his brothers, believed deeply in our government as a 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 within six months of the new administration. we could even achieve a nuclear test and treaty. it is 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, the number is at 20%. they give john f. kennedy the highest rating. even though 20% of americans today have living memory of

president kennedy. --h president kennedy launchedeven before he his historic presidential campaign, jfk told an audience in baltimore, let us not despair, but act. let us not seek 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. no politician knew better the importance of bipartisanship. we are honored to have with us today the light of senator kennedy's light and the guiding

light of the edward m kennedy institute. she is a brilliant attorney and writer and a vision for senator kennedy's incredible c. it is my great pleasure to friend.e my good >> thank you, heather. that you so much for gracious introduction and congratulations on being named the new ceo of the jfk library foundation. all of us are so excited about your leadership your. those of -- here. those of us for the edward m the u.s.ociety for senate, we are thrilled to have a neighbor. and mass archives, columbia point is the latest to be in boston. -- the place to be in boston.

engagingeriencing and in what all for wendell holmes called the actions and passions of our time. the edward m kennedy institute is so proud to be one of the sponsors of the national conversation on american unity. the building is being constructed next-door. 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. he loved the united states senate. he believed that knowledge and understanding of our government and our history and the senate was the way to tap into the incredible potential --

potential of our young people and to inspire civic engagement. he believed that the future of our nation depended on it. we founded the edward m kennedy institute. generation inext 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. part bydo this in improving american 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 will show that throughout history, men and women of goodwill and both parties came together and addressed the great

challenges addressing our nation. they might not always have solved every issue, but always -- almost always they tried. at theire experience edward m kennedy institute will be interactive. as visitors walk into the facility, they will receive a handheld device, a mini-tablet. don't worry. there will be docents there to help if the visitors need it. the experience is being crafted to still be meeting will -- meaningful for those not comfortable with the technology. we will start with the basics. what is separation of powers? what is senate? how does the legislative process work? how is the law made? we will look at who is in the senate today and we will have a live feed of what is happening in the senate at that moment if it is in session. visitors will be able to tweak their views on what they are saying and how they felt. they will be able to digitally

-- digitally to indicate with their senators and each other. the entire experience will be interactive and engaging. the cornerstone of the institute is a representation of the senate chamber. visitors will be able to come in and take on the more ash the role of being a u.s. senator. -- the role of a u.s. senator. it is being developed by software and video game. it is interactive and dynamic. in taking on the simulated role as senators, visitors will debate, negotiate, and vote on legislation. every visitor who comes into the institute will have the opportunity to vote on the issue of the day. details be hearing more about the institute later this month. next week, it will give you

details about when we are opening. if you want advanced information, please e-mail me. -- e-mail address is --ki@ ted kennedy said, we are american. reachedwhat we do we the moon. we scaled the heights. i know it. i have seen it. i have lived it. we can do it again. his vision of an institute for the united states senate was that if we all of immersed ourselves in our nation's history, and relive 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. we would be renewed and reinspired to be involved and to do it again. that is very much the same spirit that brings us here

today. the bipartisan policy center was founded by four senate majority leaders. two democrats, tom daschle and george mitchell, and two republicans, bob dole and trent lot. as the only washington dc based think tank that promotes worksisanship, the bpce to address key challenges addressing our nation. the bpce created the clinical reform, bringing together national leaders as well as voices for many other sectors of american society. volunteer leaders, religious leaders, as this executive -- business executives, and academics. i'm honored to be among this group of individuals. the commission on political reform as two main purposes.

to understand the causes and consequences of america's political divide. advocate for specific, a lecture oh, and congressional reforms. final inthe fourth and a series of national conversations on american unity that the commission has hosted around the country. beginning at the reagan library we haveornia last march 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 -- how the average citizen uses government, leaders, and the dysfunction and how to fix it. we want to express our appreciation to usa today, which with whom the commission has

conducted four national polls. the results of the polls have shed light on public attitudes and helped highlight the challenges our nations face and the problems we need to address. the commission will issue its final recommendations at a 24 in event on june washington. i would like to encourage each of you to continue following the work of the commission on twitter. #engageusa. join us over the summer as we advocate for the commission recommendations. it is my pleasure to introduce my first -- our first time -- our first panel. the panel will be introduced and moderated by trey grayson, the director of harvard's institute of politics. servedyson previously

two terms as the kentucky secretary of state and is a good friend of this library and of the ian king institute. trey grayson. [applause] >> tank you for that warm introduction. it is great to be with you. we are great friends and work well together. we will continue to work well in the future. we have a great panel with us today. up here on stage, and in your programs, you have detailed biographies. i will not spend a lot of time going over those biographies. i just wanted to give a one line introduction for each of them and we will dive into the composition. my immediate left is secretary dan glickman. he served as secretary of the department of agriculture in the clinton administration and 18 years in congress, but most

importantly he was the former director of the institute of policy. he had my job. golden served as director of the office of management and budget. andy card also was chief of staff in bw bush administration -- in the george w. bush administration including the beginning of 9/11. senate majority leader trent lott is the cochair on the committee for political reform. he was a senator for many terms from the state of mississippi. -- jovernor johnson a new hn sununu. staff for president clinton was supposed to be here but he is ill and cannot join us. he full bios are in your program. you can google them and see this. we want to invite everyone

online to join in this conversation. if you are physically here, we have a card where you can write a question and there will be people going around in the audience and will grab a question. we'll hopefully get to one or two coup of those. we will certainly get to one. you can also send an e-mail or tweet. the twitter handle is @bpc_bipartisan. eusa.an also use #engag to be pullinging our audience in person and in real-time with a grandstand question. let's start off with a poll question. if you could put the question on the screen so our audience can see this. the question is, should congress be allowed to block presidential ploys -- appointees with whom they disagree politically?

we will talk about this. if you guys want to vote, you on -- so let's talk about the process. let's start with you. you went through this process to become secretary of agriculture. >> i think the basic answer is yes. it is a prerogative given to the united states senate under the constitution. when i was nominated to be secretary of agriculture, i want to see young mr. trent lott, who was a united states senator but still handsome and full of hair, and he gave me good advice. let me tell you the personal example because it will shed light. i am from kansas but i had voted for the --, which limited the cut of timber in alaska. i noticed my nomination was not going very far. it turned out that senator dole

said we have a problem with some senators. they don't like you're forced policy. i'm thinking, i don't have a tree in kansas. the policy of the clinton-gore administration was not consistent with the view of senators murkowski and stevens. i want to see them, and one of them said to me if how would you like it if my policy was to eliminate all the planting of wheat in the state of kansas? would you support me? i said, i get the point. i went to see bob dole and said, what do i do? tell them you will take care of it. and he took care of it. the point there was they tried to block me because they had a substantive reason. trustrimary thing, it was and he was able to persuade them what to do.

president clinton had close relations on the hill. they should be allowed to block if they want to, but in most aces, good judgment will prevail unless you burned bridges before and. >> there is a lot of talk about the appointment rosses. it takes a long time to get confirm. 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. that is kind of nice. very good point. how did the process work in the bush administration? what advice would you give to the current president and congress on how to make it work at her? >> 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 amends. 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 cannot be date dated by a rule. it should be 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 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 judgment of senators. the question is, how does the public put pressure on their senators to exercise that which what and -- that good judgment regularly? one thing in 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 copy 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 good, educating session with senator byrd, and was reminded about the prerogatives of the senate and the appropriate responsibility the senate has to ratify confirmation and offer wise counsel, which i took. i would say the process for me worked so well that most members did not want to vote for me. the majority leader of the senate at the time, george mitchell, did a wonderful job.

i was confirmed by a voice vote. it was unanimous. 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 that are 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 senate. 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. how pleased i am to be a part of the partisan policy center. there is going to be a great institution next door. when vicki kennedy first came to see me, i did not want to do the board. you might want to 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. she told me about it and said the study, the history, the preservation of the senate -- this is going to be a great asset for umass, boston, the senate, and america.

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 supported all these guys. i asked dan if he had anything in his background that was bad i needed to know about. he said, no. i said, you will do 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 actually discouraged for putting their professions or jobs on the line while they wait to get through

the process. generally speaking, i think i have always voted for cabinet secretaries. i have tried to vote for maybe the president's nominees, even for lower positions. sometimes i did oppose them, but it had to be a very good reason, like they clearly were not qualified or 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 blue slip and saying yes or no to somebody nominated in your state. if you have a personal problem with that nominee, you could be able to exercise that right. i think in the case of judicial 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 of 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 that has everythingtually that has been said here. i thank you very much for not introducing me as being on the far 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 balance 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 once than just one slice of the state or the country. i know there is a lot of throwing around of the word "gridlock," but i remind you that 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 ed 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 have been suggestions of some potential reforms to try to improve the confirmation process, things like time limits before you get an up-and-down vote, or filibuster reform. you have any thoughts on those kind of reforms? 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 in. i think we have required 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 initials of. 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 should have fewer nominees with a requirement of going to 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 into the job.

>> you said cutting back by a how many, roughly, are there in thousand. the executive branch that needs to be confirmed? >> multiple thousands. >> i think it is 3700. >> i agree with what he said. i think the record should reflect that the senate, maybe two years ago, under 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. i think they probably could do some more. i don't know if i would go as far as you said, because some of those bureaus may sound like they are not that important, but they can make a lot of difference in the creation of jobs. i think the senate should weigh very carefully the ones on that list. i think it could be reviewed some more. the other thing that absolutely should be done -- the amount of paperwork that you have to fill out. you have to fill out a set of papers for the judiciary committee, if you are a nominee

. then 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 too protracted. i think we should streamline and 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. don't let them just sit there in perpetuity. >> i will not embarrass my friend mark but he tells the story. he served as chairman of the corporation for national service. he gets reappointed and this job does not pay anything. and so he has got to go through this confirmation process and there is massive paperwork. it is an important job.

it is a fraternity house. that is the neighbor. and so he is living with some shows youn or -- it how the process has gotten ridiculous. you do not mind i said that? rex they had pictures. we want to invite everyone to engage on social media. before today we reached out to ask folks in the internet world questions we ought to ask. asking the following question. to the former chiefs of staff. can you describe your present relationship with the ship ofsional leaderhi both parties? one of the things we talked about that stage is one of the

is --ations right now that is putting it mildly. if we had a better relationship we might have -- the process might work better. >> i was chief of staff for the first president bush. i may be mistaken but i think the numbers we had where 175 republicans and 260 democrats in the house. and 57 -- andcans 57 eurocrats. a very huge margin of opposition party. ae difference was there was president there that wanted to get things done. and just to remind you against that set of odds, this is a president who passed a five-year bill, thee clean-air childcare bill. the ada with the help of

negotiating with senator kennedy. a small welfare package, the fact is that a president that is willing to be engaged and make all the difference in -- can make all the difference in the world. one of the statistics i find interesting in that whole cycle of doing the budget, the chairman of the ways and means -- theee was congressman congressman from illinois. the president had him into the white house 26 times. to work out details. if you go back and look at the logs of the democratic leadership coming in to the white house you will be astounded at how many times senator mitchell and speaker foley and their respective

supporting members of congress in the senate came in. it takes work. legislation,good bipartisanship, comes only when the 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 with that george bush being willie -- 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 in that budget a set of budgeting rules that in fact produced five years of surplus over the subsequent time. the presidenten

leads and it can never happen. there is no way to make it happen if the president does not lead. spent six years at the motion picture association. jack valenti. was the first thing johnson told him when he went to work at the white house after the assassination was if you get five calls and one are for me and for from congress, call them first. playany of you seen the get an idea," you the president can get. the only way to get the process work it hard.

when president clinton asked me to be secretary of agriculture, he and leon panetta met with me and clinton said your most important job is to work the congress. you know what it is like. you know what they are thinking about. hell maybe my eyes and ears. work it hard. when president clinton asked me to be secretary of agriculture, he was serious about that. so were his chiefs of staff. the president must engage in this process. >> >> welfare reform reflects bill clinton's commitment to do something really contrary to the liberal wing of his party. and one final thing. he also had the lowest period of time anddent in a long those relationships on capital hill as trent can talk about his huge difference in survival. >> being on the receiving end of communications from bill clinton i can confirm that we stayed in regular contact.

he would call it all hours of the day or night and on more than one occasion after midnight. i was wondered what he was doing up at that time of night. but no. he was watching basketball. about ae was calling situation in central america. but the point was not that he was calling after midnight or he was calling me but he was reaching out, he was communicating and asking for input. i had to preside as the majority leader over his impeachment trial. knew theer whip, i votes would never be there to remove him from office. i had a constitutional responsibility to carry out and i wanted to do it in such a way to do what the constitution required. we did it in a proper atmosphere and we could come out the other end and good back to work for the country. i voted to -- all three articles

of impeachment on it -- on friday. he never mentioned what had gone on and we moved forward. i do think it is critical that presidents of both parties reach andto the congress, house senate republicans and democrats. i would advocate they have regular meetings. presidentd reagan was we had meetings just about every thursday morning at 9 a.m. most of the time it was republicans but once a month it was -- it was bipartisan. was president bush 43 resident after 9/11, the speaker and gephardt and the minority leader tom daschle and i met with the president weekly at 7 a.m. i hated those 7:00 requests but the point is he was informing us of what was going on. we were telling him what we could do legislatively and working together. if you check the record, the highest approval rating of the

congress in history was that three months after 9/11. without being critical of this president or the leadership in congress, i would urge them to have more to medication and more meetings than they do now. they have almost none. that is not healthy for any of them. they cannot help each other. havekes give and take. i been in those positions we have to make decisions. this hard-nosed partisanship where you say it is my way or the highway and we are not going to do anything unless we do it our way, it will not work in the legislative body. it is part of the democratic process create we need to honor your you need to stand by principles but you need to be a pragmatist and somebody that is committed to doing the right thing whether it is on the budget or taxes or energy or environment. you have to be able to preserve your position but also

understand what the president needs and what your colleagues have to have an find that sweet spot. it can be done. one clinton was president and we had control of congress we passed a balanced budget am a welfare reform, tax cuts, safe drinking water, portability of insurance, and improve the quality of our military and their pay. pretty good days work for divided government. >> one of the great responsibilities is legislative affairs. and the people who work in the legislative affairs office have expertise in the house and the senate. those personalities play a big role in the personality the president and taking on and the understanding that comes from congress. there is one former chief of staff sitting at the table who worked in legislative affairs and that was josh bolten who had been a staffer on the senate side. and so i would like to point out people who make a

difference in legislative affairs helped to introduce the president to the responsibilities of working in partnership with that article one of the constitution. >> i presented over some of the worst congressional relationships in history until the obama administration. and he served for the first five plus years of the bush 43 administration. i served for the backend of chief of staff. i had a somewhat different experience. bush 43 was a leader. he understood the importance of bipartisan cooperation. it was superb. after 9/11 it deteriorated. even so in his first term, there

was a partisan important legislation on homeland security, on tax reform, on education reform which he did in partnership with ted kennedy. very close harder ship. and bipartisan medicare reform in that first term. by the time i became chief of staff in 2006, the relationships had deteriorated. there was still room to work on migration reform where once again president bush's close partner on immigration reform was ted kennedy. and it was fantastic partnership. both men knew how to put aside bitter partisan agreements on other issues to make accommodations on areas where there could be disagreement. there needs to be give and take it both ends because the situation that president bush faced and president obama faces today is one in which the

leadership of the other party in the congress sees advantage and pulling that president down. that is bound to get back before an election. both sides need to overcome that short term instinct. what is going to happen is that the cycle of retaliation will continue on. they need to put that aside. agree and can accommodate, they need to do that. good leaders tend to rise above it. that i see among some republicans to president obama is extraordinary. it makes it difficult for him to want to reach out to republicans in congress. in the same way there was a lot of similar vitriol by democrats in congress to president bush. you cannot have it both ways. this hatred, high-intensity

polarization is caused i've bad behavior. we have to try to do with that issue. president obama could reach out more but it is difficult when you see what the atmosphere is out there. in issues with global agriculture. josh bolten revolutionized the world. they created programs in africa to deal with aids, malaria, and tuberculosis which saved millions of people from dying. it is a rate legacy of the bush administration that is unrecognized right now. support and itn is continuing on in the obama administration. .t was a republican resident -- president.

>> we have some questions from the audience. this may be a good follow-up question. gridlock due to the conflict between republicans and democrats. ranch versusutive legislative branch? >> it is all of the above. the times are different. and remember the american people are part of this process. .e set up what we have here there is partisanship. i have watched it over the years. both bodies of the congress have very, the center is

narrow. the democrats have moved further to the left and republicans have moved to the right. one to 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. within thesanship congress. there is the divide between the house and the senate. they're like two ships passing in the night. act soate does not there's that component. i've never seen less medication than what you see going on between the administration and

the white house and congress. one time i suggested to president bush that it would be helpful if he would get harry sit on that south portico and have a drink and talk things over. i realized harry reid was a mormon and the president did not drink. so that did not work too good. but the blame is all around. there is a solution. the solution is for men and women to decide, we are not going to put up with this. we are going to find a way to get the ship of state to move forward. i am going to use the chips i have built up as president to make sure we secure the policies, whatever it is. 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 that gets a result. 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 aunties 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 first 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 to 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.

balance the budget while cutting taxes. 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 was beginning to public -- to crumble. to see the president catalyzing 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 >> to see how artfully and deftly he handled this transition so that there is no backlash on gorbachev. >> the second panel is going to be moderated by susan page.

it is a great panel. we want to encourage everyone to keep sending questions and comments via social media. we will have about a 10 minute break. please join me in thanking this excellent panel for their comments and their service. [applause] >> emma dumain joins us.

what are some of the main charges against michael grimm? >> they relate to his ownership and operation of a health food store. it was a health food store on the upper east side of manhattan. the charges against him relate withheldtions that he roughly $1 million from the federal government over a four-year. , wasn't filing property tax returns, was paying his employees under the table with cash. he was hiring undocumented immigrants, he was maintaining a second set of payroll records in order to hide the actual payroll situation that he had set up. he is also being accused of ofng under oath in january

2010. there was a lawsuit brought against him by two former employees saying that they were not paid overtime or minimum wage. allegedly said that he did not use a personal e-mail account, which the grand jury said he did. they also said that he did not talk -- denied that he paid employees in cash, which prosecutors also say they have evidence to the contrary. inwhat has been his response your latest article? >> he has not responded to the charges directly. he held a press conference after his arraignment outside eight courthouse in new york a little after 1:00 p.m. today. he said his legal team would handle the charges and would fight tooth and nail to exonerate him. in the meantime, he said he would continue to stay in office and he would seek reelection in the fall.

>> he is a former u.s. marine and has even worked on white-collar crime before. >> that's right. he went into the fbi and became an undercover agent. the legal procedures here should not be new to him. he did call this a witch hunt. he said this is character assassination. he again is not speaking directly about any of the charges. he is saying he is innocent. he called himself a man of honor and integrity. >> the sitting member of congress who has been indicted, how will that affect him here? >> there's nothing that could force him to step aside or step down. s response will play a role on whether or not he will step down. are still coming back to

town after the two-week recess. boehner should say something in his weekly press conference if not before. dealing with political scandals and still serving is not the first for congress periods ted stevens was found guilty in 2010, i believe. be defeated by his challenger. you had a situation a few years where someone was sentenced to prison. >> how could the ethics committee be involved in this current matter. they probably have no jurisdiction to be involved.

there was another investigation with him involving campaign finance fraud and misconduct. the ethics committee has held off on that in deference to the department of justices investigation, .specially with jurisdiction they were supposed to thattigate misconduct -- members were responsible when they were elected. they would say that the campaign finance allegations and these related to the health food store happened after he -- before he was elected. they would say it is not within the jurisdiction. that tedalso say stevens was defeated in 2010, it was actually 2008. her latest argument on the indictment of congressman grimm.

her work is also to be seen on rollcall.com. representative graham sent a letter to the speaker of the -- e john boehner >> c-span is pleased to present our winning entries in this year's documentary competition. student cam is c-span's annual competition that encourages middle and high school students to think critically about issues. the questions students based the --umentary on was they want congress to make

mental illness a top priority. congress, we attend an art school in phoenix, arizona. throughout the years, we have encountered a handful of friends that suffer from mental illnesses. lack of support for treatment can result in devastating events as well as emotional distress for individuals and their families. >> my name is felix schmidt and i was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. ended in the hospital after an attack sent me there. afteriagnosed me there

five minutes or so of talking to me. they treated me for two weeks. i get out of the hospital and went from doctor to doctor looking for someone who would actually listen. a year to find a doctor who actually did listen. >> looking deeper into the topic of mental illness, we discovered shocking statistics. veterans commit suicide every single day as a result of these emotional problems. >> willtunate events -- look back on the incident that took place in tucson, the tragedy where i was counseling was shot her seven children people were wounded and 16 died. who shot us had been displaying symptoms of mental illness for at least two years before the time. and the stigma that they

create for our society. like people don't pay any attention to them and try to pretend like they don't really exist. that kind of isolation really can make a problem worse, in addition to being totally dehumanizing. >> in our research, not only did we stumble upon the lax treatment, but also a -- >> if weabsence look back at what happened after the vietnam war, the veterans that came back to the country were very divided over the war. they were reviled and called baby killers. what is even worse, they were not given the mental health services and treatment that they needed areas they ended up in the homeless population. is hard to get the help that you need to start working towards getting yourself out of the wreck that it creates. >> with things like ptsd, the , schizophrenia

and bipolar, the longer you let it go without any treatment, and the more trouble the person gets in, the more isolation that they end up with in terms of being ostracized from society and alienated from friends. the harder it is to treat. >> throughout the process, we are able to find facilities that help soldiers with the struggles . >> i am a 9.5 year army veteran. currently, i am an assistant dean of students at the university of arizona. here, we have a vet center that is 3800 square feet. it is entirely staffed by student veterans who are familiar with the university of arizona. it is a place for veterans to come and be around other veterans, be around other folks who have walked in the same boots that they have walked in the past. it is a place to get away from

things. it is a place for student veterans to find resources. >> it can be kind of a nightmare at lunchtime. i can find people who are closer to my background, i guess. i did two deployments to iraq. 105 and one in 08. to have a space like this for us is pretty key because a lot of us to come home with issues, being they physical or mental. having an area like this where we can get together with people who understand our experiences can really help people out. >> is also clear that this issue is an important one to our country. on december 10, 2013, $100 --lion

fore commend the government giving attention to the issue. >> the mental health first aid act tries to get at the issue of public awareness and reducing the and stigma of mental illness. when people see someone who has a mental illness, they have been through this class and begin to understand what they are seeing and what the symptoms might mean in terms of mental health issues, and where they can get treatment and help for that person. >> if these were things that we were screening for, it is childhood trauma, we where they let you look for in schools and treated. yeah, you could say there is a lot of substance abuse, a lot of

later violence, a lot of later social problems. it has opened the doors for those who need help. president obama signed the omnibus spending bill for the mental aid program. we have a long way to go. continue to allocate resources and programs for those who have the need. treatedld like to be differently for, because i'm kind of used to it. >> to watch all of the winning videos and to learn more about our competition, go to c-span.org and click on student cam. tell us what you think about the issues these students want congress to consider. poster comment on student cam's

facebook page or tweet us. moments, the anti-defamation's national leadership summit features israel's ambassador to the u.s.. than two hours in, middle east peace prospects. >> our guest on the next washington journal includes republican senator ron johnson of wisconsin to discuss his lawsuit against the obama administration, challenging the legality of federal contributions to health care plans of members of congress and congressional staffers. theill be joined by president and ceo of the center for global policy solutions.

she will take your questions regarding regulation that would toow broadband providers charge a fee for services. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> this night we take a step, a positive step. the people watching us, mr. speaker, on television tonight, and reading about their congress tomorrow, and seeing that we ,ere able to act, not perfectly but in a bipartisan fashion to try to take a step towards fiscal responsibility, fiscal stability, and yes, caring for those who most need our help in .his country

so i urge my colleagues as leader of my party in this congress urged us, to support this legislation. not as ademocrat, republican, but as an american who understands that our people necessaryat action is . i would urge all of us as we close this debate to do so in a way that brings us together, not drive us apart. that reaches out to the best in us, not to the partisan us. mr. speaker, it is time for this congress to come together, address this issue, and act together, and pass this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. [applause]

>> more highlights from 35 years of coverage. c-span, created by him or anarchis america's cable compan. >> the israeli ambassador to the u.s. says israel will not negotiate with hamas. this is a little more than a half-hour. diplomaticended contact with the palestinians last week after palestinian president announced a deal with the hamas movement. [applause] >> thanks, michael. when it came time for israeli minister benjamin netanyahu to choose a new ambassador to the united states, he selected one of his closest and most trusted advisers, someone who had a deep

understanding of both israel and the united states. someone who has dedicated his life to serving the state of israel and promoting strong u.s. -israeli relations. he was born and raised in miami beach florida, a city where his late father and his brother both served as mayor. co-authored the best-selling book, the case for the power of freedom to overcome tyranny and terror, which is been translated into 10 languages. serving, he became senior advisor to prime minister netanyahu. in this capacity he was labeled as his brain by tablet magazine. decemberd his post in

2013 and resides here with his wife and their five children. mr. ambassador, it is our honor to have you here today. [applause] >> thank you. i have to say, that is the strangest texas accent that i have ever heard. [laughter] it is a pleasure to be here today. wide and veryery narrow. it is like the opposite of israel. i suppose the podium should be facing this way. i understand you will be giving an award to bill burns. complement ato person in his presence. that is not something we do in israel. let me say that bill burns proves that you can