laws? guest: we have got to do a better job informing people. host: they can find that on your website? guest: sure can. is theirgvoter.org website. the executive director of the league of young voters, appreciate it. thank you for your time. that does it for today's "washington journal. i'll he will be back tomorrow with your calls, tweets, and e-mails. we'll see you tomorrow morning washington journal. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> prom departing shortly for washington state where today he'll tour mudslide damaged areas and meet with victims'

families. c-span2 will have live coverage of his comments. after tonight's remarks, the president leaves for a week-long asian trip stopping in japan, the philippines, malaysia, and south korea. those visits were originally planned for last october, but canceled due to the government shutdown. back in washington, governor chris christie speaks at the new jersey chamber of commerce congressional dinner tonight. our live coverage starts at 7:15 p.m. and at 8:00 p.m., three prominent whistle blowers, daniel heburg, who broke the pentagon paper story, thomas drake, a former national security agency senior executive who was prosecuted as a spy, and a former justice department ethics whistleblower all talk about challenges they face exposing wrongdoing. here's a brief portion of tonight's program. >> snoweden -- snowden, i believe, looked at these

examples, looked at chelsea manning, look at aage and realized he had to be out of the country if he was going to put out this amount of information and be able to tell what had he done, why he had done, to comment as he has been doing, to speak now. i was personally, 40 years ago, able to speak -- i was out on bail, on bond, throughout my trial, and i was able to speak to demonstrations, lecture. there isn't a chance in the world that snowden would have been allowed to do that as he knew from looking at chelsea manning. he would be in an isolation cell for the rest of his life. no journalist to this day, 3 1/2 years, almost four years now after this stuff came out, no journalist has spoken to chelsea manning. no journalist has spoken to chelsea manning. not in four years. no interviews, no nothing. and they won't, either. you're not allowed to speak to him in prison.

snowden more or less had to be out of the country. he learned from that. he also learned you have to put out documents, they should be current documents, and all the more reason he had to be out. one reason, what makes a whistleblower, turns out it's pretty hard to do it turns out. dozens, hundreds, thousands in some cases of people knew the secrets, knew the truths, and many, many of those, perhaps most of them, knew that these involved life or death matters on which major lies were being told. and where the truth could make a great difference. yet they didn't speak out. i think we have to change the culture of secrecy. change the benefit of the doubt that's given quite wrongly to politicians and to the president in terms of what the public should know and should not know. to allow, to even think of thinking that, for example,

clapper or keith alexanderer, or the president, should be the last word on what the public should know about what they are doing in our name represents kind of a culpable ignorance at this point unless you're 16 years old. if you lived through any of these things, these people do not deserve the benefit of the doubt at this point. behind the vail -- veil of secrecy extremely bad, disastrous policymaking goes on. without accountability. as we learned from the pentagon papers, we learned from the documentations, we learned from snowden. if we got the iraq papers, which we still don't have, there have been a number of leaks, authorized leaks in some cases, the decisionmaking is actually very bad. it's not only criminal, stupid, it's also stupid. and ignorant to a large extent.

it's not subjected to a larger debate, even within the government. or the congress, or little known within the public. and the reason that the constitution that tom has been talking about so much is not, indeed, obsolete, it was a good idea then and it's still a good idea, has to be defended against the people starting with two presidents and their minions, and many people in the press that after all, after 9/11, we have a new kind of threat here for which the constitution, 200 years old, was not suited. and we really need a different form of government in which it is true as nixon said, the president does it, it's not illegal. we have no choice but to leave it up to him to decide what to tell us. >> that entire program for the university of southern california los angeles is here on c-span tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. republicans in florida's 19th congressional district, an area

that includes fort myers, head to the polls today. the hill writes that republicans may be ready to turn to a self--styled outsider to replace disgraced tray radel. businessman clawson looks like the frontrunner in today's g.o.p. primary to succeed radel. a survey released saturday from a local tv station from public policy polling found that clawson had a 2-1 margin over his opponents. several other polls indicate a tighter race. that reporting from the hill. >> president obama pledged action bold and swift, not only to create new jobs, but to lay a newfoundation for growth. today we are passing historic legislation that honors the promises our new president made from the steps of the capitol, promises to make the future better for our children and grandchildren.

only eight days after the president's address, this house will act boldly and swiftly, by passing the american recovery and reinvestment act to create and save three million jobs by rebuilding america. that is why the bill has the support of 146 eminent economists, including five nobel prize winners who in a letter to congress this week stated, and i quote, the plan proposes important investments that can start to overcome the nation's damaging loss of jobs by saving or creating millions of jobs and to put the united states back on to a sustainable long-term growth path. >> find more highlights from 35 years of house floor coverage on our faith-based -- facebook page. c-span created by cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you today as a public

service by your local cable or satellite provider. the bipartisan policy centers commission on political reform has traveled around the country for the past year conducting national conversations on american unity. next, their final meeting at the j.f.k. library in boston held in late march. several former white house chiefs of staff, cabinet secretaries, and former senate majority leader discuss ways to improve white house and congressional relations. >> goorn, i'm heather compean. i want to extend a warm welcome to you here in this beautiful library and museum. it's only one of 13 presidential libraries in america. it's an architectural masterpiece designed by i.m. pei, it's a national treasure

here in our midst where president kennedy's legacy lives on. today we are marking an especially important occasion because this gathering is a very first event co-sponsored with our new neighbor, the edward m. kennedy institute for united states senate. i can't think of a more fitting occasion for the institutions that honor the lives and achievements of both president kennedy and senator edward m. kennedy. it also seems fitting that you begin a conference about tackling a very big problem in our country here in this monument to a president who, along with his brothers, believed deeply in our government as an essential force for good who had such extraordinary optimism and confidence in america and who believed that working together americans could do big things. we could go to the moon. we could launch the peace corps, which they did by the way within six months of the new administration. and we could even achieve a

nuclear test ban treaty. it's worth noting that in 1962 70% of americans said that they trusted washington most or all of the time. today after decades of anti-government rhetoric and gridlock, that number is at 20%. and i should add that americans still give john f. kennedy the highest approval rating of any president since world war ii. it's at 90%, even though only 20% of americans today have any living memory of president kennedy. both president kennedy and edward m. kennedy spent their lives tackling big problems, working across the aisle, and forging compromises to achieve great things. in 1958, even before he launched his historic presidential campaign, j.f.k. told an audience in baltimore, let us not despair but act. let us not speak the republican

answer or the democratic answer, but the right answer. let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. let us accept our own responsibility for the future. president kennedy's brother ted lived these principles every day of his magnificent senate career. no american politician knew better the importance of bipartisanship and cooperation. we are honored to have with us today the light of senator kennedy's life and guiding light of the edward m. kennedy institute, she's a sume couple laddy graduate of tulane university, a writer, and vision for senator kennedy's incredible legacy. it's my very great pleasure to introduce my good friend, vicky kennedy. >> thank you, heather. thank you so much for that

gracious introduction and congratulations for being named the new c.e.o. of the j.f.k. library foundation. all of us are so excited about your leadership here and those of us at the edward m. kennedy institute of the united states senate which is being constructed right next door we are thrilled to have you as a neighbor. with the j.f.k. library, the e.m.k. institute, umass boston, and massar kives, columbia point is the place to be in boston. a place for learning our history and experiencing and engaging in what oliver wendall holmes called the actions and passions of our time. the edward m. kennedy institute is so proud to be one of the sponsors of today's national onversation on american unity. as i said the building is being

constructed right next door, and if i do say so myself, it is going to be amazing. it reflects the vision of my late husband, senator edward kennedy. teddy loved history. he loved education. and he loved the united states senate. he believed that knowledge and understanding of our government d our history and the senate was the way to tap into the incredible potential of our young people and to inspire civic engagement. he believed that the future of our nation depended on it. so together we founded the edward m. kennedy institute to teach the next generation in an engaging and dynamic and

empowering way about our government and the legislative process and about those who served in it and the difference they made in our lives. we'll do this in part by improving americans' understanding of the historical roles of the branches of government, and educating the public about the great debate that shaped the course of our nation's history. we'll show how throughout history men and women of good will in both parties came together and addressed the great challenges facing our nation. they might not always have solved every issue, but almost always they tried. the entire experience at the edward m. kennedy institute will be interactive. as visitors walk into the facility, they'll receive a hand-held device, a mini tablet. don't worry, there will be dough

cents there to help -- docents there to help. and the experience is being crafted to still be meaningful to those not comfortable with the technology. we'll start with the basic. what is the separation of power, what is the senate? how does the legislative process work? how is a law made? we'll look at who is in the senate today an we'll have a live feed of what's happening in the senate at that very moment if it's in session. visitors will be able to tweet their views on what they are seeing or how they vote. they'll be able to digitally communicate with their own senators and with each other. the entire experience will be dynamic, ivent active, -- interactive and engaging. the cornerstone of the institute is a representation of the senate chamber. where visitors will be able to come in and take on the role of being a senator.

that senate experience is supported by the interactive mobile technology and it's being developed by software and video game designers. as i said it's interactive, engaging, and dynamic. in taking on the simulated roles as senator, visitors will debate, negotiate, and vote on legislation. in fact, every visitor who comes into the institute will have the opportunity to vote on an issue of the day. you'll be hearing more details about the institute later this month. in fact next week we'll give you details about when we are opening, but if you want an advance information, please email me. @emk ail address is vicky institute.org. we'll open our doors soon and can't wait for you to come through. ted kennedy said we are americans. this is what we do. we reached the moon.

we scaled the heights. i know it. i've seen it. i've lived it. we can do it again. his vision of an institute for the united states senate was that if we all emersed ourselves in our nation's history and relived the great debates of our time, we would be reminded of the great problems we tackled and great things we achieved because we all came to the table. and we would be renewed and reinspired to be involved and to do it again. that is very much the same spirit that brings us all here today. the bipartisan policy center was founded by four senate majority leaders, two democrat, tom daschle and george mitchell, and two republicans, bob dole and trent lott. as the only washington d.c. based think tank that promotes bipartisanship, the b.p.c. works

to address key challenges facing our nation. last year the b.p.c. created the commission on political reform, bringing together an all-star list of national political leaders, as well as voices for many other sectors of american society. volunteer leaders, religious leaders, business executives, and academics. i'm honored to be among this group of dynamic thoughtful individuals. the commission on political reform has two main purposes -- to understand the causes and consequences of america's political divide, and to advocate for specific electoral nd congressional reform. today is the fourth and final in a series of national conversations on american unity that the commission has hosted around the country.

beginning at the reagan library in california last march, we have also been at the constitution center in philadelphia, and at ohio state university. at each of our town hall meetings, we have heard from our in person audiences and through twitter and facebook how the average citizen views its government, its leaders, and the dysfunction, and how to fix it. we want to express our appreciation to "usa today" with whom the commission has conducted four national polls. the results of those polls have shed light on public attitude and helped highlight the challenges our nation faces and the problems we need to address. the commission will issue its final recommendations at a public event on june 24 in washington. i would like to encourage each of you to continue following the

work of the commission on us ter #engageusa, and join over the summer as we advocate for the commission's recommendations. but now on with the show. it is my great pleasure to introduce our first panel, the white house and congress, how to get things done. the panel will be introduced and moderated by trey graceon, the director of harvard's institute of politics. mr. grayson previously served two terms as kentucky secretary of state, and he is a good friend of this library and of the e.m.k. institute. ladies and gentlemen, trey grayson. >> thanks, vicki, and to the audience for that warm introduction. great to be with all of you.

the e.m.k. institute and john kennedy library are great friends and will work well together. we are glad to be here today. got a great panel with us today up here on stage. in your programs you have detailed biographies, i'm not going to spend time going over those. i just wanted to get a little one-line introduction for each of them and then we'll dive into the conversation. to my immediate left is secretary dan glickman who co-chairs the commission on political reform, which is the reason why we are here today. he served as secretary of the department of agriculture in the clinton administration, and 18 years in congress, most importantly in my mind, he was the former director of politics, had my job. glad to have you. josh bolten, served as white house chief of staff in the president george w. bush's administration and also served as director of the office of management and budget. andy card, also chief of staff in president george w. bush's administration, including the

beginning administration during 9/11. majority leader trent lott is a co-chair of the commission on political reform. was a senator for many terms from the state of mississippi. and governor john sununu as the governor of new hampshire and later served as white house chief of staff for george h.w. bhush bush. you may note matt was supposed to be here, but unfortunately he's ill and couldn't join us. that's why he's not with us. as i said the full bios are in your programs of the for those online you can google them. and see those. we want to invite everybody online to join in this conversation. ifer' physically here we have a card where you can write a question and there will be people going around the audience and grab a question and hopefully get to one or two of those. we'll certainly get to one. you can also send an email or tweet. he twitter handle is@bpc

nderscore, bipartisan. also you can use the #engageusa on any of your social media. we'll follow along with those conversations. we'll also poll our audience here in person in real time with a grandstand question. let's start off with a poll question. if you can put it up on the creen. members can see this, the question is, should congress be allowed to block the presidential appointees with whom they disagree politically? we are going to talk about this for a little bit. while we are talking about it, if you want to vote, you can do so. we will come back and see what the audience results are. you can also vote online at ipartisanpolicy.org. let's talk about the process. dan, you went threw this process to become the secretary of agriculture.

>> i think congress should be able to of -- to block the appointees. that is given to them under the constitution. when i was nominated as secretary of agriculture, i went to see mr. trent lott, the young senator, still handsome and full of hair, who gave me good dvice. my personal example -- i am from kansas but i voted for the tongass timber reform act which limited the cut of timber in alaska. i noticed that my nomination was not going very far. it turned out senator dole called me, who was the majority leader from my state. he said, senators murkowski and stevens do not like your forrester policy. i am thinking, i do not even have a tree in kansas. -- forestry policy? my policy was not consistent with the views of senators murkowski and stevens. so i went to see them.

one of them said to me, how would you like it if my policy was to eliminate all the planting of wheat in the state of kansas? would you feel like supporting me for secretary of agriculture? i said, i get the point. i went to see bob dole and said, what do i do? he said, just tell them you will be fair, and i will take care of t. he took care of it. the point there is they tried to block me because they had a substantive reason. but the primary thing that got it through was trust. and you had a senate majority leader who supported me. he was able to persuade them what to do. resident clinton also had close relations on the hill. he should be allowed to block if they want to. in most cases, good judgment will prevail unless you burn bridges beforehand. >> there is a lot of talk about the process. it takes time to get confirmed. there is a lot of information you have to give up on background checks will stop it disturbs people. joshua, in the bush administration, you went through

it to become omb director. chief of staff, you did not get confirmed for that. hat is kind of nice. very good point. how did the process worked in the bush administration? what advice would you give to the current president and congress on how to make it work at her? -- make it work better? >> i agree with dan. and a lot of the poll respondents. the congress has the right to block a nominee of the president. and that should not be infringed. but it should be used only in, i think, special circumstances. the hatred for trees, i think, would have been a good one. you are still trying to make mends. that seems to me the kind of good reason. but like many things, it is a

situation in which good judgment has to prevail and it can't be dictated by a rule. a senator's objection should be for a substantive and important reason. my own view, having served most of my government career in the executive branch is that the president ought to be generally entitled to all of the nominees that he wants to have. it requires something special, but there is no way to legislate what that special is which should cause a senator to come out in opposition. i think we have to rely on good udgment of senators. the public should put pressure on their senators to exercise hat good judgment. my experience, going through the nomination process to be the budget director, i went

around. i visited all the important senators, including trent lott. if you are the budget director, they usually tell you what their budget priorities are and how important it is that they be protected. the budget director nominee has to say, absolutely. that is a very important priority. as bob dole advised, i will look at that with open eyes and treat it with full fairness. that is about all the budget nominee ought to have to say. when i went to see senator robert byrd, who at the time was the chair of the appropriations committee, i had been forewarned, and he did not ask me about any particular budget priority. he was so powerful in that process that it did not matter what the budget director thought about what he wanted to have done in the appropriations process.

he was very concerned -- his key priority was congressional prerogative, especially senate prerogatives. having been forewarned, i brought with me a copy of the constitution. i had a little breast pocket opy i still carry with me. byrd started to quiz me on the constitution and the separation of powers, and made me quote back to him the provision of the constitution that says it is congress's responsibility to lay taxes and spend money. i think that is actually a good use of the confirmation process, where the senators get to make sure they -- that they have somebody who understands the constitution, who understands the roles of the executive and legislative branches, before they let the person through. >> what was your experience? >> i went to the confirmation process to become the secretary of transportation under the first president bush.

like josh, i enjoyed a very good educating session with senator byrd, and it was reminded about the prerogatives of the senate, and the appropriate responsibility that the senate s to ratify confirmation and offered wise counsel, which i solicited and took. i would say the process for me worked so well that most members did not want to vote for me. the majority leader the senate at the time, george mitchell, did a wonderful job. i was confirmed by a voice ote. i think if it had been a rollcall vote, it would not have been unanimous. the voice vote made it very comfortable for me. i think the president deserves the benefit of the doubt for all nominations submitted. i think the congress should be predisposed to give the president the team they need to do the job.

i do not think we should restrict speech in the enate. if the senate wants to confirm or oppose a nominee, they should be able to do it for any reason they want, and they should articulate those reasons, knowing they are exercising their constitutional right of free speech, and their constitutional right to have a say in the confirmation process. i do not support restricting that speech or denying the senate to exercise whatever reason they have for opposing the confirmation. i do think they should work to give the president the benefit of the doubt. >> turning to the other side, you got to vote on people through this process. what is your take on this? >> i want to take a moment and say, thank you for being here. i'm pleased to be a part of the bipartisan policy center's

effort. there is going to be a great institution next door. when vicky kennedy first came to me, i might not want to do the board, you might understand why being a conservative republican from mississippi, but one that worked with senator kennedy and learned to appreciate his legislative skills and what a great guy he was outside the senate chamber. the study, the history, the preservation of the senate -- this is going to be a great asset for umass, boston, the senate, and america. i'm proud to be a part of this. as senator and majority leader of the senate, i have some particularly strong feelings in this area. the house has certain clear responsibilities under the constitution. so does the senate. the confirmation of nominees is a very important one. i thought treaties were also a very important part of our role in the senate.

i agree with most of what has been said. i asked dan if he had anything in his background that was bad i needed to know about. he said, no. i said, fine. i will vote for you. i do think the president is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, particularly with his cabinet secretaries. i think the confirmation process has gotten too complicated. too much paperwork. it takes too long. good men and women are discouraged from putting their professions or jobs on the line while they wait to get through the process. generally speaking i think most of the time i always voted for cabinet secretaries, and i tried to vote for most of the president's nominees, even for lower positions. sometimes i did oppose them, but it had to be a very good reason, like i had a particular problem with them. the senior senator from mississippi, senator cochran, always said, if it is a matter of conscience, we have to exercise our right to vote

no. there is a greater responsibility perhaps when it comes to judicial nominations. i do think there is a process in the senate where you can return a so-called loose lip, say yes or no to somebody -- blue slip and saying yes or no to somebody nominated in your state. i think in the case of judicial nominations that principal or even philosophy it does play a higher role. having said that, i voted for ruth bader ginsburg. i knew i would disagree with her philosophically and on most of her rulings. but she was qualified by experience and demeanor, and therefore i felt i should go ahead and vote for her. i got a bit of criticism from my state about that. one member of the supreme court i will not mention, i did vote

against him because i felt he had a conflict of interest. that is how these things sort of play out. it is important that presidents f either party get their administration in position to do the job they were elected to do. the senate has a clear and important role. it should not be one of just obstruction. >> in the bush administration, you were dealing with a congress in the opposite party. what was your take on the appointment process? >> i agree that the congress and senate in particular should be able to vote up or down. i agree with virtually everything that's been said here. i thank you very much for not introducing me as being on the ar left. >> looking out for my fellow republican. >> this is an issue i had to deal with as governor as well. the same process functions in the state. the point i would like to make here is, i really do believe that we have allowed the media

to let us begin to think that the process of checks and balances is wrong. one of the hardest things for me to learn as governor, and i am an engineer, and i have a genetic commitment to efficiency -- one of the hardest things for me to learn as governor was that the apparent inefficiency in the constitutional process is one of its greatest strengths. and we should not, out of our frustration at times, let people convince us that checks and balances ought to be eroded. it forces a governor or a president who is making appointments or trying to pass policy to sit down and negotiate, to work, to lead the legislative process, and to make the compromise that allows what comes out of it to be reflective more of what the state or the country wants than just one

slice of the state or one slice of the country. i know there is a lot of throwing around of the word "gridlock," but i remind you gridlock is a negative euphemism for checks and balances. checks and balances in the appointment process are extremely, extremely important. it is, in my opinion, one of the most important sets of structures we have that allow the system to be as good as it is. >> i want to see what the audience survey results were for our online poll. should congress be able to block presidential appointees? up on the screen, kind of divided, just like the country. 57% said no and 43% said yes. there had been some suggestions of some potential reforms to try

to improve the confirmation process. things like time limits where you can get an up or down vote, our filibusters. are there any reforms that stand out that would be good, that would make it work, and that actually could be implemented? >> i would be glad to jump n. i think we have acquired too many of the president's nominees to go through the process. i think there are many more candidates being nominated that you never heard of. they run bureaucracies you barely know the initial cell. i think -- the initials. i think many of those do not need to go through a cumbersome confirmation process, and end up being chips to be used politically rather than a reflection of whether that individual was competent to serve in that position. as a result, i think we should

have fewer nominees for the requirement of going through confirmation. but that is hard to give up, because the senate like the prerogative. if i had a magic wand, i would suggest maybe there should be a thousand fewer candidates that have to go through the nomination process to serve bureaucracies that are important for certain aspects of our government, but really do not define the president's performance in office. i think everyone who is nominated by the president, the people should hold the president accountable for their performance if they do not live up to expectations once you get nto the job. >> how many, roughly, are there in the executive branch that needs to be confirmed? >> multiple thousands. >> i think it is 3700. >> i agree with what he said. the senate, maybe two years ago, nder the leadership of i think lamar alexander of tennessee and senator schumer, came up with a

list of around 200 that were taken off the confirmation list. i think that was a good idea. ome of those bureaus may sound like they are not that important, but they can make a lot of difference in the reation of jobs. i think the senate should weigh very carefully the ones on that list. the other thing that absolutely should be done -- the amount of paper you have to fill out for the judiciary committee, if you are a nominee -- you fill out a separate set of papers for the justice department. you probably have to fill out another set of papers for the white house. the conflicts and the process is to protracted. i think we should streamline it. one set of papers should be enough. i have been an advocate of a process that would actually require that some actions be taken by the senate.

say yes or say no, but say something. do not let them sit there in erpetuity. >> my friend served as the chairman of the corporation for national services, americorps nd related agencies. this job does not pay anything, i do not think. he has to go through this confirmation process. it is a mass of paperwork. it is an important job. who were his neighbors? mark is president of hoe bartwilliam and smith college in new york. it is a fraternity house. he is, i think, living with some trepidation when the door knocks. it kind of shows you how the process has gotten idiculous. >> they had pictures. >> we want to invite everybody to engage on social media.

#engageusa will help us. earlier today, we reached out to ask folks in the internet world questions we ought to ask. james from philadelphia asked the following question. to the former chiefs of staff -- we will let the former legislators talk about this as well -- can you describe your president's relationship with the congressional leadership of both parties? were all sides talking past one another, or was there a more constructive dialogue in private? we talked about backstage, one of the observations right now is that the relationship between the white house and congress is ot strong. that may be putting it ildly. and that if we had a better relationship, the legislative process might work better. >> i was chief of staff for the first president bush. i may be mistaken, but i think

the numbers we have were 175 republicans and 260 democrats in the house, and 43 republicans and 57 democrats in the senate. a very huge margin of opposition party. a difference was is there was a president that wanted to get things done. just to remind you, against that set of odds, this is a president who passed a five year budget, china air bill, childcare bill, the a.d.a. with the help of negotiating of senator kennedy. i was telling ricky about the interesting questions i had as a senator. the energy deregulation bill. a small welfare package. a president that is willing to be engaged can make all the difference in the world.

one of the statistics i find interesting is, in the whole cycle of doing the budget, the chairman of the ways and means committee was a congressman from illinois. the president had the congressman into the white house 26 times to work out details. if you look back at the logs of the democratic leadership coming into the white house, you will be astounded how many times senator mitchell and speaker foley and their respective sporting -- supporting members of congress and the senate came in. it takes work. good policy, good legislation, bipartisanship, comes only when a president leads. it cannot happen from the bottom up. leadership from the president creates cover for his own party to make concessions.

leadership by the president puts political pressure in a constructive way on the opposing party to come together. we could not have gotten a five-year budget without george bush being willing to spend the political capital, giving up on his no new taxes pledge to get a budget that was important for the country. and to get a set of budgeting rules that in fact produced five years of surplus over the subsequent time. it happens when a president leads, and it can never happen, there is no way to make it happen, if the president does not lead. >> i spent six years in the motion picture association. my predecessor was jack valenti, ho was president johnson's basic domestic policy person. valenti told me the first thing johnson told him when he went to

work after the assassination was, if you get five calls, one from congress, call them first. if any of you have seen the play "all the way" with bryan cranston, that is on broadway now, you can see how effective the president can be with congress. he was micromanaging, but he knew the only way to get a process through was to work it very hard. when president clinton asked me to be secretary of agriculture, clinton said to me, your most important job is to work the ongress. you know what it is like. you know what they are thinking about. help me be my eyes and ears. he was serious about that, and so were his chiefs of staff. i agree with you, john, totally. the president must be engaged in this process. >> bill clinton was superb at working congress. he had come out as a governor.

had dealt with the legislature. welfare reform reflects bill clinton's commitment to doing something really contrary to the liberal wing of his party. >> he also had the lows, the lowest period of any president in a long time, those relationships on capitol hill, as trent can probably talk about. it made a huge difference to his survival. >> being on the receiving end of communications from bill clinton, i confirm that we stayed in regular contact. he would call at all hours of the day or night. on more than one occasion, after midnight. i always wondered what he was doing up at that time of night. >> he was watching basketball. >> i know he was calling about a situation in central america. not that he was calling after midnight, but he was communicating.

he was asking for input. i had to preside as majority leader over his impeachment trial. as a former whip who always counted the vote, i knew the votes were never going to be there to remove him from office, but i had a constitutional responsibility to carry out. i wanted to do it in such a way that the senate did what the constitution required. at the end of the day, we did it in a proper atmosphere. we could come out the other end and get back to work with the country, legislating. i voted for all three articles of impeachment on a friday. he called me about a piece of legislation. never mentioned what had gone on. we move forward. i think it is critical that presidents of oath parties reach out to the congress. i would advocate very aggressively they have regular meetings. ronald reagan, when he was president, we had leadership meetings every thursday morning at 9:00.

most of the time, it was republicans. about once a month, it was bipartisan republican and democrat leadership. when president bush 43 was president after 9/11, denny hastert the speaker, dick gephardt, the minority leader, tom daschle and i met with the president weekly at 7:00 a.m. i hate a 7:00 breakfast, the point is, he was informing us what was going on. if you go back and check the record, the highest approval rating of the congress in history was that three months after 9/11. it went up to like 84%. it has been going down in the tank ever since. ithout being critical, i would urge them to have more communication and more meetings than they have now. they have almost none. they cannot help each other.

it takes give and take. having been in those positions where you have to make decisions, hard-nosed partisanship or you say, my way or the highway, we are not doing anything unless you do it my way -- it will not work in a legislative body. it is part of the democratic process, and we need to honor that. you need to stand by your principles, but you need to be a pragmatist committed to doing the right thing, whether it is on a budget, taxes, energy, or the environment. you have to be able to reserve your position, but also understand what the president needs and what your colleague has to have. when clinton was president, we had control of the congress. we passed a balanced budget. welfare reform, tax cuts, safe drinking water, portability of insurance, and improved the quality of our military and pay.

a pretty good day's work for a divided group. >> one of the great responsibilities at the white house is legislative affairs and the people who work in the legislative affairs office have expertise in the house and senate. those personalities play a big role in the personalities the president ends up taking on, and the understanding comes from congress. there is only one former chief of staff who worked in legislative affairs, and that was josh bolten, who had been a taffer on the senate side. i would like to point out the fred mcclures of the world helped to introduce the president to the responsibilities of working in partnership with article one of he constitution. >> i thank andy for what i think he intended as a complement. i am also a chief of staff who presided over some of the worst

white house congressional relationships in history until the obama administration. andy served for the first five years of the bush 43 administration. i served for the backend as chief of staff. i had a somewhat different experience. president bush 43 was a leader. he understood the importance of bipartisan cooperation. t was superb after 9/11. when andy was chief of staff, there was bipartisan, important legislation on homeland security, on tax reform, on education reform, which he did in partnership with ted kennedy -- very close partnership with ted kennedy on the no child left behind act. and bipartisan medical reform, all in that first term. by i time i became chief of staff in 2006, the relationships

had deteriorated, but there was still room to work on immigration reform. president bush's close partner on immigration reform was ted kennedy. it was a fantastic partnership. both men knew how to put aside bitter disagreements on other issues to make accommodations on areas where there could be disagreement. but there needs to be give and take at both ends. the situation i think president obama faces today is one in which the leadership of the other party in the congress sees advantage of simply pulling the resident down. that's bound to get bad before an election, but both sides need to overcome that short-term instinct because what's going to happen is that the cycle of retaliation will just continue

on. they need to put that aside. where they can agree and accommodate, they need to do hat. >> the vitriol i see among some republicans to president obama is extraordinary. it makes it difficult for him to want to reach out to the republicans in congress. in the same way, there was similar vitriol by the democrats in congress to president bush. you cannot have it both ways. this hatred, the high intensity polarization, is in large part caused by bad behavior. we have to try to deal with that issue. i do think president obama could reach out more. it is difficult when you see the tmosphere. i am very involved in issues involving global agriculture.

president bush and this man right here, josh bolten, revolutionized the world, because they created programs in africa to deal with aids, malaria, and tuberculosis, which saved millions of people from dying. it is a great legacy of the bush administration. that's unrecognized right now. it got bipartisan support. it's continuing on in the obama administration, but it was a republican president who actually put this imprature on a way to bring up a whole new way of looking at the developing ormed, particularly in africa. >> chris gates, a with the hilanthropy for active civic -- is this partisan and ideological, or is it executive branch versus legislative branch? > all of it.

times are different firstthe american people are part of this process. of all. we elect the congress, the senate, and the president. the votes set up what we have here with the house controlled by republicans, the senate democrats and white house, a democrat. there is partisanship. i have watched it over the years. both bodies of the congress have moved -- the center is very, very narrow now. the democrats have moved further to the left. republicans have moved further nd further to the right. i never was one that, as i used the expression, took camp in the middle. i was never a moderate. you have to be prepared to move a little bit to get agreement that is good for the country. like on education.

it was not easy getting no child left behind. but john boehner, no speaker of the house, worked with ted kennedy and president bush and got it done. it is partisanship in the congress and a divide between the house and the senate. they are like ships passing in the night. the senate acts. he house does not act. there is that component. i have never seen less communication than what i have seen between the president, the white house, and congress. i once suggested to president bush it would be helpful if he if he would get harry reid, democratic leader, come up on an afternoon and sit out on the south port could he and have a drink and talk things over. i realized harry reid was mormon and the president did not drink. so that did not work too good. but the blame is all around. there is a solution.

that's what i like to emphasize. the solution is for men and women to decide, we are not going to put up with this. we are going to provide leadership. we are going to find a way to get the ship of state to move forward. i'm going to put my own office as congressman or senator on the line. or use my chits i have built up as president to make sure we secure things with america. that is what we do not have right now. people who are willing to put their positions on the line and to lead aggressively in a way hat gets a result. it's easier to lead when you're getting your way philosophically. you have to be able to work with the other side in the administration or the congress, or the house or the senate. >> trent touched on one point we ought to talk about a little bit more. that is the responsibility of the public.

i mentioned that george herbert walker bush worked aggressively to get a budget passed, and spent his political capital, went on the tax issue and got a budget that was extremely important for america. and what happened? we the people voted him out. quite often, at an event like this, somebody will stand in the back of the room and raise their hand and ask the question, when are the politicians going to have the guts to make the right hard decisions? i point out that that question, which is intended to be an indictment of the political figures, is an indictment of us. because why should the right decision in a democracy -- why should the right decisions be hard? if they are right, there should

be overwhelming support in the public, so the right decision should be easy if the public was doing its job. sometimes we forget, as voters, our own responsibilities. i think that is a part of the system, part of the problem in the system. we have to be a little more willing to reward hard political decisions made for the good of the country, and create a climate in which those hard decisions become easier and easier. >> a few minutes left. talking about our experiences holding these offices, what was maybe your fondest memory? what is your fondest memory of your service?

>> somebody once asked me -- i have had many jobs. clearly, being a congressman was the greatest job. my fondest memory was when i could do things for people at home, when they had problems. one of the things that gets lost -- this is not a game. our jobs -- a lot of people at home do not think we are really in the business of doing that. we are keeping our jobs, money, politics, and all sorts of things. our system was meant to not work very well. they wanted a system where it was almost institutionalized gridlock.

they split the congress from the president. they feared the tyranny of congress. one foot is on the proverbial break and one foot is on the proverbial accelerator at all times. for our system to work, it requires good faith, working together compromise that trent and the other folks engaged in for a long time. when you can get things done and say, i produced results for the people at home, that is the greatest thing you can do. >> it is hard to come up -- i spent all eight years of the bush 43 white house in the white house. i also served in the bush 41 administration. i have had fantastic experiences in all of those. it is hard to pick out a favorite experience.

except to say it was an enormous privilege to have a chance to serve. it is very common these days to disparage public service and have people say how awful it is dealing with congress, and so on. we lose sight that public service is a great privilege. that is something that, as chief of staff, andy card reminded the staff almost every day. in fact, he created rumors that andy was on his way out when, in the first month, he said, we cannot all expect to be here beyond today. tomorrow you may be gone, so make use of today. i was constantly battling rumors that andy card was leaving the white house. but he was making a very important point to the white

house staff. remember what a privilege it is to be where you are. take advantage of it. remember you are a custodian of the position. the one moment that sticks in my memory for this was january 20, 2009. basically, the white house empties out. it is inauguration day. it is a fabulous day in the recurring cycle of the history of our country. especially if there is a change of parties. up until 11:59, one bunch is in charge of the apparatus of government, and a minute later, it is somebody completely different. and you feel it when you are in the white house. when you are coming or going, you feel it very, very keenly, just by the physical presence. the white house had a couple of

days before been bustling and was now almost completely empty. the painters were in. the carpenters were in, redoing it the way the obama folks wanted it. they were going to be showing up in a matter of hours. i wandered down to the oval office to visit with the president for the last time. i said to him, as i said most mornings, some appreciation of the privilege of serving, to remind myself. he said, it has been the greatest privilege and human being can have. the last exchange i had with president bush in the oval office -- it is something i think all of us ought to keep in mind as we approach public service. >> the constitution is a wonderful document, but it really is an invitation. you accept obligations. it is an invitation to be part of government.

the most powerful word in the constitution is the first word, we, and it is all inclusive. to accept the invitation or be given the invitation, which i could accept, is that article two is a phenomenal gift and a great privilege. the most rewarding activity as chief of staff was to understand how difficult the job is. presidents do not have the luxury of making easy decisions. if they have made an easy decision, the chief of staff did not do his or her job. they may brutally tough decisions. they have to make them with confidence, because you do not want a pessimist making the decision. you do want them -- you do not want them to say, i am making a bad decision right now. they are brutally tough.

they are very, very controversial. but there is an expectation it will live up to expectation. i have watched presidents make brutally tough decisions. there are no tougher decisions than to send young men and women into harms way. there are sacrifices the president would never invite on anyone. it is a brutally tough decision. it was a privilege to witness how those decisions get made. i did not agree with every decision the presidents i served made. i can honestly say i respected how they made the decisions, and i hope comfortable in implementing the decisions they made. >> i had wonderful experiences working for congress. i work for a democrat member of congress for my hometown. he was chairman of the rules committee.

16 years in the rules committee. 19 years in the senate will stop -- in the senate. in the late 1990's, when we were in negotiations on budget and tax policy -- i remember it was a friday afternoon. he was trying to squeeze me for a little bit more money. i said, we cannot do it. the budget chairman in the senate -- the chairman said, not another nickel for anything. this is it. erskine bowles called. he said we had an agreement.

balance the budget while cutting taxes. it can be done. that is the moment i will always remember the finest. >> there are some gratifications that our intellectual and some that are emotional. one of the things i will always cherish, that understand -- that underscores the privilege of having been chief of staff, was to go to europe with george herbert walker bush in 1989. the soviet union was beginning to crumble. to see the president catalyzing to see the president catalyzing at each stop a more aggressive transition into this new sense of freedom, and to see how artfully and deftly he handled this transition so there was no

backlash on gorbachev, who himself was catalyzing the process -- just to be part of those emotional transitions was really what i consider one of the great privileges of having worked for that person. >> this may end out pant, but won't end our program this afternoon. we are going to take a brief break, about 10 minutes. the second panel is going to be moderated by susan page, the washington bureau chief for "usa today." we want to encourage everyone to keep sending comments. we are going to have a 10 minute break. thank this excellent panel for their comments and their service. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

tories from the white house with authors of books on abigail adams. and the reconstruction of the white house under harry truman. x, andrview with malcolm discussion about his assassination. all of the coming up on prime time in the c-span networks. -- back to the bar parson bipartisan commission on reform.

this was at the jfk library in boston. former members of congress share their views on the political climate in capitol hill.

thank you so much for your service, to your state. cofounder of the edward and kennedy -- vicki kennedy. senator.ah former main center -- senator olympia snowe. former texas congressman.

former new york congressman. and former texas congressman. we invite everyone to join our conversation. if you are physically here, you can fill out one of these cards. it will be brought up to me. i will review some of them. if you are digitally here, send us an e-mail or a tweet. use the #engage usa. start with two contrasting comments we have already gotten. from werner smith. inen and ending gridlock congress, is it time is are thinking about term limits?

that saysing view wise division bad? i'm especially happy when congress is in gridlock or on vacation because america is safe. >> 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 of 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 americans' happiness on how government works or doesn't

work. constitution center in 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. just 2% 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? elected officials have offered 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. >> if we 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. for instance, republicans think they senate filibuster is a good rule. democrats are inclined to think it is a bad role. independents are split evenly. while some experts say mems of 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. some policymakers suggest we 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. three of four americans said our 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. but many continue to express concern about the showdown, the recriminations, and the gridlock that carry much of national politics today. >> trust is at an all-time low. 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 congress -- 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

comments you started off with about term limits and congress not doing anything. i disagree with both of them. teddy used to love to quote hl 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. the second comment feels safe when congress is in gridlock and doing nothing i think is a simple easy answer. but it ignores the reality that, 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 we suddenly 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 to 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 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. the way you talk to someone 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. if you look in contrast to 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 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. one way to start the dialogue in washington to improve it would be to just, hey, be nice with the way you communicate. a lot of us have very 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? 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? >> i have all series of answers 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. each of you know who walter cronkite is. [laughter] i teach politics, and none of my students have heard of walter cronkite. 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 best 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. you are a republican in name 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. -- vote 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 -- place 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 rino -- it is better to get 80% of what you want then 20% of nothing. i remember when we were debating medicare part d and it was a 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.

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] >> these 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. they 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. because the power rests within the individual senator in the

senate whereas the rules of the house protected the rules of the institution because the institution is much larger. so it does require that cross 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 ones that are sorely the -- 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. understanding that politics is interfering 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 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 refresher course on how a bill

becomes law, you know, "schoolhouse rock." [applause] >> if i made, one of the reasons 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. "have responses 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 being elected that don't have a 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. and if they could reduce the 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 of the house -- that is the individual that was elected by the majority party. they don't even vet that 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. when 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. >> does the president make much 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. in the past, 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. it requires both, the support in the leadership and the president working 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 running for these offices at 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 sixth 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.

-- 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 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. and i think that is a place where the people need to speak out and say to their members of congress, when the president of the united states invite you to the white house, 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 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 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. because it has happened at every primary since 2010. and for us not to discuss that environment, which is very obvious after 2010 -- i am a

democrat and i am not blaming all the republicans and i think the president could make a greater concerted effort at times and establish those relationships. but we should not fool ourselves. this is not george w. bush's. it's not clinton's term. it is not george w. bush's term. this is a different environment and i blame leadership for not trying to rein in that kind of behavior. but i'm not really sure what leadership is going to do in the way of discipline or aggression. but what do you do with that political environment that is so poisoned that you have individuals that would actually turn down an invitation to go meet with the president and go to the white house? >> it gets back to valuing, compromise and consensus. you are on one side or the

other. they don't want any of the gray areas and sorting through the issues because it doesn't generate a lot of ratings. and that is what also has happened, whether it's through cable networks or any other form of media. the point is people want to know if you are on one side or the other. at the end of the day, we will all have differences. the question is how are you going to get over those differences and solve the problem? that is not what is happening today for this country. so it is going to be up to all of us to get involved in these elections and in real-time and demand that and get back to what you are saying, charlie. then it does not become punitive. because of the primaries and the

focus on primaries, but rather you have now a broader support among the population for compromise and consensus. that is why reforms have to take place that we are focusing on as well. >> even if you don't believe in compromise, if you don't want to compromise, you can delete in civil discourse. let's report on the results of our first online audience question. can the senate retain its reputation without the filibuster or other minority rights? no 77%. yes 23%. we want to cause a second question to our online audience. here is a question from the audience. here is a question from the

audience. a boston college high school student. she writes, what role does gerrymandering play in dysfunction? i asked that particularly because of the conversation we had about members who would we crusified in the district for talking to the president because it is such a republican district. has gerrymandering had the effect of setting us up for this lack of function or this kind of dysfunction? >> i think gerrymandering plays a major role. when you think about how you shape a district, how you shape the districts, and persons 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 rss when you get to -- difficult process when you draw the lines. in many instances, it distorts 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. and now you have created so many lines among each other it is difficult to build it back. i have not seen it builds back in my years. >> you look at a place like texas, lots of gerrymandering there, congressman's allis. >> there -- commerce man gonzales. >> yeah, there is some evidence of that. [laughter] there were some lawsuits in texas. i was so tired of taking the witness stand. as the reverend was alluding to, what you are trying to do is get

as many seats as you could possibly win. that is way comes down to. but as i minority, what enters the picture will be minority districts. and you can say, when you create that, are you creating a democratic district? and that has been a legal argument all the time. the answer is generally yes. because of voting patterns and such. sometimes there are these compromises, but actually, it is out of respect legally speaking of the minorities rights to be able to elect someone of their choice. might be republican. might be democrat. most likely will be democrat. it is 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 10 years. >> some of the biggest political fights in this country are over redistricting.

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, writes them about as independently as anybody could do. and that versus our home state, charlie, it's done by the state legislature. the governor gets involved. outside interests get involved and it is a bloodbath every 10 years. >> what are the odds texas would agree to nonpartisan redistricting? >> that is something that the state legislature has to agree to and they are up for reelection this year so i can't tell you offhand. but i think they ought to at least consider it. because, again, we have an example of one state that has been a pretty objectively thus far. another consideration would be what california does where you have jungle primaries and you don't have individual primaries of democrats and republicans and you have everyone in one pile.

>> the jungle primaries where the first two finishers -- >> if you don't get a majority, you have a runoff. it might be to republicans or two democrats. clearly, there are ideas that should be considered by states to take this ugly fight out of the equation. >> about a dozen states have adopted already independent redistricting commissions. 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, one study last year concluded that 35 seats of 435 were competitive. verses 21 seats out of 435. it gives you the degree to which these districts have been

significantly altered to fit the political. >> in california, it was the citizens that passed a referendum requiring that nonpartisan redistributing. it wasn't the legislature that decided to give up some of its power. here is a radical idea from a tweet from george sanders of larchmont, new york. would you ever support approval voting? approval voting is where you would go to an election and you vote for more than one candidate. and the candidate with the broadest acceptability would win the office. what do you think, senator bennett? you are kind of shaking your head. >> no. [laughter] >> i agree. >> they have a form of that in nevada. in nevada, you can vote none of the above. [laughter] and none of the above never gets

more than four or -- four percent or five percent of the votes. but none of the above has determined the outcome of the election. i think harry reid would not be the senator of 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 a choice, then they probably would have voted for harry's opponent. 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, oh, harry reid is evil. i say, you like my record and all of the great things i did for you? oh, yeah, you are a terrific senator. well, i could not have been able to get any of it done without the behind the scenes from harry reid and he is a westerner and

we westerners to together. he would say, i can help move that through. naturally, i am very careful about saying nasty things about harry reid because i will need in the next time something comes up. but the idea of having a generic "we hate everybody," was quote "none of the above" or "do not approve," that is a copout. pick one. >> here is a question on twitter -- what is the line between acceptable minority party opposition and latent of structuralism? i wonder where that line is depends on what side of the line you are on, whether you are the

party in power or not. is there a line and how -- and are we stepping over the line these days? >> i think there is a line. i think there is a line. i cannot see how there cannot be. there is always a party and there is always another party. there is always a group. there is always another group. there is always people who have their ideas of what politics are and another group who has a different idea. you are always going to have those kinds of challenges. it's not going to be easy to change it because this is the way it's been so long for so many. and anything that is different to them would seem to be that you are 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.

>> deciding the line between where to stand and being obstructionist, how do we know when someone is on one side of that line or the other? >> if you are always voting the party line and always voting basically because it's the republican deal or something, you are probably going to run into some problems. you will vote against every amendment in committee because it is republican. i think that is probably the easiest line that you could probably draw. it would be some line of demarcation. i always thought, in our wildest dreams as we set there and there is a scoreboard, there is 435 of us and the senator will tell you that it is easier to call at 100 names than 435 so we vote electronically. i used to think, wouldn't it be great on a real controversial piece of legislation we could vote. but no one would know that that was your vote.

you are legally entitled to vote. i wonder what that vote tally would look like. you would have some real bipartisanship going on. i think if you just always do not entertain the idea from the other side of the aisle, vote against it because of the origin, i think that is probably the easiest thing to identify. >> do you think a two-year budget makes sense? would we have less of this cliffhanger stuff? >> just getting a budget would be remarkable these days. [laughter] i do think a two-year budget would be a significant reform. in fact, pete domenici who chaired the committee, the

budget committee for many years, he introduced biannual budgets back in 1999. it gives the opportunity for congress to establish a two-year budget process and to 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 are functioning, what we can do to make them different, what works, what doesn't work. the kind of oversight that is vital and essential. that gives the opportunity for the congress and the committees to weigh in and then make adjustments through supplementals, so they don't always have to address the 12