he happened to be the very hard right of his conference. he does month of bills coming to the floor this year, either. have the pace to possibly take the senate majority. when is his big things, he is talking about bipartisan big things. are we hearing from the white house on immigration? people expect the president to do something in the realm of order about deportation. this administration has a record , despite the clear interest that she has. he campaigned on it in 2012. pushed aistration has lot of undocumented immigrants out of this country. the white house has ordered a review, jeh johnson is working on that right now. we can expect some

results on in the coming weeks and months. what exactly that is is unclear. the president has said despite using executive action and lots of other areas this year, he hasn't really indicated he is willing to do something really big on that very i think we can expect to see something in addition to that. you will see some pushing from the white house, hoping that maybe they can get some love from john boehner and others in the house, or some kind of legislative package, which is really important to the president's legacy. the president has shown just enough skin. the white house has really not been after him. 2: what do not do so that

you can actually achieve something on this issue this year without closing doors, but also showing that you're doing something that is serious? host: our next call comes from salt point, new york this morning. she is a democrat. i was calling in regards to this house vote on the unemployment extension. and a standard immigration is important, but i think that a lot of people in new york and other states in the united states really need this extension. unfortunately, we have not been able to go on vacation like you folks. son is this open to happened we people can go back to our lives? your blaster homes, families about to move other places, because we cannot afford to keep them. one of the big issues looming over this congress is the fact that long-term unemployment insurance expired in january, and the senate has taken up the

issue. the house is not shown about issue in -- interest in doing this. as is a legislative purgatory where things tend to end up when they are not moving and going anywhere. 2: again, as shane says, you have to willing partners in congress to make that happen. we have another caller on the line for republicans. caller: i think boehner is missing the point about illegal immigration. whining aboutt how the white house and democrats are doing a bad job, he missed a huge opportunity when the mexican government actually published an official document on how to cross the border illegally. republicans should have house on pounced onuld have

that. it is just a matter of money. so much money these illegal immigrants cost us. do is open up the dialogue with the mexican government and get them to pay for their own people, and also other governments. i don't see why nothing has been done to support that view. i'm not familiar with the document you're talking about. the lawsle feel like are not strict enough to prevent people from coming across the border. he can't get the on that. if that is a problem and you can't fix that, then discussion over. 2: i think for security is

a big part of the package. certainly, the white house is .alking about it is important for them, for the president to try and get bipartisan support for that package. a big chunk of that in terms of appealing to republicans and probably to the callers well is boosting border security. i want to talk about the keystone pipeline. the state department talked about a delay of that issue. our politics behind what is g?ppening yucca guest: 2: the truth is, most people think politics are playing a big role here. putting off this decision does give democrats, at least

particularly the president praised some time and motivation on an issue that they feel very strongly about. does shirts and democrats, which shane can talk about as well. overall, is an issue that is very important to environmentalists, too young people who are very critical in getting obama elected. you have seen demonstrations in washington and elsewhere across united states. streets. people in the it doesn't matteris, carrying st keystone. many people think this decision served as a way of getting up to base before the 2014 elections, which as the president often mentions, midterm elections are not always great for democrats because democrats do not always come out and vote. this may help them do that but it may hurt the democrats as well.

the challenge for democrats is they want to get their vote. if he rejected it, you will have a lot of democratic activist feel excited. but if you reject it, you put a lot of energy state producing democrats and others from the south, mary landrieu, particularly prominent in the energy arena, mark pryor, mark begich, who has no really immediate impact on the pipeline, but he is sending the message to swing voters. thise do not think election is about swing voters. he is playing it off because [no audio] wasronmentalists thought it positive although they would have preferred to have a rejection, no question. industry saw it as negative but they also saw hope in the fact that the administration did not just use the opportunities to

eject the pipeline. they have had plenty of opportunities to eject it. the fact that they are letting it stay open like this is a good sign. claudia is in greensburg, north carolina. on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i was calling to check, i know the houses coming back into session today. are they going to discuss the extended unemployment? 60-someeen working for years, and i think they should take that into consideration who are people representing that. we need help until we are able to find jobs. it is pending in the house but they are not looking to take it up. eric cantor sent out a memo to all the members at the end of last week. the unemployment extension was not a part of the memo.

this was not on the front burner. frankly, the reason it continues to come up in washington is folks like you and the previous callers continue to talk about it. it is a concern across the country and they are feeling pressure. who are long-term unemployed are not the politically powerful, the wealthy, the ones not getting their voice heard in washington. this issue will continue to languish because there is no political movement to push this forward to the point it is. sarah is on the line from burtonsville, there -- maryland. caller: i am a somali-american and a proud republican. i just want to say, democrats compromise, basically. just to get votes, they will do anything just to increase their voters.

whether it means to weaken the country, just to weaken the , orervative base outsourcing jobs, i just do not think they are on a path of sustainability. our deficit is through the roof. exceeds our gdp and that is the problem. i do not think they are concerned about that. not not know if they do care about it but they care about reelection more. side: regardless of which you are on, it is important to say that both parties are interested in reelection. you mentioned the word compromise. that is something that is something we do not see as much in congress and with the white house in the last few years. it will be very interesting to see what happens at the end of this year and in the midterm elections as to whether the balance of power changes on capitol hill and whether that

leads to more compromise between democrats and republicans or potentially a democratic white house and a completely agree -- control republican congress. there are two groups at odds [no audio] the white house had one agenda, the house had one agenda. you talk about minimum wage, the senate will be taking that out. you can guarantee when the president gets to town, he will say something about minimum wage. they want to talk about pay equity. the white house scheduled a big event. the next day, senate democrats are taking a vote on the exact same issue. you are not looking at a lot of compromise. you are looking at people making sure they have a unified line for those fights. host: what are we likely to hear

about minimum wage? guest: the house has been clear they want to raise minimum wage. the president has been highlighting states that have done that independently. many of his travels in the used hishe has speeches and rallies to focus on the issue of raising the minimum wage. he says give america a wage does -- america a raise. it is something he will continue to push. as we were saying earlier, the winner for needs a the base politically, and it is something that they will keep pushing, going into the midterm elections. right, we willis probably hear from the president about that this week. -- shane is right, we will probably hear from the president about that this week. next phone call from california. calvin is on the line for democrats. i just want to know where

the concern is for congress making 137 days a year, $170,000, and where is all the coverage? and yet, ior me, cannot tell them to come back to work. 130 days a year? for aboutke to go on 15 minutes, i know you do not have the time, but that is just for starters, thanks. as the caller mentioned, they spend a lot of time outside of washington. they call it dish it worked periods. quitetrue, they are gone a bit. right now, they are really in the one solid work going to of the year, eight or nine weeks where either the house or senate or both are in session in washington. it is absolutely true they spent a lot of time not in washington. guest: i am sure a lot of them

would argue that they need to spend time in washington -- not in washington, in their home district. it is an avenue of criticism that we hear. the president gets criticized when he goes on vacation as well. i'm not sure it is fair to say that all those 137 days are not necessarily vacation. thing, whenther they are back in their districts, they can do a lot of constituent work. there is not much happening in washington. when they are back home, at least they can help something. host: a related story in "the washington post." they found 60% of americans say they are inclined to look around for somebody else in the midterm elections, including the majority of democrats, republicans, and independents. is congress more or less unpopular? guest: it is always unpopular,

but when you look at whether people get reelected, almost overwhelmingly, nine out of 10 people get reelected. yes people are frustrated and they want to shop around, but at the end of day, they go back to the same store and buy the same clothes that they have been buying forever. in texas, the oldest member of congress ever, 93 years old, facing a a party challenger. he is 90, still kicking out on the trail, but perhaps it is time for another page. he may be retired later this month against his wishes, but he has been there for a very long time. it is gephardt -- it is hard -- it is hard getting rid of members of congress. guest: we talked about the rollout of health care earlier. that has had a negative impact on the president ratings. even on his trip to asia right now, some of that political ph you needm

politically and mystically is a challenge for him. i think they see a lot of possibilities this year, despite the fact that they are not getting a lot of support from or his ideas. i think they see an upswing because theust affordable care act is sort of rebounding, in a big and successful way for them. guest: one of those great washington moments a couple weeks ago, the president talking about the affordable care act, 8 million people signing up, and at the same time in another state, chelsea clinton is doing an event and tells people that she is pregnant. and then people are buzzing, what does this mean for 2016? probably nothing, but it means that people are already looking ahead. that is a problem exercising power abroad. it is a challenge that he needs

to look at ahead. guest: it is a challenge being named a lame duck, so early in the second term, but the truth is he has not been able to get much done in congress. if power shifts to republicans in the senate, he does not have that one chamber to wooster his priorities, so it will be very interesting, as we said before, to see how the white house works y completelyiall control republican congress. i read earlier that he may start to worry too much and give away the store, the issues that they care about. hard to predict at this point, but definitely tricky for the white house, in that they still have two and a half years of governing and they are not able to get much of his agenda done. guest: and the republicans know this. if you have watched the nba playoffs, the team that is ahead and takes the ball and tries to run down the clock. this is what congress is doing.

will become a lame duck and the longer they can keep the ball away from him, whether it is immigration or unemployment insurance, they do not want to advance anything, they just want to dribble around in circles and run down the clock. guest: which is why the president is trying to use executive action to prioritize -- advance his priorities. we saw something on climate change, and we should see more in the next few months. the epa will be setting new standards for existing power plants, a missions of the carbon dioxide emissions, the main greenhouse gas, and that, as we think about his legacy, will be a big chunk, despite the fact that he cannot get much done in congress. host: next phone call is al in pennsylvania. caller: a couple of points about immigration. 7.5 million illegal immigrants

are holding jobs in our country. over half of them got the jobs by presentation to their employers of forged social security cards, and then by perjurious as a station on the immigration form that they were able to work in the u.s. the key to immigration reform is to pass copper handset, for ally e-verify employers, so that illegal aliens cannot get jobs in the united states. then they would not come over. final point. deportation numbers are grossly misstated in the media. over two thirds of the deportations are those people caught by the border patrol at the mexican border, processed briefly by immigration, customs, and enforcement, setback. no previous administration were the sendak's call deportations.

deportations from the interior is less than one percent of the total number of illegal aliens in the country, a record low. it is interesting the last point the caller made about deportations. a white house is proud about a story that came out about a week ago that showed over all the statistics are moving in the direction of fewer deportations since 2009 when the front -- president first came in. ify andgard to e-ver employers, that is a big question. making sure and lawyers are punished if they break the law in terms of hiring immigrants, -- undocumented immigrants, but i think you would also here about those millions of people who are undocumented immigrants and hold jobs. they are doing jobs that other americans will not do or do not want to do. that is a critical question for employers and for the economy. what do you do if you cannot find people in, let's say,

florida, early to pick fruit -- who need to pick fruit? that is a big question hovering over the immigration debate, one that will need to be addressed. and that is why the business community and congress have been pushing for immigration reform. they need a way to get those workers in the country. nashville, gary is on the line for republicans. caller: i understand you all were very happy that the white house made the 8 million mark on , but how does the white house feel about the 5 million that were kicked off a private insurance? if you like your health insurance, you can keep it. how can they be happy about anything with the aca when it was all predicated on a lie? there are still more lies to come. let's start by saying

that we were not happy but the white house was happy. the evidence is clear about that, in terms of the president's comments, comments by democrats as a result of that. the point that you raise, in terms of people who were kicked off, for sure, that is a critical issue, and a concern for the white house, in addition to republicans and democrats running for reelection. you have seen the white house take measures to make it easier for those people who lost their plans, to stay on them longer. even those measures have received criticism because of what republicans have portrayed as the ability of the white house to ride over the law and address these problems without actually making the fundamental changes that republicans need. there is the core problem. guest: the president was talking about what the law would mean. he kept on saying, if you like your health care plan, you can keep it. that turns out not to be true, and it is clear from the get go,

and it is also true that health care plans change from year to year and get moved around. that said, the white house purposefully kept a line that was for them, politically pernicious, and not as specific as they needed to be. guest: that was troublemaking for them once the evidence showed that he was not able to keep that promise. it is something that is still dogging him today, as the caller rightly pointed out. woodbridge, virginia. charles is on the line for republicans. for taking myyou call. i am like the previous color of how much time do you have? pipeline, i went online, i was curious. it was amazing to me how many pipelines are already in the u.s.. that is political in asia get people to work. on the unemployment issue, what they need to do is, unemployment

for the first 26 weeks is standard. anything after that, you have to pay it back. tongass would pass that in a heartbeat. -- congress would pass that in a heartbeat. you cannot keep a tab running with no way to shut it off. when theseing, people try to make laws about business, when they have never been in business. if you raise the minimum wage to seean hour, you will never an 18-year-old kid hired, a 16-year-old. coming into work late, being immature, helping them to learn to earn a wage. i can hire an, adult and not have to worry about that. this problem in france, where you have an unemployment rate of youngsters of upwards of 35%.

what they need to do is leave that alone. the bottom line is not getting people more money for putting a hamburger at mcdonald's. it is getting the better jobs. in all honesty, if we have farms out there that need strawberries picked and you do not have a job , and these are jobs that americans do not want, sorry, you stop paying people and you will see them work the jobs. level of the minimum wage, the $10.10, which the white house has said, is kind of an interesting choice because it has a negative impact. the congressional budget office and others say [no audio] will get a raise. at lower levels, it would not have nearly as bad an economic drag, so why did they pick $10.10? i have not figured it out erie maybe it is a catchy figure, maybe it is something that will not go into law, so it is

aspirational, but it is interesting they picked a number that has a downside impact. certainly, but they would argue is raising the minimum wage would help create better jobs and would give people more money in their pockets to go out and spend which would help the economy. the president spent a lot of time going to employers like costco that have higher wages for basic employees and try to say, this has been good for their bottom line, this has been good for their business, good for people working there. that is their argument. it is clear, there are economic arguments against raising it to that level, and that is something that they are not really happy to talk about. they are much more interested in emphasizing the positive. the other point the caller made about keystone is worth discussing as well. the president has talked about the fact that this has become such a big issue for environmentalists and for industry that it has maybe been

blown out of proportion by both sides, but it may create some jobs but not a number that industry says. it may be bad for the environment on some level in terms of the climate change impact from taking the oil out of the canadian tar sands, but not as bad as environmentalists say, because the oil will be extracted anyway. there are arguments on both side of the issues. i think we will continue to hear them for a while. guest: you watch the keystone debate and these folks have been fighting so hard and so long and the issues have been blown out of proportion on both sides, on job impact and environment. comeare so desperate to away with a win. so much time and energy has been invested into this. host: a question from e-mail. sue writes in from new jersey.

guest: short answer would probably be no. there is not a lot of anything forthcoming from this congress that is not necessary. it is something the republicans in the house want to talk about. they want to put together a package they can get through their chamber. we mentioned the memo that eric cantor sent out to the members outlining the next to the new months. a lot of talk about building an america that works, that is their catchphrase. that is very much about creating a jobs package. their goal is to get 218 votes in the house. when they are doing that, they are not looking at the senate or the white house, not looking at making a law, but sending a message to americans who are frustrated. look, the republican party cares about this jobs issue. guest: it is important note, despite the controversies over the other issues we have discussed, the affordable care

act, keystone, the environment, the election will almost always come down to the discussion about the economy. you will hear both sides pushing their ideas about creating jobs, minimum wage, as we discussed, but it comes up to that impasse. he will not get a bill passed in congress that either side is particularly happy about in terms of generating jobs because of the requirements to get support from a bipartisan senate and house. host: columbus nebraska, sean is on the democrats line. caller: thanks for taking my call. ,y concern about immigration the immigration bill, is that republicans might go back to

bill, is that republicans might go back to obama's campaign when he said [no audio] thank you for taking my call. guest: the caller is concerned that people -- they will backfire against obama, that he has not been able to do more on immigration. certainly, activists are citing the same argument. you may promises to us and we are not seeing them get made. in 2012, you saw the president make some choices during the midst of his reelection, in terms of helping the dreamers, who are the younger children of illegal immigrants who came to the country when they were so young and grown up as americans, giving them more options to stay in the country. that ties into whether we could see a negative action on deportations. the truth is, the president would argue that he tried and that they worked very hard since he has come into office to do

something big on immigration reform. he promised it again in 2012. it is absolutely on the top of their priority list, but he cannot do it by himself. fairborn, ohio. karen is on the line for democrats. caller: i have a couple of comments. their,as congress and really, nonworking schedule, we should only pay them for the days they are working [no audio] you get paid for the days you work, and they do get many as their carsar being paid on their leases and stuff. my congressman, i could not tell you what he does, i never hear from him. he is never in the area, that i know of. --hink he worries more about

then the rest of us. guest: who is your congressman? caller: i believe it is mike turner. guest: you are tapping into the frustration that voters have. or is not a lot of action. is there a jobs bill? probably not. immigration bill? probably not. if you keep on reading this and you see they are not in town, you will get frustrated. guest: if you are not already seeing it now in your home states, these congressmen and women coming back pushing hard for reelection. that whole campaign season also takes them away from washington and away from the need to take votes and work on legislation and have some meaningful impact. guest: people talk about november is far away and giving up already, but so many important races are out there. may is a huge month for primaries.

which part of it will be in control of those in washington, if they take the senate and the house? that will be determined in the next six weeks. key primaries in north carolina, kentucky, georgia i'm a that will determine who is not only in the senate, which parties, but what type of party. retired,nowe, who is and ted cruz, that is one of the swaps that happened in congress. that is a dramatic shift in the makeup of the conference and the party and what happens in washington. host: one thing you mentioned is the kentucky senate race. senator mitch mcconnell. playrole does that race specifically, and obviously him as senate majority leader -- minority leader? a few weeks ago he stopped playing his role as public dealmaker. he stepped back a bit and let the senate work on its own. he was not taking a hands-on approach.

it looks like he will be dispatched by his primary opponent. mitch mcconnell has had a history of going aggressively after his opponent. he came out this last week and announced that he had to basically defend himself to say that he was never a supporter of cockfighting. he went to a few events when that was happening. to say that you have to do this, probably not a good sign if you -- trying to be erected reelected to a senate seat. he has a double take and that he has to face, a top two democrat in the fall. mitch mcconnell is unpopular, too, but the question is, can he get through that? he is certainly the favorite in the primary and the general. his reelection is definitely going to affect washington. guest: the fact that he is

vulnerable at all is making democrats elevate. that makes it a high-profile race, not only because the senate is up for grabs in terms of who controls it, but he is such a powerful figure there. we talked earlier about the president's trip to asia. one of the big things that people were watching about whether a trade deal would emerge. given one that has not, has the trip been successful? the white house would say so. they bristled at some of the coverage from the media about the fact that it was not because of the trade deal. that said, there were expectations they would be able to advance this trade deal, particularly in japan even up till the last minute when they're waiting for the press conference between the president and prime minister abe. they were hoping to have language to show specific progress, but they have struggled to make progress on that in asia. it is something that is very important to this white house.

they think it would be good for the economy in the united states and in these countries he is visiting, and for the world economy. another thing, shane might be able to talk about this more. they arehe push that using internationally, it also faces some significant resistance in the united states, and not where you might think. coming from democrats in the congress. guest: it was one of the interesting things this year, after the state of the union, the president talked about moving this trade agreement about fast-track through congress as quickly as possible. the very next day, harry reid was at the white house working hand in glove. big al i normally. he comes and says, not happening, we are not taking it up. it was like the white house was taken aback. he took the entire -- took the entire wind out of his sails on that deal.

it is one of issues that labor doesn't like, and the democrats the finale don't want to be on the wrong side of labor. guest: you would not be surprised to hear that the white house is not emphasizing that angle. they feel that if we can just get this through, get some sort of deal signed with our partners in asia, we will be able to tackle the opposition in washington. but they haven't gotten that far in either place so it is still an open question. host: in delaware, bernard is on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. soquestion is how is it quick that congress can help ukraine with aid to another country, and we the people in america are starting? the role for congress to turn the back for america. incursion,r russia's

in nation, depending on who you ask, they tried to guarantee more loans to the country. there were some people who said that this is not a good idea, we are not going to get this money back, and tried to tap into that populist frustration across the country. rand paul is one of those people. he is positioning himself as the menu doesn't want to give american money away abroad. that it makes you an isolationist amanda does put him out of the mainstream of what the parties doing. guest: it's an interesting point that the caller raises. both congress and the white house avenue 2 jobs in terms of domestic policy and foreign policy, and the white house would certainly argue that it is very important that ukraine feel the support of the united states both in terms of the loan guarantee but also just support dealinge of the u.s.

with the challenges that russia is creating. the questions about if congress to move quickly on that but not on employment insurance or these other issues are fair questions. host: the president and nothing this morning that there will be additional sections on russia, announcing them later today. explain to us what we are looking at, as much as you know, and for you, shane, i'm curious as to the response from members of congress. guest: you know, there is, again, different factions within both parties, but the real pushes that they want to send a tin and say this is not ok with the american government. they talked about and eight bill being guaranteed. it looks like a no-win situation in the short term and they are happy to let the president take the lead on these issues. sanctions we can expect to hear more about our additional asset freezes,

additional travel bans for so-called cronies of vladimir putin and people close to him and the government. what we will not see at least not yet are what the white house calls rock, massive sanctions against specific parts of the russian economy, which could and almost certainly would reverberate against certain parts of the global economy, specifically europe. you are seeing some back-and-forth between the white house, u.s. government, and european allies in terms of how far to go with those sanctions. the united states wants to show a united front between g7 countries, european allies, and the united states on the sanctions, and the fact that they are telegraphing it more is one way to try to show that. and there is no doubt that the sanctions will not be greeted in russia, but they will not go as far as they could. the united states is partially saying that this is how far we are going right now if you go and if you go any

further in ukraine, we have more in our top drawer. host: virginia. lowell is on the line for independents. caller: thanks for taking my call. my comment to this moneys about those who come to work for us. how can an individual who claims to work for us as a delegate, senator, congressman, take the amount of money that they take and then all the free things that they acquire, it just smacks in the face. it is unequal. it is not in relation to what the typical median group of people in the united states are capable of making on a regular basis. it seems terribly unfair, and all that -- excuse me -- all who you speak to, no matter how old it be granduldn't to just wipe the satellite -- wipe the slate clean and start all over?

while it doesn't seem practical, it seems like a great idea. guest: and he is speaking to the figure, 68% of americans want to shop around for a new member of congress. a huge portion of congress is new. the tea party waves in 2010, new districts are drawn in 2012. the majority of congress has not been here since the first room of the bush administration. houston, texas, where ashley is on the line for democrats. caller: good morning, lady and gentlemen. i want to speak about the affordable care act. i think it is absolutely absurd. i spent 42 years working in a hospital, 30 of them in the emergency center here. you wouldn't believe the people that are sitting there for hours

and hours and hours because they don't have medical insurance. this is a county hospital. and they don't have medical insurance, and they are sitting there forever, and they are having heart attacks. trauma means trauma, and that means accidents, it means shootings, it means police shootings, this is what trauma is. but most emergency centers -- i spent 28 years and there -- they -- you havedicine to have a medicine clinic going on besides the trauma center because so many people are not insured. i think the affordable care act is probably one of the greatest things that has ever happened in this country, and you can probably speak to any hospital employee that has worked in a trauma center, and they will let you know how this is needed. guest: and i think the white

house would be very happy to hear this commentary, and it raises another question about costs. when people come into trauma centers or with some of these issues that the caller was referring to and they don't have insurance, that cost ends up being spread out to everybody else. that was one of the main arguments certainly that the president made working towards passage of the affordable care act, that we want to bring health care costs down and one way of doing that is making sure everybody is insured so that these costs don't get passed on to everybody else. host: let's go to morgantown, north carolina. paul is on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. an independent journalist in western north carolina and i wrote extensively on environmental issues as well as economic issues. grows on a that

wholedeal has led to a lot of problems in discussion here, and it has been the consolidation of huge power throughout western europe, canada, and north america into the trade organizations. they have used their power to form trade agreements, which deregulated corporations to the point that they can go all over the country and the world in these other countries and manipulate slave labor, no environmental controls, and bring stuff back to the united states and sell it. profit.ole lot higher products have gone up at the same rate was of the 1950's. we are not saving money on products. the corporations are making more money and dodging labor laws and environmental laws and everything else and it has

reduced the number of jobs and created discontent among the poor and immigrants -- host: caller, we are running a little bit short on time so i will let our guests respond to you. guest: i was just going to say, trade agreements are controversial. there is no question there are winners and losers when you open the borders economically. and there are folks who like there are losers and it is one of the reasons there is this challenge to mystically with creating a trade agreement with japan and other countries in asia. guest: i would also add to that whether or not they meet the desires and expectations of people in the labor community, labor standards, environmental standards are absolutely part of those negotiations. guest: and the mention of the slave labor -- there is not slave labor as part of american trade agreements are brought. host: one more e-mail on this topic. host: more about the topic of

discontent that we have been talking about so much, guys. guest: i was out in california and the sheer number of locations cycling through -- politicians cycling through the bay area to talk to the tech community was a surprising. i happened to be out there. that is where the money is. there's not as many people going to north dakota during a given break period, or minnesota. guest: we could take an entire hour to discuss the topic of money in politics. it is huge and plays a key role in these special elections and the presidential elections. host: couple minutes left. we go to marie in a new jersey on the line for democrats. caller: yes, good morning. i'd like to -- --t: hey, marie, so unless? still with us? hello?aller:

host: you are on. caller: first, i would like to say that we need politicians that are going to do what is best for america, all right? let's stop the political fighting. i understand the job still has been on the show since around 2011. my goodness, bring it to the floor and let the people vote for it that worked on us. it would be a better country if we stopped talking about politics and just talked about what america needs right now. it needs jobs, it needs health care, a needs benefits for unemployed people. this is the first time in this roof unemployment that they didn't -- in the history of unemployment that they didn't extend it. it has been extended under republican presidents and democratic presidents. please, let's get real, let's look forward. thanks, guys. guest: we should make it clear

that both shane and i are journalists and not represent political parties here. but what the caller said is something both political parties would've no doubt appreciate hearing. guest: politics has become sort of a team sport, and in team sports there's winning teams and losing teams and both sides especially here our test with being on the winning team, both in elections, in every legislative fight. bills,s a battle to win two in the post signing of the bill messaging -- to win the post-signing of the bill messaging. guest: whether you like it or not, politics is the engine revenue of getting a lot of these policy things through. that is a big part of how washington works. addison, tennessee, ralph on our line for republicans. caller: i wanted to speak about

-- obama refuses to admit that the unappointed rate is really closer to 20 or 25%. i do applaud his efforts to get minimum wage up to $10.10. i deliver pizza and stuff and i'm only making $4.25 an hour. about 1 and -- only 5 people -- they don't want to tip. tip 5 people don't want to on average. to thing has gone out for a lot has gone -- tipping out for a lot of people and deliverers need this wage to be brought up. guest: he i talking about the slightly extra topic. in some cases you are getting paid well less than the minimum wage, below the federal minimum wage.

jobou are working on a tip in some states you are making as little as two dollars an hour and those other people nobody's really talking about. guest: i'm not sure where the is,r is -- where the caller 20, 25% on a climate, but where -- 20, 25% unappointed, but the numbers are still too high. host: the charges against him relate

he was heldns that roughly a million dollars from the federal government over a four-year period, wasn't file proper tax returns, paying his employees under the table with cash. he was hiring undocumented immigrants. he was having, maintaining a set of payroll records in payroll hide the actual situation that he had set up there. accused ofbeing lying under oath in january of lawsuit brought against him by two former employees saying that they paid overtime or minimum wage. michael grimm allegedly said he didn't use a personal e-mail account, which the grand did.see he they also said that he didn't or denied that he whichy employees in cash,

the prosecutors say they have evidence to the contrary. >> you've been writing about this. been his response in your latest article? to theas not responded charges directly. he held a press conference after as arraignment outside courthouse in new york, a little after 1:00 p.m. today. he was innocent that his legal team would handle the charges and they would fight tooth and nail to exonerate him. in the meantime he said he would continue to stay in office and would be seeking re-election in the fall. >> a witch hunt, he's he's calling it, he's a former us marine. >> that's right. he's a former u.s. marine, then went into the f.b.i., became an undercover agent, seeking out white collar crime on wall actually. so the legal procedures here should not be new to him. a witch hunt,is he said this is character

assassination. speakingis not directly about any of the charges but saying that he is he's called himself in his press conference a man of integrity. >> as a member of congress who has been indicted, what rules of apply that could affect him here? >> there's nothing that could or stepm to step aside down. his leadership's response will a big role in determining what comes next and whether there is any pressure to step much so far spiker boehner and others have not weighed in, people are still come back into town. boehner should say something weekly pressis conference. but we have historical precedent being indictedkl and dealing with little scandals serving. ted stevens was indicted and to trial and was found and, in 2010,time

on to be, and went challenger.his situation a few years earlier with rick grundy to was just sentenced prison. >> as far as congressman grimm is concerned, what about the committee, how could it be involved in this current matter? hashe ethics committee probably no jurisdiction to get involved. there was another investigation grimmg for michael involving campaign finance fraud and allegations of misconduct to his election in 2010. however, the ethics committee has sort of held off on that in the department of justice's investigation, and jurisdictionth over, they are supposed to

potential misconduct while members are, sort of that were responsible for when they were elected as members of congress, and they say that the campaign finance allegations and these happenedns relate before he was elected, so they say it is not within their jurisdiction. and i should also say i said was defeated in 2010, it was actually 2008. her latestain, article on the indictment of congressman grimm, can you find emman twitter at underscore dumain and also her call.com.le thanks for the insight. >> thank you. >> for over 35 years c-span affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at hearings, white house events, brief examination conferences and offering complete gavel to gavel coverage u.s. house, all as a public service of private

industry. thee c pan, created by cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> the question students based their dowptary on was, what's themost important issue u.s. congress should consider in 2014. ortiz, known that nandin are seniors from feehan is arizona, they want congress to make mental illness a top priority. >> dear congress. ortiz,es are shellly

hannah hood and nina nandin and we atten an art school in phoenix, arizona. threw the years we have en encountered a handful of friend that struggle with mental illnesses and throughout those years we have seen how a lack of for treatment can rule in devastating events as well as emotional distress for those their families. >> my name is felix schmitt and diagnosed with skits oh affective buy polar disorder. the hospital after sentisode like an attack me there, went straight to being an inpatient. me there after five minutes or so of talking to me foripolar and treated two weeks. i got out of the hospital and to doctor,octor looking for someone who would actually listen. took me over a year to find a doctor who actually did listen much. into the topicer

of mental illness, we've statistics.hocking >> 22 veterans commit sue sigh every day as a result of some of problems.ional >> unfortunate events. >> when i look back on the place inthat took tucson, the tragedy where congressman giffords were shot and 17 people wounded and six man whoied, the young did those shootings had been displaying symptoms of mental at least two years before that time. >> the stigma that they create our society. >> a lot of the mentally ill both in my family and otherwise people just don't pay any attention to them and try to preten like they don't really kind of isolation really can make a problem worse, addition to being totally dehumanizing. >> in our research not only did stumble upon the lack of help

for adults and youths who struggle with mental illness, a substantial absence of help for veterans who struggle with mental illness. >> if we look become on what happened after the vietnam war, ae veterans who came back to country very divided over the war, they were reviled and killers.by but what's even worse, they weren't given the mental health needed and they ended up in the homeless population'. >> if they're an their own, case, it'sually the hard to get that help that you need to start working towards getting yourself out of the rut that it creates, with things the longer it goes, schizophrenia, bipolar, the longer you let it go without the more trouble the person gets in, the more isolation that they en up with being ostracized from society and alienated from friend, the harder it is to

treat. >> throughout this process we were able to find facilities that helped veterans through the coming backre's from war. >> i'm a nine and a half year reserve veteran, currently i'm an assistant dean of students for veterans education university of arizona. so we're here at the university of arizona, we have a vet center approximately 3800 care feet, it's entirely staffed by student who transition into the university of arizona and are familiar with the university of theona, they're all using education al benefits, and it's a place for veterans to come and veterans, beer around other folks who have walked in the same boots that in the pasted in much it a place to get away from things and it's a hub of studention for our veterans to come to fine resources they may need during their college career here at the university of arizona. >> can be kind of a nightmare time, come and find

people that are closer to my background. thompson, i was in the army, i did two deployments in 05 and 09. to have space like this for us is pretty key, because a lot of issues be home with them physical or mental. and having an area like this where we can get together with people that understand our experiences can really help people out. >> it's also clear that this important one to our country. on december 10, 2013, $100 million was advocated in funding for mental health facilities. the money went to expand services for those living with mental illness and addiction and for this we commend the its attends to the issue. >> by talking to congressman barber we saw a possible help those struggle with the mental health first aid act.

health first aid act tries to get at that issue of public awareness and mental illness, reducing the stigma of mental illness, so that when pans, teachers, fell will students, friend, see symptoms of mental someone, if they've gone through this class, this begin tothey will understand through that training who they're seeing when they're seeing it. symptoms might mean, and where nay can get treatment and help for that person. we if these are things that were screening for, if childhood trauma was a thing that you schools andn treated, yeah, you could save a of substance abuse, a lot of later violence, a lot of later problems. >> it's vital that we reduce the to mental illness and open doors to those who need help. president obama signed the only new bus spending bill that first aid program,

but we have a long way to go. we strongly encourage congress fundingnue to provide for those who struggle with mental illness and continue to allocate resources and develop new programs for those who are in need. to be like, i don't treated different because i'm just kind of used to it. >> our guest on the next "washington journal" include republican senator ron johnson to discuss his lawsuit against the obama administration, challenging the legality of federal contributions to the health care plans of members of congress and

staffers.nal we'll be joined by the president and c.e.o. of the center for solutions to talk about the center's meeting this a racial wealth gap in the u.s. kate will take your questions about a proposed fcc regulation that would allow brond band providers to charge fees for faster delivery of video and data. wawnl is live op c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> i'm walking you over to where the transcontinental rail row completed. this spot right here marked by

is within inches of where the original ceremony was 1869.n may 10, the pulse that you see right next to it was actually placed resurveyed the exact location as they were establishing the sight and ready to set things up. so that is marking pretty much inchesct location within of where that only ceremony was held. the original lower wood tie would have been lost in the 1906 and fire. all of the items that were brut out for the ceremony would have been brought by the central california.of included on this tie is a plaque the lists many of dignitaries from that company, the central pacific in including leeland stanford's name and the big four all marked there. when that transcontinental rail row was completed it made a

the industrial development of this nation. onlyllowed it to grow not abilityconomy and its to build within the nation but impactfulcome more throughout the world. the end of the civil war was huge boon in helping to build the country. and once they were able to ourle the other areas, country was able to become, or the united states was able to become the world power. >> this weekend, book tv and american history tv take a look at the history andly rather life utah, saturday at noon eastern and sunday at 2:00 on c-span 3. available at your favoe bookseller. >> now a discussion of how to improve relations between the white house and congress. center'stisan policy commission on political reform hosted several former white

staff, cabinet secretaries and members of congress. this is an hour. of staff, cabit secretaries, and members of congress. this is an hour. >> good afternoon. i want to extend a warm welcome to you in this beautiful library and museum. it is one of only 13 presidential libraries in america. it is a masterpiece. we like to say it is a national treasure in our midst where president kennedy's legacy lives on. today, we are marking and especially important occasion because this gathering is the very first event cosponsored with our new neighbors, the

edward m kennedy institutes of the united states senate. i can't think of a more fitting occasion for the institutions that honor the lives and achievements of both resident candidate 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 come along with 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