psychologist, has caused me both be involved in criminal cases involving firearms and has caused me, maybe more

importantly, to study very carefully the literature that crimes to violent involving firearms. in the course of all that investigation and study what i found is this. several things. our society regulates fine.ms just in much the same way that we regulate mother vehicles. so even though there isn't a constitutional amendmentment stating that you have a right to and there is one that says you have the right to treatedirearm, they're as a --ore the majority of people use them responsibly. theme who use irresponsibly or criminally, at the very least they don't get to them at all,ave sentence is,ever a

is greater because a firearm is used. line is firearms don't cause violence. violence.ople cause >> the compromise, the main one say, would be to make background checks a little more in-depthgo of somebody that may have had mental illness and other problems such as domestic violence, restraining orders, things like that. although 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 a little harder to in the future. control.ort gun and i support it because the gun deaths and the number of injuries in this country is completely unacceptable, and unless we gunse the way we handle

those deaths and those injuries will continue. the ones that make the paper that you read about, the big horrifying.hey're but the number of young people accidentally shot or who own lives,take their commitber of people who suicide is horrifying. and people really need to having a gun can risk.t a >> about 30,000 people die by firearms each year. january, 2013, president obama presented his plan to the u.s.un violence in his plans include improving the background check system, banning weapons, and large capacity magazines of ammunition, creating and enforcing stricter trafficking laws, and increasing the study and knowledge of the gun

epidemic. guns are too easily accessible to criminals, people with mental and other dangerous people. >> i feel strongly about assault others that have military applications, not that people need for hunting or if they want to use it for self defense in their home. although the irony is and those of you who have studied it know that people with guns in their more likely to be subjected to gun violence. veryhat the victims are often family and friends. >> the issue there with firearms magazine capacity can hold higher capacity is not one that the particular gun is any more dangerous or any more vicious or any more of a problem than any other firearm that can a single round. the issue is what the person the gun, and what their intent is. >> i do think that you can respect the second amendment and

people to have a weapon to hunt or if they feel, despite evidence, that they think they're safer if they have a gun in the house, even though aey're more likely to have family member die if you have a gun in the house, that's their choice. i do think that we need to reassess the range of firearms to have,llow people how much they buy them, and what they do with them. to treat gun violence issue.medical >> that major county sheriff that gunon felt control by itself would not of extremeroblems violence that are happening each and every day. killers, 100e more? how can we possibly even guess how many. >> the n. r.a.'s proposal for

guards in schools may be helpful in some instances, theit falls fall short of strong, serious comprehensive kindn needed to stop the of or isk -- horrific tragedy that occurred weekwtown last >> the second amendment is a very controversial topic in the u.s. states that people have the right to keep and bear arms. is this still relevant in century?

>> to watch all the winning videos and to learn more about to competition, go c-span.org and click on student cam. and tell us what you think about wantssues these students congress to consider. post your comment on student cam's facebook page or tweet us using hash tag student cam. rsh on the next "washington journal," we'll focus on research into unmanned aircraft, to as drones.red fung of theth brian "washington post." we'll also take you live to virginia tech, one of six certified research and testing sites. our guests include von greene, interim executive director of the mid atlantic aviation woolsey,ip, and greg head of the virginia center for autonomous systems. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. and join the conversation on and twitter.

now a recent town hall meeting with the bipartisan policy politicalommission on reform. focusing on congress. the commission includes former congress and white house advisors. from the john f. kennedy library is a little more than an hour and a half. >> we cannot claim to have solved the issue of polarization, but we have tried

to foster thoughtful and productive conversation about it. among policy makers and engaging a lot of americans including you. have another very impressive group of panelists, former members of congress and of the all members bipartisan policy commission's on political reform. as we start i just want to say to our panelists, thank you so to your your service states and our country. [applause] let me spruce them. cofounder of the edward m. kennedy thans steut for the united states senate, vicky kennedy. [applause] senator, bob bennett. [applause] former maine senator, olympia snowe. [applause] so we have a maine contingent

here, i'm gathering. charlieexas congressman gonzalez. [applause] former new york congressman, floyd flake. [applause] and former texas congressman, bonilla. [applause] panelist bios in your program and online. we invite everyone in the live the web or watching on cast to join our conversation. if you're physically here, can you fill out one of these cards, question or a comment, it will be brought up to me, and i'll use some of them through this conversation. if you're digitally here, just send us an e-mail or a tweet. bpctwitter handle is underscore bipartisan. u.s.a.,hash tag engage and i'll ask some of your questions and read some of your comments. in fact we want to start with two contrasting comments we have already gotten from twitter. verna smith, given an

ending gridlock in congress, is seriously think about term limits, some other means to poorthem out for performance? but a contrasting view from doug why ist who said division bad? i am especially happy when congress is in gridlock and on vacation or recess because america is safe. )laughter we found both of these points of in the new u.s.a. today bipartisan policy center justnal's poll that was released on monday and in this short video we're going to talk about the poll results and the comments we gathered from a range of people, a mayor, governor, two senators, a white policy maker, about what's going on and about possible solutions. let's watch. page, i'm susan washington bureau chief of u.s.a. today. for the past year, u.s.a. today the bipartisan policy center

have joined forces to look at the nation's political polarization. this divide has contributed to washington's gridlock, and it americans' unhappiness with the way their government works. or doesn't work. held four national town halls at the reagan library in california, constitution center philadelphia, ohio state university in columbus, and now j.f.k. library in boston. and we've cosponsored four national polls taken by pollster when it ayers and democratic pollster mark melman. survey americans by more than two to one say the country has gotten off on the track. and consider this, just 2% strongly approve of the job congress is doing. nearly half strongly disapprove. when we asked people what they congress, the top response was, we can kick them what wehey don't do want. what about solutions? offeredofficials have suggestions including some broad

ideas. >> the thing that will ultimately make washington work is for the democrats and in congress to put the people of this country first their own political ambitions second. >> i think if we paid more attention, more close attention to some of the limitations the constitution, i'm talking about the structural limitations, i think that some things that are so acrimonious today would become less acrimonious. not muchere's consensus on particular steps intended to make washington work better. instance, republicans inclined to think the senate filibuster is a good rule. are inclined to think it's a bad rule. independents split evenly. while some experts say members of congress need to washington toe in forge relationships and foster cooperation, two-thirds of americans say their should betives spending more time home in their

districts. suggest we makers focus more on substance, less on politics. a substantive conversation you can often have more convergence. still have disagreements, but at least you can narrow down to where they are and what they are, and you know, if i talk to economist, we speak a similar language. we'll have different views on something like the minimum wage, a similarl be language. think that helps. and that's something the center is policy great at is bringing experts from both side together and getting them into a substantive conversation. it be a little utopian to think that we'd know thatly how to do that and would solve all our problems. but that is part of the answer. past year some things haven't changed. in the poll we took in of four 2013, three

americans said our politics have become more divided in recent years. in our poll taken this month, almost precisely the same number agreed. finding has changed. said those just 20% political divisions are a good thing because it gives voters a choice. now that number has doubled, and the percentage who say it is a makes it because it harder to get things done has dropped by nearly 20 percentage points. that could mean the polarized state of american politics seen asngly is being the new normal. but many continue to express the showdown, the recriminations and the gridlock that characterize much of national politics today. >> it's at an all-time low, then we're can expect that going to be able to solve the really big problems facing our country. eyes ofnot just the america, but it's the eyes of

the world. that are watching. we're the greatest country on the face of the earth, the greatest democracy in history. and we can't have people around country lose faith in our system. when they see keazness like that, i wonder how much it affects the rest of the world how they view our country and our pre-eminence in this world. >> on that at least just about everybody seems to agree, the stakes are high. kennedy, let's start with you, thank you so much for here.ing us we all look forward to seeing the edward kennedy institute open.t fewer than one in five americans approve of congress even a bit.e so is there one thing that could help? not solve every problem, but is couldone reform that improve congress' standing? >> i don't think there's one reform. i think it's a combination of reforms. i just want to comment on those

two comments that you started with about term limits and also about congress not doing anything. disagree withi both of them. i think teddy used to love to h.l.mencken, for every complex problem there's a simple it's wrong.and and i think both of those comments fit in that description. i personally am opposed to term limits because legislating takes time. it takes knowledge, it takes getting an expertise about an issue. and the truth is we have elections, that's what a term limit is, and right now over the united states senate is in its first term. over half of the house of representatives, i think, are in their first few couple of terms. have an enormous amount of turnover in our, with our election. so i don't think term limits are the answer. that this comment commenter feels safe when

congress is in gridlock and nothing, i think is a simple easy answer, but it the reality that in this country we need to have a functional government, we have serious issues facing us. we need a budget. have major foreign policy issues facing us right now. thee got the issues with ukraine, we've got other issues that are out there. when serious issues come about, if we haven't been each other, why would we suddenly be able to start talking to each other? of the things we've been doing as part of this waysssion is thinking of that we can actually have members being together. in social settings. where they can learn about each people. because it's a lot easier to come to consensus on issues or maybe listen and hear what

someone has to say if you've atually met them in noncontentious situation. >> the idea of term limits is so interesting. the first question we got from the audience from haley mcfar land, a student at northeastern university and here with us, she writes, do you think imposing wouldssional term limits increase productivity in congress? congressman bonilla, what do you think? >> well, term limits, fir of all, i do not support those because in any given election vote your member of congress out. essence by advocating term limits you'red arrow indicating putting the responsibility on else's shoulders rather than your own because you can vote them out. one comment i want to make about video that was shown earlier and the discussion we're having thatis about some factors cause the dysfunction now. talk to the way you someone matters. whether it's in your own home, of business, your

church, with siblings, coworkers, whatever much what we a lot of harshness from people who have strong views. contrast to two of the just randomly two presidents, reagan and clinton, who even if they were having the most difficult time of their presidency with pressures, with losing political fights in with international crisis, when they came out and spoke to you publicly, they were the most nicest, optimistic people, and they had an attitude tomorrow is going to be better. and let's talk about this. have that tense, harsh tone that you hear from now.sides so i think one way to start the tologue in washington improve it would be to just, hey, be nice with the way you communicate. a lot of us have very strong views, but again it's how you put it. point i want to make is that a lot of people look at

what's happening how in as these elected members suddenly turn harsh when and they get ugly when they get to washington. people. for these america, they reflect america's attitude now, unfortunately, don't create it once they set foot, get off that plane in i'mington and say, hey, going to be mean now and dysfunctional and really ugly. say theback home and same thing, and the people cheer them. has to reflectly upon itself now and how at the roots level they have helped create this situation in to fix it. and try >> senator bennett, why do you think this is happening? us would agree that the tone of discourse in washington and in politics gotten so much harsher and so much less civil. happened?t

>> well, i have a whole series of answers on that question, them very provocative that i won't tell you. righte this is not the place, and the right setting. thee have been changes in media. made everybodys into walter cronkite. is an odd enough crowd, you know who walter cronkite is. teach at the university of utah's hinckley institute of myitics, and none of students have ever heard of cronkite. ( laughter ) the genius of the two-party hasem over american history been to force compromise within parties. you had to choose which party you were going to be in, and the democraticto party, the democratic party is the party of government. they believe government is the to solverument

problems. the republican party is the party of free markets. that the free markets left by themselves are the best way to solve problems. right. both because sometimes the free markets make better decisions and sometimes the government makes better decisions. well, if you are a special interest and you think the the best place to go to get your interests met, become a democrat, and you run into other people who have democrats whose special interest is very different than yours. to the democratic party has work out that conflict within itself. and the same thing is true within the republican party. we do not have a european system parties whereverry special interest has its own party. all right. two-party system doesn't perform that function very well more. because you have bitter fights peopleparties and insisting the rise of the word

dino, you're a republican in name only, senator bennett, because you disagree with me on immigration. terrible thing on immigration, you voted with teddy kennedy. didn't.id no i i voted with the republican president, george w. bush, who had been a border state governor who understood the immigration problem far better than any of the rest of us, and i was delighted to have senator us.edy vote with no no no, you're a republican in name only, because you didn't as to what that should be. that division becomes so strong that we do not have the cohesion that used to take place in both parties where the leadership of both parties

would sit down and say, okay, together,ot to stick make this thing work. we've got to compromise within and have a position, uh-oh, we want to pass we have tothat means talk to some democrats, we have to work this all out. ronald reagan line, which in my view labels him a rino, is better to get 80% of what you want than 20% of nothing. i remember when we were debating part d and it was a republican proposal from a republican president, and there were democrats who were saying notabsolutely not, it's enough. teddy kennedy said, look, to get us republicans to give anything in drug treatment for medicare, let's take it, and argue about what more we can get later on. but as long as it's on the table it the republicans have put there, let's take it.

and that's the way it used to his, and now everybody has own slice of ideology and an on purity, and the two-party system isn't working used to. well as it and i don't have, i do have some how to deal with it, but i don't have a quick answer wrong.r it may be ( laughter ). of course bennett, these divisions in the republican party cost you your seat in the senate, and these i think contributed to your decision, senator snowe, to leave the senate. thehere something that congressional leadership could work better?is >> well, certainly. they could actually have communications and working across the aisle and communicating. that's especially important in states senate where it requires a building of and consensus.

and unanimous consent to move anything forward in the united states senate. so much of which has to occur by agreement. power reststhe within the individual senator in the senate. where as the rules of the house protect the rules of the institution, because the larger.ion is much so it does require that cross party, cross leadership communications, so certainly you process to work. the fundamental factor is in the united states senate today, and it's true in the house of lettives, the process isn't working, they're not legislating. they're not having a committee that's, you know, committees that are operating and functioning where they consider legislation, report it to the floor, and then have an open and have an amendment iocess, at which point, as think was mentioned earlier, you work through those issues and reach any you agreement with the other side in

terms of how many more amendments. veryometimes it's cathartic in the senate, you let talk, just let, them talk it out. give them a month to talk it out on a particular issue. issues that are outstanding and that have been sorely neglected are ones that require at least a month of consideration on the floor of the senate. that's what they deserve. out, let themit amend the bill. have their perspectives and the views of their constituents represented through the course of these, and ultimately get to a point where it starts to begin to coalesce. that's how it used to work. the fact is when i first began career in the state legislature, the first throughoutt was true my 34 years in congress, the devoted towas legislating. understanding that politics year,eres in the second

in the election cycle. but it didn't deter us in the about working on a number of issues that are important to the country. of synchronized between the president and workess and leadership to it out knowing that these were the major issues on the agenda and that they needed to be addressed. but that's not happening today. in fact the legislative process has been virtually abandoned all politics. it's all about the next election. it isn't about what we can do to craft the best policy to solve the problems. in all of this, they're not more.m solving any it's all about scoring political points for the next election and an one side and to disadvantage the other side capturelly so you can that 30-second sound bite. and what can they do to drive their point home. so they can win that election or get somebody to run against the other side. it's all revolves around process,zation of the rather than doing what's in the

best interest of the country. to a normalo return legislative process. i often threaten to go to the senate and conduct a refresher course in how a bill becomes law, like school house rocks, okay. [applause] may, picking up on that very quickly, one of the reasons refreshero have a course on how things are done is because 50% of the folks that are in their first term and don't know, don't remember. strongest argument possible against term limits. >> we have a suggestion from an michelle,this is from and she writes, have responses legislation ideas become longer, less to the point and colorful since television cameras have started publicizing sessions? if so the cameras should be removed, audience restricted again to members and visitors with a synopsis of sessions printed or tweeted.

i'd like to see a synopsis of a congressional session on twitter in 140 characters or less. but we want to pose a question to our audience online. vote it a bipartisan policy.org/en gain u.s.a. can the senate retain its reputation as the world's bodyest deliberative without the filibuster or other minority rights? and we'll report those results few minutes. you can post a tweet or ask a question, use the hash tag engage u.s.a. let's go to the point that senator bennett was just making many membershat so are new, and we see a lot of very senior members of congress including the most senior member congressman dingell announcing they're going to of this year.end congressman gonzalez, is there a loss with so many senior members deciding not to run again with the fact that so many members junior?tively >> i do think of the members

that have announced their retirement it really is a loss these individuals have such a respect and love for the institution of congress and the house, and its legitimate function in american society. you lose.t now, who will replace them is going to be important, but i one source of where we are today as a result of what individualsyou have that are being elected that don't have a love, respect for the institution or the role of government. they actually are elected on a make sure that there function.k, will not and if they could reduce the number of legislative days to three or four, they probably would. now that sounds like an extreme statement. a closesure you, analysis of what is going on, because you don't even have the speaker of the house, now that's the individual that was elected party, theyity

don't even vest that individual any more with authority to go breker andnd negotiate. if we were negotiating and formingsing and consensus, i think that's the real issue. a great i think it is loss. there are some people mo will mr. dingel was there for 50 years and mr. waxman was there 40 years and george miller there, but i'm going to tell you something, those were very, legislators.e you may disagree with them. but in large measure, most of leaving werell be real craftsmen, individuals, learnedaid, that we all from. and if we took those lessons and what's left ofis that kind of legacy. will it suffer. will someone else carry on. i know that others that have house believe that there are individuals that will pick up that mantle and carry forward. concerned about it.

>> here's an e-mail from gavin do you think that the lack and if so what steps would bh taken to facilitate this action? would it make a difference? >> it would make a great difference. en i came into the congress, bush was president. 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 in the gym with

the members. the connection between people makes the difference. and that connection somehow got lost somewhere between the years i started and 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 dean of students and dean of the chapel here for eight years and 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 political ork in a 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. too many in congress don't understand who they are. and what they think who they are is not ultimately gives them the power or the sense of who they really are in working in an environment where you learn how to make the deal work, how to pull people in so that together you can make something greater than it would be if you tried to do it by yourself. >> does the president make much difference talking about congressional function and dysfunction. how much difference with a president make? >> the president's role is paramount. you can't have the legislative and executive branches

operating in parallel universe. unfortunately it has been diminished. and that's unfortunate because ultimately it requires that kind of communication, collaboration, and build stronger relationships when they get to know one other irrespective of the differences. in the past, and i've done a lot of speaking to this earlier. during reagan's administration, for example, there were regular bipartisan leadership meetings at the white house with the president. and then bi weekly leadership dinners at the white house. and president reagan was very much engaged and weighed in with members of congress and also specifically with leadership. and that's an important issue going forward. on both sides. i mean, it requires both the support of both the leadership and the president in working together hand in glove on the issues that matter to this country. does it mean to say they're not going to have differences?

no. but they have to communicate and they have to be understanding of one another's respective. and that simply isn't happening and that's something we as people have to demand in the future. i think that's a level of ccountability that has to be ill lilist t from people running to make sure they will have the government work. you can't have both branches working separately and independent. >> if you look recently the most bush presidency to work with ted kennedy. before that they worked to pass nast nafta. before that tip o'neal working with reagan to pass legislation. but in each of those cases you asked about the president's influence. the president's in those cases made a special effort to have those relationships with the congress and vice versa. and for some reason that has

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 really have to -- you feel it more. and if you have a difference, it's going to be a true difference before you -- rather than go make a speech in front of the tv cameras, that's different than looking someone in the eye who sincerely comes to you to work out an environment. it sets the table for something to actually get done at tend of the day versus the one individual racing out to the podium to make a speech that's going to look good on television. >> president obama does not i think it's fair to say have very good relations with members of congress including democratic members not just republican members. is there time for him to change that? could the remainder of his second term be different and more productive if there were things that he did? >> i think there's definitely

time to change it. and i would hope that he would continue to reach out. i was also struck by something that henry said early on about just civility and people just talking to each other in a nice way. and i think we have to also acknowledge that we have had members of congress actually decline presidential invitations. i've never heard of that before. and i think that's a place where the people need to speak out and say to their members of congress when the president of the united states invites you to the white house to -- you go. and they should be held accountable, not be lauded for 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 mean, i think that those are such a -- acts as such incivility that we should be speaking out about that.

i think there's a lot of blame to go around. but the 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 to -- we want you to break bread together because a lot happens over a dinner tablee. we talk about families staying together and eating together and having good relationships the same is true of a good working relationship between the executive branch and the legislative branch but also among legislators. >> i agree. i found it remarkable that people turned down white house invitations. because you're not just dissing the current president. it seems you're dissing the institution of the presidency. so why is that happened? >> i really think for many republicans a photo of that republican next to the president to president obama will cost you the primary.

because it's happening in every rimary since 2010. for us not to discuss that environment since 2010 -- i'm a democrat and i'm not blaming all the republicans and i think the president could make a greater concerted effort. but we should not fool ourselves. this is not george w. bush's term. it's not clinton's term. it's not george h.w. bush's term. this is in a different environment. and i still blame leadership in large measure for not trying to rein in that behavior. but i'm not sure what leadership is going to do in terms of discipline or correction. but what do you do with that environment that is so poisoned that you have individuals that would actually turn down an invitation to go and meet with the president and go to the

white house? >> it gets back to valuing compromise and consensus, frankly. it's not even heralded in the media. because it's all you're on one side or the other. they don't want any of the gray areas. and sorting through the issues. because that doesn't generate a lot of ratings. unfortunately. and that's what also has happened whether it's through cable networks or any other form of media. the point is people are now u are you on one side or the other? i also feel like it's defined through msnbc and fox news and that's it. it's come down to sort of sorting out instead of saying why aren't you working out that issue for all of us? at the end of the day we're all going to have differences. the question is how are you going to get over those differences and solve the problem? that's not what's happening today for this country. and so it's going to be up to all of us to get involved in these elections in real time

and demand that and get back to what you were saying is the fact is then that doesn't become punitive. in saying -- because of the primaries and the focus on primaries but rather you've done now a broader support among the population for compromise and consensus. and that's why reforms have to take place that we're focusing on as well. >> and of course even if you don't believe in compromise, you can believe in civil discourse or talking to the other side. let's report on the results of the online audience. can the senate retain its reputation without the filibuster and other minority rights? here's what you told us. no 77%, yes 23%. so a lot of consensus among those who are watching in the audience to maintain filibuster and be sure to protect minority rights. we want to pose the second question. this question is would you

support a two-year budget so that congress can focus on budget issues half as often leaving time to conduct real oversight? ou can vote. we'll report the results in just a moment. here's a question from a boston college high school student in the audience. she writes, what role does jerry mannedering play in congressional dysfunction? and i ask that particularly because of the conversation that we just had about members who would be crucified in their district for talking to the president because it's such a republican district because jerry mannedering had the effect of kind of setting us up for this kind of lack of function or for this kind of dysfunction. congressman flake what do you think? >> i think jerry mannedering plays a major role when you think about how you shape the

districts and persons banting to be in a -- wanting to be in a particular place and not another and perhaps getting elected and then find that their district is not capable of providing for them in the way that other districts might be able to do so. it is a difficult process when you get to drawing the line. people draw the lines in their best int stance and in many instances it destroys a great deal of what made a district strong in the first place because you take so much away from it, so much out of it. so now you have created much difficulty to build it back. i have not seen it built back in my years. >> look at a place lie texas. lots of jery mandering there. >> there is some evidence of hat.

we've been in lawsuits in texas. i was so tired of taking that witness stand. but there is the political conversation and i think as the reverend was alluding to what you're trying to do is get as many seats as you can possibly win. that's what it comes down to. that's the -- but it is the minority that what enters the picture will be minority districts. and you could say well when you create that or are you creating a democratic district? and that's been a legal argument for a long time because the answer is generally yes. because of voting patterns and such. so sometimes there are these compromises. but actually it is out of espect legally speaking of the minority's rights to be able to elect someone of their choice. it might be republican, might be democrat, and most likely will be democrat. but it's not as easy as i would like to present to you.

but definitely there has to be a better way of arriving at congressional districts every ten years. >> some of the biggest political fights in this country are over redistricting. and we have discussed in meetings with this group over the past year some reforms that might be considered to take that out of the equation. the state of iowa, for example, is about independently as one can possibly do. and that's versus our home state, charlie, that it's done by the state legislature, the governor gets involved, outside interests get involved, and it is a blood bath every ten years. >> what are the odds that texas would agree to nonpartisan redistricting? >> that's something that the state legislature has to agree to. and they're up for reelection this year. so i can't tell you offhand. but i think at least they ought consider it because, again, we have an example of one state that has done it pretty

objectively thus far. another conversation might be what california does where you have jungle primaries and you don't have just individual primaries of republicans and democrats and let everybody run in one pile. >> and a jungle primary where just the two two finishers. >> regardless of party affiliation. and if you don't have majority you have a runoff. so clearly there are some ideas that should be considered by states to take this ugly fight out of the equation after every census. >> we had kind of a -- >> there are about a dozen states already that have adopted independent redistricting commissions and frankly you don't have to change every state in the country. you just have to change enough to alter the political equilibrium in the house of representatives having more competitive seats. depending on which study you look at, there's a study last year that concluded there are

35 seats out of 435 competitive. another study was 21 out of 435. that gives you an idea to the degree to which these districts have been significantly altered to fit the political. >> in california it was the citizens who passed a referendum requiring that nonpartisan redistricting it wasn't the legislature. here's a radical idea from a tweet from george. would you ever support approval voting, the simplest no cost solution to mitigate this? where you go to an election where you can vote for more than one candidate, and it's who has the broadest acceptability. what do you think about that? >> no. >> i agree. >> they have a form of that in

nevada. >> in where? >> in nevada. in nevada you can vote -- >> in nevada. >> you can vote none of the above. and none of the above never gets more than 4 or 5% of the votes. but none of the above has determined the outcome of the election. i think harry reid would not be the senator from nevada if they hadn't had none of the above on the ballot because people who don't like harry but they don't like his opponent either so they just say none of the above. and if they were forced to make choice then they probably would have voted for harry's opponent. now, harry happens to be a friend of mine. he did a lot of wonderful things for me while i was in the senate. people would say to me harry reid is evil. and they say i see you like my record and all of the good

things i did for you? oh you're a terrific senator. i couldn't have gotten any of it done without the behind the scenes support of harry reid who is a fellow westerner and understands that we westerners stick together. and he would say ok i can help move that through. so naturally i'm very careful about saying nasty things about harry reid because i'm going to need him the next time something comes up. and but the idea of having a generic we hate everybody, none of the above, or i disapprove, that's a copout. you ought to be -- pick a side. make a choice. don't give us this airy fairy i don't like them all. >> so no to approval voting i gather the entire panel. we're sorry for whoever sent that in. here's a question on twitter from lonny turner of new

carolton, maryland who writes, what is the line between acceptable minority party opposition and blatant obstructionism? and i wonder where that line is might depend on which side of the line you're on. congressman flake, is there a line? and how do you -- are we stepping over the line these days? >> i'm going to -- i think there's a line. see k that -- i cannot how there cannot be. there's always a party and there's always another party. there's always a group, there's always another group. there's always people who have their ideas about what politics are and another group who has a different idea. you're always going to have those kinds of challenges. it's not going to be easy to change it because this has been the way it's been so long for so many. and anything that's different

to them would seem to be that you're just tearing up that which they truly believe in and that would cause another degree of problems that we might not be able to solve. >> congressman gonzalez, how do you decide where the line is between taking a principled stand and being obstructionist? how do we know when someone is on one side of the line or other? >> if you're always voting that party line and you're just voting basically because it's the republican bill or something, you're probably going to run into some problems. you're going to vote against every amendment in committee because it's a republican. i mean, i think that's probably the easiest line that you could probably draw and would be some line of demarkation. i always thought in our wildest dreams as we sat there and tough big score board. there's 435 of us and the senator will tell you it's easier to call out 100 names so

we vote out electronically. and i used to think wouldn't it be great on a real piece of controversial legislation we could vote but no one would know that that's your vote. now, you're legally entitled to vote. i wonder wo what that vote tally would look like. you would have some real bipartisanship going on. but no, i really do think if you just always do not entertain the idea from the other side of the i'll, you vote against it because of the origin, i think that's probably the easiest thing to identify in my view. >> we're going to give the results of our second online audience question in a minute to talk about a two-year budget. do you think the idea of a two-year budget makes sense? would it change the way things work? would we have less of this kind of cliff-hanger stuff the last couple years? >> just getting a budget would be remarkable these days. that's another story. i do think a two-year budget

would be significant reform in fact petedom chi who chaired chair of ee and was the budget committee for many years introduced bien yl budget back in 1999 and i've advocated since i first came to the house of representatives because it gives the opportunity for congress to establish a two year budget process and have a two-year resolution, two years for appropriation, and then go back in and engage in aggressive oversight of government programs and how they're functioning, what we can do to make them different, what works, what doesn't work. and the kind of oversight that is absolutely vital and essential. so that gives i think the opportunity through the buyen yell budget for congress and the committees to weigh in in that regard and then make adjustments through supplemental so they don't have

to always address all of the 1 appropriations simultaneously but go back in if there have to be adjustments made if there's any individual appropriation on the two-year process. just understand how bad it is we already know that from the shutdown that occurred and ultimately reached a deminmuss agreement. but we have not had a budget in the united states senate for three consecutive years. it wasn't until this last agreement in december that they ultimately reached a resolution. but on the appropriations side, the 12 appropriations, well, we haven't had a 12 appropriations pass before the fiscal year of october 11 since 1996 which was under senator trent lott ds leadership and senator daschle. and only 13 appropriation bills have passed since 2001. only 13 total. not in one year but total. just to give you the degree to which this current process has

failed. so it would add significantly i think to improving it and getting them on a course of evaluating federal programs. >> so what are the odds of a two-year budget process? >> i think they're very good. and we have an example. the murray-ryan budget is a two-year budget. we've actually done it. let's see what happens in this two-year period. >> do you take this as a kind of green shoot of spring that they were able in december to reach a two-year budget deal? >> i think they did it without ealizing what they were doing. could i go back to the previous question? because we kind of went over it very quickly but it's a very, ery significant point. which is where do you draw the line between principled opposition and absolute obstructionism. and there wasn't anybody who had stronger principled

opposition than teddy kennedy. to many of the positions that republican presidents took. and he was very outspoken about it. the back in history, ratification of the constitution was one of the most bitter devicive fights we ever had. everybody thinks oh they came out of philadelphia and they waived this modelist document and there we were. no. they came out of philadelphia into a massive opposition. and the fight for ratification of the constitution state by state was a bloody fight. and the two states where it was bloodiest were the two states we had to have in the union or we would not have a had a country. and that was virginia and new york. all of the other states could have ratified and if virginia and new york had stayed out we

wouldn't have had a country. and it was a very narrow thing in both states. james madison fighting the fight in virginia was opposed by edmund randolph, the member of the constitutional convention who put forward the virginia plan to begin with and then voted against it in the convention and came home to virginia and campaigned against it on the position it takes too much sovereignty away from the state and i can't be for it. and the most powerful orator in the state of virginia patrick henry. and they fought the constitution every step of the way. and it finally was ratified by a very narrow vote. ok. what did patrick henry do when people came to him and said all right now what do we do to stop it? he said we have lost. now we fight within the system.

i will not fight the constitution any more. i will now work within the structure that is created to get what i want later on. that's where the line should be. fight as best you can for the -- for your position and then if you are defeated you say all right, that's the way things are, now i will work within the system for what i believe instead of saying, all right now i will shut down the system. that's the line that should be drawn. [applause] >> we have a pretty notable moment. the affordable care act passed four years ago republicans spent several years trying to repeal it. where do you draw the line? between taking a principled stand against an act you disagree with and being

bstructionist? >> i think senator ben et said it beautifully. i think a constant attempt to undermine what has already happened a party line vote or a decision that no matter by a party leader that no matter what comes up you will never a e with another side, decision to filibuster every ingle thing. but i think we have to always have room for principled opposition and allow people the chance to debate an issue. o talk about an issue. but to totally revisit laws and i'm feeling very strongly and personally about the affordable care act obviously. but to have a law that has been passed by both houses of

congress, approved by the supreme court and to still be talking about it over and over again not about how to make it better, just how to undo it i think really is not really historicically as far as i know what we have done. obviously, there are things you can improve, but that is not in the conversation. >> does anyone on the panel think that republicans -- continue to fight to repeal of the affordable care act had done the right thing, principled opposition not an example of opposition. >> i think they feel is sincere pposition. there might be a fringe group that just wants to be negative on the president regularly. for the most part, it is not limited to one party either. there are lots of people on both sides that have a lot of issues with it. i think are the most part, the majority of those that are constantly trying to change it

or eliminate it are sincere in their feeling. aid pinocchio alert. >> that is what i am sensing rom the heartland. >> i think it illustrates the fundamental primary issue why we are all here. the process isn't working. i gave it my level best. >> i know that for a fact. >> former chief of staff asked me do you know where this is going and i didn't. you have to take it to the and then decide. you have to draw that line and decide what you can support and