indicate that he would be coming? ken: i'm not sure of the status of his invitation but i will be able to all of with you on that before thursday. >> senate majority leader mitch mcconnell spoke about his relationship with president obama in an event yesterday. obama sends mcconnell a note on loretta lynch. david jackson writes, who says they don't get along? the senate majority leader said that republicans and the obama administration are working together on free trade and that the president sent him a nice note for his confirmation vote on behalf of attorney general loretta lynch. in a speech in boston, mcconnell referred to the past relationship between the late liberal senator from

massachusetts and orrin hatch from utah. a lot of folks like to joke about the odd couple, but i think mitch mcconnell and barack obama may have them outdone. senator mcconnell was one of 10 republican senators to vote for loretta lynch for attorney general. it will have majority leader's mcconnell's remarks next. followed by a discussion on the future of congress and later a look at the u.s. and for structure needs. -- infrastructure needs. >> good afternoon everyone. [applause] welcome. i have the great privilege of

being the president of the edward m kennedy institute for the united states senate. this wonderful new building and this wonderful innovative technology exhibit outside leads to this wonderful replica of the united states senate chamber. it is the heart and soul of the institute. it is a full-scale replica with a little bit more technology, as you can see. if this is your first digit -- visit, i hope you will come again to see all that we offer you we are very pleased to welcome you today for the launch of one of our public program series, "get to the point." we are very excited have majority leader mitch mcconnell be our first speaker. our formula today will include remarks from senator mcconnell.

it is my pleasure to introduce mrs. victoria reggie kennedy. we know her well in massachusetts. [applause] >> i think all has been said but you do know that she is a founding president of the institute and we would not be here without her energy, determination and her vision for making this place that will inspire a next generation of

leaders. mrs. kennedy. [applause] mrs. kennedy: thank you so much for those warm words. it is so great to be with all of you and i would be remiss if i did not say a warm word of welcome to senator paul kerr, thank you for being here. also, our founding chair is here. [applause] thank you so much. good afternoon and happy mother's day to all of you. it is my great pleasure to welcome you to the edward m kennedy institute for the united states senate. this institute was created to educate the public about the important role of the united

states senate and our government. to encourage participatory democracy, invigorate civil discourse, and inspire a new generation of leaders. this afternoon, with our esteemed inaugural speaker, for our get to the point program series, i believe we fulfill every single aspect of that ambitious mission statement. let me make something clear. we call this program "get to the point" not because we are concerned about filibustering but because we are located here at columbia point. next of a john f. kennedy library and adjacent to the massachusetts archives. how fitting it is that we are surrounded by its authors of

learning, intellectual inquiry in history. how fitting it is that our first speaker is the majority leader of united states senate. the senior senator from kentucky who is also longest-serving senator in kentucky history. mitch mcconnell. we are honored by his residence today. he is by any measure a man of the senate and a proven leader. he was an honored graduate and political science from the university of louisville. he received his law degree from the kentucky school of young -- law where he was also the president of this bar association. are you sensing a pattern? leader mcconnell was first exposed to the senate in a personal way when he served as

an in turn. as much as we left the emk instituto hope to inspire new generation, senator cooper inspired mcconnell to serve, too. i feel very certain that senator cooper would be very proud of all his protege has accomplish. by the time he was elected in his own right in net unity for unseating -- in 1984, unseating an incumbent, mitch mcconnell had finely tuned legislative chops. our speaker worked hard and rose through the leadership ranks. first as chair of the republican

senatorial campaign committee, a make or break proving ground for many. it was a make for our speaker. he was asked to serve in that position for a second cycle. then was elected by his peers to be minority with and then -- minority whip and then minority leader. mitch mcconnell was unanimously elected for the 115th congress. leader mcconnell has shown tremendous judgment in his personal life marrying a woman with extraordinary grace and a couple spent. former secretary of labor and my friend, elaine chao. she has the distinction of being the longest serving labor secretary ever. he served during both terms of george w. bush and i am proud to say that the then senate, edward

m kennedy, happily and proudly presided over are unanimous confirmation for both terms and thoroughly enjoyed working with her. teddy also enjoyed working with her at the institute of politics at harvard, a place that was near and dear to her heart. i'm happy she is here with us today. i know it is fashionably to say that washington is irretrievably broken and pulverized. i for one, do not believe that. as teddy would say, you can disagree without being disagreeable. even though they didn't often vote the same way, they did sometimes. when they didn't, it wasn't personal. teddy was honored to speak at the mcconnell institute of the

university of louisville. we here at the kennedy institute are likewise enjoying our collaboration with students in developing programming for here. both my husband and our speaker today revered the institution of the senate and understood what senator mcconnell has said, that the senate is, and i quote, one of the greatest tools we have in this country for guaranteeing a durable and stable legislative consensus. it is my great honor and a distinct pleasure to introduce him now. the majority leader of united states senate, the senior senator from kentucky, mitch mcconnell. [applause]

sen. mcconnell: it won't surprise you when i say that everybody loves vicki. [applause] elaine does. i do. our colleagues in the united states senate, regardless of party, have deep respect and admiration vicki, for what you provided for ted and what you are doing now. this is an extraordinary contribution to the country. not only in commemoration of ted, but to underscore the importance of the institution of the senate. i don't think it is any secret that vicki, you gave ted a sense

of stability and tranquility in his later life. even as he retained all of the passion and intensity with which we associate him. boy was he passionate. that bellowing voice from the back of the room. there was no mistaking when kennedy was up and doing his thing. you made more of him than he was without you. it was an extraordinary coming together of two outstanding people. i want to thank all of you for coming here. i see justice prior sitting there, you must have had a slow afternoon. [laughter] i know there are others here involved in state government. i am pleased to see all of you and to be with you in boston.

it is not hard to feel the mark that the kennedys made on this great american city. with a name like mcconnell, i feel quite at home here. even though i am told that the fitzgeralds came from county limerick and the kennedys from county wechsler, during a period in the civil war of the great migration because of a potato famine, i must tell you i am scotch irish. for the most part, they got here earlier. i learned a big deal about that from jim webb's book "born fighting." about the scotch and scotch irish. they loved fighting the british. they did it in scotland. which is one of the reasons the british pushed them to northern ireland. they wanted to get rid of as many as they could and in

addition to that, they wanted to turn ireland into a protestant country. that didn't work out too well. the scotch irish got over there and found they hated the british and could not get along with the catholics either, so there was a huge outward migration of scotch irish to america. beginning in 1700 and going down to the american revolution. one of those people was james mcconnell, whose revolutionary war pension application said that he was brought to the port of charleston, south carolina when he was six years old. it was during the andrew jackson administration that they decided to pay a pension to veterans not unheard of in this country. what i discovered was, he got to fight the british again. the scotch irish got over here

just in time to fight the british again, something they endued -- enjoyed doing. my scotch irish ancestors actually got here earlier, but i'm sure there are plenty of mcconnells in boston. look around this room. i don't know how many have been on the floor of the united states senate, but this is really close to where i work every day. i sit at that desk right there and harry reid sits where vicki is sitting. the rest of the desks are doled out on a seniority basis. it doesn't mean you have to move. ted preferred being in the back, given how long he was there he could have been sitting right behind the democratic leader. he liked to be in the back. seniority gave you an opportunity to pick your spot on the floor. when i first got there i was in the very last week in the corner. very seldom do we sit where we

are supposed to. there are a few solemn occasions where everybody sits where they are supposed to. the first on that happen to me early in my career, in that corner, the light wasn't very good and everybody was sitting where they were supposed to, i look around the room and i thought, none of these people are ever going to die. [laughter] retire. or be defeated. but i have a pretty good seat now. that is how we dole out the seats. the democratic leader, minority or majority sits there and the republican leader sits there in the whip. everything else by seniority. vicki, this is a remarkable

replica of the senate chamber. it was in that senate chamber in 2006 that i asked ted to do me a favor. to come to the mcconnell center at the university of louisville. he spent an our talking to the students. delivered a thoughtful and engaging speech and quite frankly, wowed the audience. i can assure you he was not down there because he owed me legislative favors. that is just the kind of guy he was. i can tell you that the students who were there at that time are still talking about it today. we had a lot of great speakers. secretary clinton was there, vice president biden, chief justice roberts, but of all the people we had, ted was my favorite. he was truly extraordinary and i am always grateful he came down.

i occupied his old office in the russell building. which vicki and i had occasion to talk about. it is a great office and i can see why ted kept it for so many years. here is the story you may not know. if the wind is blowing the right way, you can still catch a whiff of portuguese water dog in there. [laughter] you think i'm kidding? [laughter] many years ago, i chaired the rules committee and my office was right near there in the russell building. there is a balcony on that floor. the only florida has a balcony. -- only floor that has a balcony. so the dog would go down the balcony and go into each office and greet everybody. it was the morning wake up from ted's dog. trotting down the balcony and

right into the committee office. in a sense, i got to know the extended kennedy family better than most. i will not pretend that we were close allies. we worked. -- we were not c-span.org. we were on the opposite side of almost every issue. we worked together when things did a line -- did align. we worked closely with sanctions on the apartheid regime in south africa. a veto-proof majority. an overwrite of ronald reagan's veto, something i was not routinely involved in. elaine and i got married on ronald reagan's birthday. on purpose. you get the drift. ted and i shared something else

the senate as an institution and what the new majority is redoing to restore -- is doing to restore the institution that ted and i love so much. ask the kid what they want to be when they grow up and you get familiar answers astronaut movie star, president. for me it was always this. u.s. senator. my first goal was to become a baseball player. but my passion for procedure proved stronger than my pitching arm. so here i am. from a young age, i have always admired the grander of the senate. it's complex rules, its freewheeling debate, and it's strong protections for the minority make it one of the

most unique legislative bodies on earth. it is the only legislative body were a simple majority is not enough. that is the uniqueness. the senate is a place our country comes together to solve some of its most complex and intractable problems. it is where men and women of good will have often worked out durable compromise and lasting reform. only rarely does the party have a big enough majority completely impose its will on the institution. most of the time it requires some level of bipartisanship to accomplish anything. the rules and traditions are what allow this to occur. listen to this. people matter in the senate because most of what we do is unanimous consent. if any one of the 100 says i

object, you are stuck. you are stuck. so we have to talk to each other a lot, as you can imagine. this is a body full of class president types. they are pretty good or they would not have made it this far. i often say, leading this crowd is an experience you ought to have. for members of my caucus running for resident. i said you think running for president is hard, you ought to have my job. i have spent a little more than eight years as leader of my party in the senate. it's like the difference between being the defensive coordinator and the offense of coordinator. i enjoyed being the defensive coordinator but it is harder to score. if you are the offense of court

nader you to call plays and there is a chance you can put points on the board. harry reid would tell you the same thing and so would george mitchell and bob dole. i love every minute of it and i love the institution of the senate. so did ted kennedy. which is why this is such an appropriate way to remember him. i got my first taste of the peculiarities as vicki indicated. a great friend of president's kennedy and served for 10 years with ted kennedy. that summer was an incredible summer. the summer of 1964. in those days, most senators didn't have a huge internship program.

i was the only intern in the office. my boss was deeply involved in that, as was ted. it was an incredible time to be in washington, but i had been there the summer of the year before on the house side. got to be at the martin luther king's i have a dream speech. i did not hear a word of it. there was a mass of humanity all the way down to the lincoln memorial. then the next summer, breaking the filibuster on the civil rights bill and it passed. next summer, i didn't have a job but i went back to visit my friends. and i just happened to hit it on the perfect day. i was sitting in the outer

office hoping senator cooper would talk to me for a few minutes. he walked out, grabbed my arm and said i will take you to the capital to see something important. it turned out, that was the day that lbj signed the voting rights act of 1965. there i was, not exactly up front, back in the corner and sort of inconspicuously watching all of that going on. so, by the time i had done that for three years in a row i was hoping that someday i would have on young opportunity myself. to say that we were not well connected to put it mildly. in this country, no matter where you start out you have a shot at realizing your dreams and ambitions. 20 years later in 1984, i was

sworn into the seat that john sherman cooper had once held. he was still alive and he invited me to come to his house which was a few houses away from jackie, the kennedy -- the house that jack kennedy and his wife lived in before he became president. so i thought to myself, anything is possible in this country. i am not here today to talk about me, i am here to talk about the senate and ted. so when ted came down to the mcconnell center he brought a perfect photo of john sherman cooper with john f. kennedy with an inscription and this is what it said -- i know how much john f. kennedy admired cooper in the senate and so did i. the perfect gift.

i don't think any speaker i had has ever brought a gift. ted did. he obviously asked somebody on staff to do some work, to come up with the appropriate thing to do. the touch that i so much appreciated. even though one was a democrat and the other republican, they forged many alliances. as i indicated they work together on the civil rights bill, so did ted. he picked up his load when his brother was gone and he and senator cooper got the bill across the war. what we saw in the ultimate triumph of the civil rights act was the senate at its best. almost nobody in america can tell you this today, but to show you how bipartisan it was, a higher percentage of republicans voted for the civil rights bill and democrats do because in those days they were still the

southern democrats which was a significant part of the democratic coalition. it was genuinely bipartisan. i mentioned being in the room when lbj signed the voting rights act. i was one of the speakers at a celebration of lbj's 100 birthday. lucy was there. i never met her before. i said lucy, i was in this room when your dad signed the voting rights act and she said, i was too. i said tell me about it. she said, my dad said i will take you to the capital. this is an important thing for you to witness. on the way up there he said, you will notice that i will have everyone right by me. and she said daddy, why will

you have a republican sitting there by you when you sign the voting rights act? he said it is important, because he deserved it and played a major role and i want this to be accepted by the country. if they see the democratic president and the republican leader of the senate together, it helps the country accepted. -- accept it. that is the kind of thing the country needs more of. no look, the senate has fallen short of these ideals of late. we may debate the causes, not going to do that today but few would dispute the point. restoring the senate to what it could be has long been one of my top priorities. it is something i deeply believe in and something i said one year ago. if the american people change the majority, we would change

the senate. from a practical standpoint there is not much in majority leader can accomplish without the american people in a senate that is not working. from day one, i resolved to fix it. if i might paraphrase ted kennedy, my view was that the senate could no longer afford to drift, it was time to sail against the wind. it was time to rebuild the fundamentals of the senate. that meant giving power back to the committees. it meant taking a step back and allowing committees to come up with their own ideas frequently , in the past those ideas had been bipartisan. if you give them a real opportunity to shape and amended fisa legislation, they are more than likely to see the bill succeed on the floor.

imagine a bill supported by both tied -- sides than there are people with the state in them when it is on the floor. much more likely to go somewhere. we got the committees up and running and the results have been positive. who would've thought that jim in hoffe and barbara boxer would agree on anything. but they are working closely on a highway reform bill. in the intelligence committee, richard or an dianne feinstein cooperated on a cyber security bill that came out of committee 14-1. in ted's old committee, lamar alexander and patty partnered to unanimously pass on young update of no child left behind.

in the finance committee, after months of negotiations, republicans after months -- republicans and democrats came together to pass a bill 20-6. in the foreign relations committee due to the work of bob corker and ben cardin, an iran built the white house had been threatening to veto cleared unanimously. the full senate passed it with one dissenting vote and the senate will sign it. the first step is getting committees functioning. the next step is to open debate on the floor and allow senators to start offering amendments. the ability to offer amendments is one of the things that long made the senate, the senate. we had hardly been able to do so in recent years. it hurt, not just republicans, but democrats too. there is a democratic senator

running for reelection in alaska next year. the end of his six-year term. he never had an opportunity to get a roll call vote on an amendment in his full term. his full term. i figured it was time to open things up. we had our first test of the new senate in consideration of the keystone pipeline. for some senators it was like an ice cream binge after a bad diet. they offered amendment after amendment after amendment. four other senators it was like an awkward first date. they had no idea what to do. they had never really had a chance to amend a bill before. i know that astonishes you, but this is the way it was. eventually we got the newbies up to speed and the old-timers got

it out of their system. four weeks after we started. that was only after we had taken more roll call votes on amendments on that one bill than all of last year together. we only had 15 rollcall votes on amendments in all of 2014. more on one bill. our colleagues in the house always ribbed us because it takes longer to do anything in the senate. they passed keystone in a day or so and it took us four weeks. that is the essential difference between the two chambers. the house can move quickly without regard for the minority. that is how it is designed. washington, according to legend, was asked, what will the senate be like? he supposedly said it will be like the saucer under the teacup. the tea will slosh out of the

saucer and cool off. what he meant was, things would not happen quickly in the senate. they don't happen quickly in the senate. there is a difference between not having something happen quickly and not having something happen at all. the senate, when it functions correctly, is slow. it was predicted that it would be slow. it requires time, trust and compromise to get there. only rarely is the majority able to run roughshod over the majority. there are times when that can happen but most of the time it doesn't. the keystone debate helped us remember how to do those things. as far as the senate was concerned, it was time well spent. it demonstrated not just to

senators, but american people, that a new, more functional, more open approach was possible. the president didn't sign the bill, but that is not why i brought this up. it was like a tutorial. that i thought we needed in order to start functioning again. we passed a budget, that is typically a partisan exercise. we hadn't done that but one of the last six years. another indication. going back to the budget act of 1974 and up until six years ago the senate only failed to pass a budget one year. my point of bringing it up is not so much what kind of budget it was, but that the law requires you to do it.

differences of opinion between the executive and legislative ranch are pretty natural. -- branch are pretty natural. certainly when you have divided government as you do now. but doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't try to get things done. we are. with this new majority we are focusing on things that enjoy bipartisan support and are worth doing. bipartisan support and are worth doing. divided government is very common. we of divided government more often than not since world war ii. american people seem to like it. maybe they don't trust in her that much to give them that much power that often. when the american people select divided government, what they are saying is, look for the

things you agree on and do them. look for the things you agree on and do them. we just passed an iran sanctions bill which will give congress an opportunity to vote on the final agreement with iran if there is one. and the president is going to sign it. i think that was probably not his first choice, but he is going to sign it. we will have on young opportunity to weigh in -- we will have an opportunity to weigh in on that later. trade is an issue that divides the party. most members are pro-trade. a lot of folks like to joke about the odd couple that ted kennedy and orrin hatch were. i think mitch mcconnell and barack obama would have them outdone. i told reporters last week, sort of an out of body experience, i

was having more interaction with the president these days than i had in the past. we found something we agreed on and we were trying to accomplish it for the american people. to show how things are changing. the president has a reputation for not being very good at schmoozing or interacting with either party. i was pleased to get my handwritten note thanking me last week for voting for loretta lynch. bipartisanship is breaking out all over. [laughter] it is clear the president and i do not have the kind of relationship that approaches what ted and orrin had, but what we do have is a common policy ground on what we think is good for the majority. the republican party will work with president obama to get

things done, even over the objections of his own party. i praised him on this issue for very aggressively pointing out why he thinks it is right for the country, and in his particular situation, he is going against the tide and his own base and deserves credit for it. that is the kind of thing that ted -- i'm not saying ted would have been for the trade bill, i don't know if he would or not but he would have appreciated the kind of bipartisanship we would show on this issue. we all know that ted was a partisan guy. they didn't call him the lion of the left because he was quoting george will on the senate floor. he was someone who could separate personal from political. he could zero in on points of policy convergence, with senators he would usually agree with 0% of the time. like me.

i cannot tell you how important these intangible qualities are tough functioning senate. i saw them again and again. tense dealings with colleagues on my side of the aisle and his. i saw them up close that memorable day. here is the other thing. when he gave you his word, he kept it? as orrin hatch put it, he would stick i no matter how much heat he had to take. it reminds me of the time that ted breached an important legislative compromise. what ted said to him was i will do exactly what i told you i would do but boy am i getting the up by the far left in my party. you may have to come to massachusetts and campaign for me.

two days later, saxby reported he was having a similar issue. you'll believe this, but i am getting beat up over the same issue on my own side. but i don't need you to come to georgia to campaign for me. [laughter] the fact that the senate is functioning better doesn't mean we fixed every problem. not even close. bob schieffer said the other day in his commentary piece on "face the nation," about the new senate, he said what is happening is by no means a miracle, but every journey begins with a first step. he is right. passing a budget, working through committees, allowing senators to work through constituents, debate and amendments these are the things

american people expect as a matter of course. these are things we should have been doing all along but in recent years we haven't. the new majority resolved to fix it. it doesn't mean we are parting the potomac are turning water into irish whiskey. it does mean that we are getting the fundamentals back on track. i believe that will position us for greater success in the months and years to come. i would like to think that ted would have agreed with that. one way that i know a real sense of renewal is taking hold of the senate, is because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle keep coming to me to say so. i won't mention names because i do not want to get them in trouble. [laughter] most of us have had more conversations this year across

the aisle then we have had in the last four or five. there is a bipartisan recognition that we need to get the senate functioning again. we will still have rockets debates -- racuucus debates. i'm amused by people who watch too much cable think we all hate each other, they haven't read enough history. i usually say what we said about each other pales in comparison to what hamilton and jefferson said about each other. certainly doesn't compare to the time a congressman from south carolina came and almost beat a senator from massachusetts to death before the civil war. raucous debate is totally american. we don't dislike each other. i would encourage everybody not to personalize or allow people

to personalize the great debates we are having about the future of our country. as you notice, i have avoided pointing any fingers about the blame in recent years. it needs to stop and it is going to stop. my hope is that by restoring the senate to its purpose, we will create a space where republicans and him a crafts feel a real stake, regardless of which party leads the senate. i view the role of the majority leader -- someone who seeks to guide colleagues toward solutions, rather than always trying to pose a view on 99 others. i don't want to be

misunderstood, that doesn't mean an exertion of will isn't useful every now and then. it doesn't mean i don't know how to do that. that shouldn't be the first resort, that should be the last resort. the overriding and is this. in the senate, everybody matters. ted stevens told me, when he first got to the senate, mike mansfield was majority leader. he was having trouble getting an amendment. mansfield heard about it, came to the floor and picked up stevens's amendment and sent it to the desk for him. this is the majority leader for a rookie in the minority and guarantee that he got a vote. that is the kind of senate we need to have again.

that is the kind of senate that i believe ted kennedy liked appreciated and would have loved to have been a part of and i'm deeply grateful for the opportunity to be here today and to give you my take on your great ted kennedy and the institution that he loved. thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you leader mcconnell you give us great hope and you reflect the sentiment that we often hear in the senate when we

have the public here and they have a chance to debate on young issue -- the debate an issue. for the second half i would like to introduce jackie connell. a correspondent for the "new york times." she believed a question and answer dialogue with the leader. a former white house correspondent for "the tiemsmes." she knows a thing or two about covering the senate as she has previously worked as a congressional reporter for "the atlantic." she is currently a fellow at the sector -- center on media and public policy at the harvard kennedy school. we were delighted that she could be with us today. i will ask the leader to come up

and join her. [applause] >> the senator spoke long, i won't call it a filibuster because they are actually here to hear you. you have the prerogative. i was sitting there and i was thinking i haven't been on the senator floor since howard baker was majority leader. in that instant i thought, i am not on the senate floor. it really is extraordinary just how realistic this is. let me get right to the question. you mentioned trade, and you mentioned the problems the president has with his members. the republicans aren't as pro-free trade as a use to be

given that your party's base went to the south and the west and tea party people don't want to give the president any achievements. will you get the 60 votes you need on tuesday? sen. mcconnell: let me start by saying that ted cruz is for tpa. ms. calmes: not all tea party members are against it. sen. mcconnell: here is what i have been saying. you are queasy about giving barack obama this authority? this is a six year deal. do you want the next president to have trade promotion authority? if you have a republican in the white house, given the pressure internally on the democrats, i don't think you could get trade promotional authority through congress. so, this is the ideal time. if you believe in free trade and think it is good for the country, this is an ideal time

to get that in place for six years, with a democrat in the white house, so we are fortunate enough to have one of hours who can do -- one of ours who can do additional trade deals. i think we will have overwhelming support. some are not for it, but we will have some majority. ms. calmes: is that how you got ted cruz to vote for it? sen. mcconnell: i have said before the candidates for president, do you want to do any trade agreements while you are president? the answer is yes. ms. calmes: what percentage of republicans will you get? sen. mcconnell: i'm not going to do that. you know that. [laughter] a large majority. ms. calmes: you will get a majority. another issue. the patriot act and the reauthorization of section 215. you might be the majority leader but your view seems to be the enormity on this one -- the

minority on this one. sen. mcconnell: i may be. ms. calmes: you have members who want to limit it or and it entirely -- or end it entirely. a appeals court saying it is not being interpreted correctly. rand paul, your colleague from kentucky, called the backers opportunistic and overreaching all attentions, violating -- politicians, of violating american's national rights. why would you do that? [laughter] no, but seriously. what now? sen. mcconnell: i am not in the business of preventing votes. let me give you my take. we have someone in the room who will participate in deciding -- what we do is consistent with the constitution or not.

let's put that aside for a minute. what is the problem? the problem is, that you have terrorists overseas, through the use of social media, the internet and even cell phones, trying to encourage people in our country to engage in terrorist acts against americans. what has the nsa been doing? they are not listening to your phone calls. let me say that again. they are not listening to your phone calls. what they do -- in the late 70's, there was a supreme court decision that you do not have any expectation of privacy with your phone bill. you have the numbers that you called. not the content, but the numbers. you have no expectation of privacy about who you called, because you are billed for it.

they look at patterns. if you have somebody in our country in frequent conversation with somebody in syria, what they will do is go to the foreign intelligence surveillance court and get a warrant. if they can demonstrate to the court that there is a reason, consistent with the law, to listen in, they would do that. but calling your mother today to congratulate her for mother's day -- nobody has any interest in that. i think this is an important tool in trying to prevent the next terror attack. i think that section 215, which you are talking about ought to be extended. having said that, there is a lot

of loose talk about privacy and the rest that does not apply to what is being done. i think there is certainly a majority in the house who are weakening the law. i felt and chairman richard w burr felt that the best bill to start with was a simple extension of the law. it will be open for amendment. we may or may not have the votes. what they have done is bring together the far left and the far right. you have mike lee and pat leahy in favor of changing the law. i don't know how it will come out, but i will not try to dictate the outcome. my personal view and the view of the chairman of the intelligence committee and other members, is that the nation is better off with an extension of the patriot

act. we will see where the votes are. ms. calmes: could you see yourself voting for limits on the selection of telephone records? sen. mcconnell: if we end up in a situation where we have something or nothing, i would he in favor of something over nothing. the bill in the house makes it more difficult to react in a timely way. doing it quickly is frequently important in a situation like this. i fear that the bill is likely to pass the house, and will be a lot more cumbersome. i don't think the phone company keeping the records makes me more comfortable given the data breaches and other problems we have had in the private sector. this is a debate that we will have on the floor and we will see where the majority is. the bill we will start with in the senate is an extension of

the current law. ms. calmes: all of you senators i have taken questions that people wrote down and on facebook, twitter and here, and works them into the questions i am asked him -- asking. you mentioned the budget in your remarks. the fact that the republicans passed it just recently. that is nonbinding. it doesn't get signed by the president and a lot of these provisions, republicans will never write legislation to put into law. i wanted to ask you, looking forward, in the project i have been working on at the kennedy school, a number of them when this subject has come up have said to me that none of the successes today tell us anything about what happened later in the year when you turn to the

essential task of government, like passing appropriation bills or raising the debt limit again you have said there will be no more government shutdowns or defaulting on the debt, how will you pull that off? sen. mcconnell: you sort of gave short strips to passing a budget. it is better than four of the last five years on the democrats when they did not pass a budget bill. we had a vote on the resident budget. one person voted for. one out of 100. before you give short shrift to our budget, it is better than no budget at all and a little bit more popular than the president's budget which got one vote out of 100. ms. calmes: i can run with the same happening to george bush, ronald reagan and bill clinton. sen. mcconnell: precisely. you want to discuss history? ms. calmes: it is the senate. sen. mcconnell: over the last

five years, they chose not to do it at all. i agree, it is a blueprint. it is true that we want to spend more on defense and they want to spend more on the domestic side. that is why you have negotiations. we will end up back and forth over how much we will spend. we will also end up in contentious debates over efforts we will make to rain in the federal bureaucracy, which has been on a rampage. health care, financial services, environmental protection, and lot of areas. i'm not saying we will not have big debates. this is a country with 300 million people and a lot of different points of view. we will have big debates, but people will get to participate and we will see where the votes are. ms. calmes: will you be able to raise the debt limit?

sen. mcconnell: sure. ms. calmes: do you want to give me a percentage of republican votes on that one? [laughter] sen. mcconnell: we are not refusing to pay. ms. calmes: you will hold to that vow, a lot of people will thank you. someone wrote in on facebook, they wanted to know what three pieces of bipartisan legislation you see being produced. you talked about some of the things you have done that are being produced in getting signed into law. this is from megan in massachusetts. sen. mcconnell: they are ran -- the iran nuclear legislation will pass and be signed by the president, giving us the ability to review and do a final agreement, if there is one. we will pass on a bipartisan

basis and update of no child kind. i think we are going to pass on an overwhelmingly bipartisan aces, sovereign security legislation, and we're going to pass trade promotion authority. there are probably a lot of republicans and if you democrats. those are four major pieces of legislation. ms. calmes: is it going to be difficult if the presidential race gets farther along, how is that going to impinge on your activities, especially as you have said -- sen. mcconnell: every two years we have an election since 1788, 89. you can either decide that is a distraction or not. but there is always an election going on, so i am not going to worry about that. it does from time to time create attendance issues. i got four members running for

president and we need to all make sure there are certain days that we need to make sure everybody is there. but i do nothing think it is a major problem. ms. calmes: there is a huge issue in the presidential race on the republican side and you not -- you do not hear it so much and congress. the no child left behind extension is something you hope to see through. next immigration, the biggest immigration -- issue is common core. is that going to enter into the no child left behind debate? sen. mcconnell: interestingly enough, jeb bush has endorsed the bill that laura and patty murray produced which leaves issues to the states which i think where it was originally. ms. calmes: jeb bush is the one candidate you have on your site who stood by his support of common core. sen. mcconnell: it basically leaves the issue to the states create i think -- the states.

i think that is where it will end up. state aid may choose to use it. ms. calmes: the fact that senators paul, and rubio are against it. sen. mcconnell: it will be in the same place in the end. the issue with regard to no child left behind i think was how much centralization of power , it is one of our -- as one of our more moderate members, it created a national school board and a lot of people think we ought to not have a national school board. you have eliminated it in -- as an issue. i do not think that will be in the forefront. ms. calmes: amy who identifies herself as formally kentucky wants to know what is your greatest a achievement during the obama presidency? since you are so much better now

for opposing him and wanting to make him a one term president? sen. mcconnell: bob woodward to his credit carried the west -- the rest of my quote. what i said was and i will say it again which will not surprise anyone in the room. i thought the most important political objective for us was to make sure the president was a one term president worried when they did was cut off the rest of what i said which was that in the meantime, we need to see what kind of progress we can make for the country and i appreciated bob woodward pointing that out. biden and i did the edge of control act of august 2011. we did the fiscal cliff deal new year's eve of 2012. i demonstrated on a number of occasions that i was ready to deal with the administration when i was a minority. ms. calmes: you talked in your

speech about how much improved the senate is, and i have had as you said you have had democrats who praised your stewardship so far, and at the same time, my colleagues -- there was a piece the other day, one of the reasons you have been able to succeed because they are cooperating with you to an extent that republicans led by you did not cooperate with them. so not to insert a negative note. sen. mcconnell: they have to justify -- ms. calmes: they like -- they are the party of government. do you take no responsibility for the dysfunction? sen. mcconnell: no, i do not. i delivered the did not do that in the speech because all of you would engage in fingerprinting

-- finger pointing all the time. i don't want to bore ofall of you to death but by any objective standard, the senate was completely and totally dysfunctional the last four years. i can tell you why i think that happened. the first two years, the president enjoyed very large majorities. 60 votes. obamacare, dodd frank trillion dollar stimulus. pretty much every thing he wanted. then the american people in november 2010 issued a national restraining order. they flipped the house. and since then, he has had a divided government. we have two examples of divided government that i think are the kind of divided government i hope we were going to have. reagan never had the house in

eight years. raise the age for social security, did the last confidence of tax reform. clinton did not have the house or the senate for six of his eight years. welfare reform, three years in a row balance edge it. how did that happen? the occupant of the white house decided to go to the political center and look for areas of agreement. president obama is not a centrist. he is a smart, capable guy, but he is not a centrist. so he has not gone to the middle very often. in fact my the only thing i can think of of late is the trade issue and we are working with that. president obama is pursuing his agenda for the last four or five years through the executive branch, to regulations, climate change immigration, all largely executive action.

he has just chosen not to be a centrist. and so that limits the legislative opportunities as you can imagine, if you have got congress in the hands of the opposite party and you want to legislate, you cannot do it over here, you have to go to the middle, and i think that is why we ended up where we were. ms. calmes: do we have time for one more? ok. this is a quick one. carole donovan of massachusetts wants to know when you will take up an immigration bill? sen. mcconnell: the president's executive orders after the election which have been stopped, at least for a while in court have made it impossible for -- to deal with this issue this congress. ms. calmes: i forgot about this one.

we have a supreme court justice in the audience. should a supreme court justice retire in the near future, what would you be looking for in -- four a -- for president's nominee? sen. mcconnell: i would be praying for the vacancy to occur after the next election. ms. calmes: thank you, senator. [applause] >> on our next "washington journal," robert woodson looks at the effect inner-city poverty has on neighborhoods. and the controversy surrounding the jade helm 15 military exercises scheduled to occur in western states this summer. and taking your comments, facebook, and twe 7:00 a.m. on

c-span. ets. -- and tweets seven a.m. on c-span. >> here is a look at recent books written by declared and potential candidates. hillary clinton looks back on her time in "hard choices." marco rubio in "american dreams" ." and and in blue-collar conservatives, potential candidate rick santorum argues the republican party must focus on the working class in order to retake the white house. in a fighting chance massachusetts senator elizabeth warren recounts the events in her life that shaped her career as an educator and politician. wisconsin governor scott walker argues republicans must offer bold solutions to fix the country and have the courage to implement them in "unint

imidated." and kentucky senator rand paul calls for smaller government and more bipartisanship in "taking a stand." more potential presidential candidates with recent books include former governor jeb bush in "immigration wars," arguing for new immigration policies. in "stand for something," john kasich calls for a return to traditional american values. former virginia senator james webb looks back on his time serving in the military and in the senate in "i heard my country calling." independent vermont senator bernie sanders announced his intention to seek the democratic nomination for president. his book, "the speech," is a printing of his eight hour long filibuster against tax cuts. and vice president joe biden looks back on his career in politics in "promises to keep" and if

plaintiff guiding principles. and ben carson calls for greater individual responsibility to preserve america's future in "one nation." and "fed up," rick perry explains government has become too intrusive and must get out of the way. another politician who has expressed interest in running for president is former rhode island governor lincoln chafee . in "against the tide recounts his," he service -- he recounts his service. and bobby jindal criticizes the obama administration and explains why conservative solutions are needed in washington in "leadership and crisis." and finally, in "a time for truth," texas senator ted cruz recounted his journey from a cuban immigrant's son to the u.s. senate.

look for his book in june. >> first lady michelle obama spoke at the commencement ceremony at tuskegee university over the weekend. she told students and their families about her own experience with racism. teske is the private historically black university located in alabama, east of montgomery. [applause] mrs. obama: thank you so much. let's let our graduates rest of the selves worked hard for those seats. let me start by thanking resident johnson for that very gracious introduction and for awarding me with this honorary degree from an extraordinary institution. i am proud to have this degree.

very proud and thank you. thank you so much. i want to recognize major general williams can't -- congressman -- congress one sewall sue all of, the trustees, the faculty, the staff here at teske university. thank you, thank you so much for this warm welcome, this tremendous hospitality and i am so glad to be here. before i began, i want to say that my heart goes out to everyone who knew and loved eric marks, junior. i understand he was such a talented young man, a promising aerospace engineer who was well on his way to achieving his dream of following his footsteps as a -- of the tuskegee airmen. eric was taken from us far too soon and our thoughts and prayers will continue to be with his family, his friends, and this entire community.

[applause] i also have to recognize the concert choir. you guys are good. well done. beautiful song. [applause] and i have to join in recognizing all the folks up in the stands, the parents siblings friends, so many others who have poured their love and support into these graduates every step of the way. this is your day. your day. now, on this day before mother's day, i have got to give a special shout out to all the moms here. yay, moms. i why you to consider this as a public service announcement for anyone who has not got the -- but the flowers or the cards are

the gifts. i'm trying to cover you. but remember that one rule is keep mom happy all right? and finally, most of all, i want to congratulate the men and women of the tuskegee university class of 2015. [cheers and applause] i love that. [applause] we could do that all day. i am so proud of you all. and you look good. well done. you all have come here from all across the country to study, to learn, maybe have a little fun along the way, from freshman year and adams and young hall to those late-night food runs to

the coop. [applause] i did my research. to those morning she woke up early to get a spot under the shed to watch the golden tigers play. yeah. i been watching. at the white house, we got all kinds of ways. [laughter] whether you play sports or self or sang in the choir or played in the band or joined a fraternity or sorority, after today, all of you will take your spot in the long line of men and women who have come here and distinguished themselves and this university. you will follow alums like many of your parents and grandparents anson uncles, leaders like robert robinson taylor, the groundbreaking architect and administrator here who was recently honored on a

postage stamp. you will follow heroes like dr. boynton robinson, who survived the billy clubs and the tear gas of bloody sunday in selma. the study of tuskegee is full of stories like there's. -- lke ike theirs. people who wound up shaving the arc of history for african americans and all americans. i would like to begin today by reflecting on that history. starting back at the time when the army chose to -- but -- tuskegee. black soldiers faced all kinds of obstacles back then. there was the so-called scientific studies that said black men's brains were smaller than white man's -- men's. an official report stated that

black soldiers were childlike, shiftless, immoral and untruthful. if fed loyal and compliant. so while the airmen selected for this program were highly educated, many already had college degrees and pilot licenses. they were presumed to be inferior. during training, they were often assigned to menial tasks like housekeeping or landscaping. many suffered verbal abuse at the hands of their instructors. when they ventured off base, the white sheriff here in town called them "boy" and ticketed them for the most minor offenses . and when they finally deployed overseas white soldiers often would not return their salutes. just think about what that must have been like for those young men. here they were, trained to operate some of the most located -- complicated, high-tech

machines of the day, flying at hundreds of miles an hour with the tips of their wings just six inches apart, yet when they hit the ground, folks treated them like they were nobody. as if their very existence meant nothing. now, those airmen could easily have let that experience clip their wings, but as you all know instead of being defined by the discrimination and the doubts of those around them, they became one of the most successful pursuit squadrons in our military. [applause] they went on to show the world that if black folks in white folks could fight together and fight together, then surely, surely they could eat at a lunch counter together. surely, their kids could go to school together. you see those airmen always understood that they had a double duty. one to their country and

another to all the black folks who were counting on them to pave the way forward. for those airmen, the act of flying itself was a symbol of liberation for themselves and for all african-americans. one of those first pilots, a man named charles to bow said a takeoff was "a never failing miracle where all the bumps would smooth off, you are in the air, out of this world, free." and what he was up in the sky charles sometimes looked down to see black folks out in the cotton fields not far from here. the same fields where decades before, their ancestors worked as slaves come and he knew that he was taking to the skies for them, to give them and their children some more to hope for something to aspire to. and in so many ways, that

never-failing miracle, the cost and to rise above the bumps in our path, to greater freedom for our brothers and sisters, that has always been the story of african-americans here at tuskegee. [applause] just think about the arc of this university's history. back in the late 1800s, the school needed a new dormitory, but there was no money to pay for it. so booker t. washington pond his pocket watch to buy a -- pawned his watch. a few years later when george washington carver first came here for his research, there was no laboratory. he dug through trash piles and collected all bottles and teacups and true jurors to use in his first -- fruit jars to use in his first experiment. generation after generation,

students here have shown that same grit mother that same resilience to soar past obstacles and outrages, past the threats of countryside lynchings, past the jim crow, pass the turmoil of the civil rights era. and then they went on to become scientists engineers, nurses and teachers in communities all across the country and continue to lift others up along the way. [applause] while the history of this campus is not perfect, the defining story of teske gay is the story of -- tuskeegee is the story of all african-americans. now graduates, it is your turn to take up that cause. and let me tell you, you should feel so proud of making it to this day, and i hope that you are excited to get started on the next chapter but i also imagine that you might think

about all that history all those heroes who came before you. you might also feel a little pressure. you know? pressure to live up to the legacy of those who came before you. pressure to meet the expectations of others. and believe me, i understand that kind of pressure. [laughter] i have experienced a little bit of it myself. [applause] you see, graduates, i did not start out as the fully formed first lady who stands before you today. no no , i had my share of bumps along the way. that one might -- back when my husband started campaigning folks had all sorts of questions of me. what kind of first lady would i be? what kinds of issues we take on? what i be more like laura bush or hillary clinton or nancy reagan? the truth is, those same questions would have been posed to any candidates spouse,

especially the way the process works. as potentially the first african-american first lady, i was also the focus of another set of questions and speculations conversations sometimes rooted in the fears and misperceptions of others. was i too loud, or too angry, or to emasculating? -- too emasculating or was i too soft, too much of a mom, not enough of a career woman? then there was the first time i was on a magazine cover. it was a cartoon drawing of me with a huge afro and a machine gun. yeah, it was satire, but if i am really being honest, that knocked me back a bit. it made me wonder, just how are people seeing me? you might remember the onstage celebratory fist on between me

and my husband after a primary when that was referred to as a terrorist fist jab. over the years folks have used plenty of interesting words to describe me. one said i exhibited a little bit of uppityism and another noted that i was one of my husband's cronies of color. cable news charmingly referred to me as obama's baby mama. barack has injured his fair seraph -- fair share of insults and slights. even today, there are still folks questioning his citizenship. and all of this used to really get to me. back in those days, i had a lot of sleepless nights worrying about what people thought of me. wondering if i might be hurting my husband's chances of winning his election, fearing how my girls would feel if they found out what some people were saying

about their mom. but eventually, i realized that if i wanted to keep my sanity, and not let others to find me, -- define me there was one thing i could do and that was to have faith in god's plan for me. i had to ignore all the noise and be true to myself, and the rest would work itself out. so throughout this journey, i have learned to block everything out and focus on why truth. i had to -- focus on my truth. i had to answer some basic truths for myself. who am i? no really, who am i? what do i care about? the answers to those questions have resulted in the woman who stands before you today. a woman who is first and

foremost a mom. look, i love our daughters more than anything in the world, more than life itself and while that may not be the first thing that some folks want to hear from an ivy league educated lawyer, it is truly who i am, so for me being mom in chief is and always will be job number one. next i have always felt a deep sense of obligation to make the biggest impact possible with this incredible platform, so i took on issues that were personal to me. issues like helping families raise healthier kids, honoring the incredible military families that i met on the campaign trail inspiring our young people to value their education and finish college. now, some folks criticized my choices for not being bold enough but these were my choices. my issues.

and i decided to tackled them in a way that felt most authentic to me. in a way that was most -- both substantive and strategic, but also fun and hopefully inspiring, so i immersed myself in the policy details. i worked with congress on legislation and give speeches to ceos military generals hollywood executives but i also worked to ensure that my efforts would resonate with kids and families and that meant doing things in a creative and unconventional way. so yeah, i planted a garden and hula hooped on the lawn and mom danced on tv. i spoke across the -- ask ed folks across the nation to wear their t-shirts for alma mater day. i have always known i have found that this journey has been incredibly freeing because i

matter what happened, i had the peace of mind of knowing that all of the chatter, the name-calling, the doubting, all of this was just noise. it did not define me. it could not hold me back. i have learned that as long as i hold fast to my beliefs and values and follow my own moral compass, the only expectation that i need to live up to, are my own. so graduates, that is what i want for all of you. i want you all to stay true to the most real and most sincere and most authentic parts of yourselves. i want you to ask those basic questions. who do you want to be? what inspires you? ? how do you want to give back? and then, i want you to take a deep breath, and trust yourselves. to chart your own course.

and make your mark on the world. maybe it feels like you are supposed to go to law school. but what you really want to do is teach little kids. maybe your parents are expecting you to come back home after you graduate, that you are feeling of the full to travel the world. a poll to travel the world. i want you to listen to yourself. i want you to act with your mind, and also your heart. no matter what path you choose, i want you to make sure that it is you choosing it. and not someone else. [applause] because, here is the thing. the road ahead is not going to be easy. it never is, especially for folks like you and me. because while we have come so far, the truth is, that those age-old problems are stubborn. they have not fully gone away. there will be times, just like

for those airmen, when you feel like folks look right past you. or they see just a fraction of who you really are. the world will not always see you in those cap thing counts. they will not know how hard you have worked, and how much you of sacrifice to make it to this day. the countless hours you spent studying to get this diploma. the multiple jobs you work to pay for school. the times you had to drive home and take care of your grandma. the evenings you gave up to volunteer at a food bank or to organize a campus fundraiser. they do not know that part of you. instead, they will make assumptions about who they think you are, based on their limited notion of the world. and my husband and i know how frustrating that experience can be. we have both felt the sting of those daily flights throughout our entire lives. the folks that cross the street

in fear of their safety. the clerks that kept a close eye on us in those department stores. the people at formal events that assumed we were the hell. and those that have question we were the help -- we were the hell. -- help. they are -- these indignities are nothing like the folks across the country are dealing with every single day. those nagging worries that you will get stopped or pulled over for absolutely no reason. the fear that your job application will be overlooked because of an -- because of the way your name sounds. the realization that no matter how far you rise in life, how hard you work to be a good person, a good parent, a good citizen, for some folks, it will never be enough.

and all of that, is going to be a heavy burden to carry. it can feel isolating. it can make you feel like your life somehow does not matter. that you are like the invisible man that ralph alverson wrote about all those years ago. and as we have seen over the last few years, those feelings are real. they are rooted in decades of structural challenges that have made too many folks feel frustrated and invisible. those feelings are playing out in communities like baltimore and ferguson and so many others across this country. but graduates, today, i want to be very clear. those feelings are not an excuse to just throw up our hands and give up. they are not an excuse to lose hope.

just a comment to feelings of despair and anger, only means that in the end, we lose. here is the thing, our history provides us with a better story. a better blueprint for how we can win. it teaches us that when we pull us that when we pull up -- when we channel our frustrations into studying and organizing and banding together, then we can build ourselves and our communities up. we can take on those deep rooted problems and together, we can overcome anything that stands in our way. the first thing that we have to do is vote. no, not just once in a while. not just when my husband or someone you like is on the ballot. but in a -- but in every election, at every level, all of the time.

here is the truth. if you want to have a say in your community, if you truly want the power to control your own destiny, then you have to be involved. you have to be at the table. you got to vote, vote, vote, vote. that is the way we move forward. that is how we make progress for ourselves and for our country. that is what has always happened here at tuskegee. think about those students that made bricks with their bare hands. they did it so that others could follow them and learn on this campus also. think about that brilliant scientist who made his lab from a trash pile. he did it because he ultimately wanted to help share with other families. those airmen who rose above brutal discrimination, they did it so that the whole world could see just how high lack folks could soar. -- just how high black folks

could soar. you do not have to be president of the united states to start addressing things like poverty, and education, and lack of opportunity. graduates, today, today, you can mentor a young person and make sure that he or she asked the right path. today, you can volunteer at an afterschool program or a food pantry. today, you can help your cousin fill out her college financial aid form so that she can be sitting in those chairs when day. just like the folks that came before us, you have to do something to lay the groundwork for future generations. that pilot that i mentioned earlier, charles duo. he did not rest on his laurels. when he left the army, he finished his education. he became a high school english teacher and a college lecture. he kept lifting other folks up through his education.

he kept fulfilling his double duty long after he hung up his uniform. and graduates that is what we need from all of you. we need you to channel the magic of his geeky towards the -- of tuskegee towards the challenges of today. i want you to know that you have everything you need to do this. you have it in you. even if you are nervous or unsure about what path you are going to take in the years ahead, i want you to realize that you have everything you need right now to succeed. you've got it. you have the knowledge and the skills honed on this hollowed campus. you have families up in the stance who will support you every step of the way. most of all, you have yourself. and all of the heart and grit and smart that got you to this day. if you rise above the noise, and the pressures that surround you.

if you stay true to who you are and where you come from, if you have faith in god's plan for you, then you will keep fulfilling your duty to the people, all across this country and as the years passed, you will feel the same freedom that charles devoted when he was taking off in that airplane. you will feel the bumps smooth off. you will take part in that never failing miracle of progress. you will be flying through the air, out of this world, free. god bless you graduates. i can't wait to see how high you soar. i love you all. very proud. thank you. [applause] >> i think we can do a little

better than that. tuskegee university. [applause] [cheers] announcer: remarkable partnerships. iconic women. their stories and -- first ladies, the book. she did say the portrait of washington which was one of the things that endeared her to the entire nation. whoever could find out where frances was staying and what she was doing and wearing, that was going to help sell papers. how do you do that? she exerted enormous influence because she would move a mountain to make sure that her husband was protected. >> first ladies, now, a book published by public affairs. looking inside the personal life of every first lady in american history.

assad original interviews. learn about their lives ambitions, families, and unique partnerships with their presidential spouses. first lady, presidential historians on the lives of 45 iconic american women. filled with lively stories of fascinating women survived this group may of the white house sometimes at great personal cost. often changing history. this is an illuminating entertaining, and inspiring read. now available as a hard copy. announcer: up next, a discussion on the future of congress. then a look at u.s. infrastructure needs. we will hear from transportation secretary anthony foxx. fcc chairman tom wheeler will testify about his agency's 2016 budget request. he is also expected to be asked

about net neutrality rules. that hearing is live tomorrow morning at 10:30 a.m. eastern, here on c-span. here are a few of the book festivals we will be covering this spring on c-span2. this we can, we will visit maryland for live coverage of the gators were book festival -- gaithersburg book festival. we will close out may at book expo america in new york city where the publishing industry showcase is their upcoming books. on the first week in june, we are live for the chicago tribune printers row book fest. including our interview with lawrence wright and your phone calls. that is this spring on c-span2. the congressional research service released a report on how the u.s. congress has changed over the last 100 years. and what to expect in the future.

this event was hosted by the bipartisan policy center. >> are we good? i can start? >> good morning. we are going to get going. thank you all for coming. i am the director of the democracy project at the bipartisan policy center. i am here with a great collection of scholars on the u.s. congress. we are here with a number of hosts. we are a host. the president of the national capital area political science association is also hosting this event with us. we are here for a purpose to celebrate and investigate the release of a series of essays by the congressional research

service and its scholars on congress. it is entitled "the evolving congress." many of you know the good work that crs does. crs works very closely with the congress. they are there to help our senators and representatives, to advise them, to give them background information. this is a document that is publicly available. while -- i will wave it up here -- it does not have the flashy cover, we will be talking about the movie rights, which we are negotiating soon. [laughter] >> it could be found, if you so chose, the government printing office online with a series of essays on the evolution of congress, how congress has changed in a number of ways. that is what we will be discussing today. we will talk amongst ourselves but we are also looking to turn it over to you. and the audience, we have a

greater wealth of knowledge about congress. let's begin. my co-moderator and cohost is, if you read your bios, not a professional staff member from the house foreign affairs committee -- that is an error. he is an associate professor of politics at george washington university. one of the founders and contributors of "the monkey cage." he is the author of numerous pieces on campaigns and various attitudes towards institutions. i am going to turn it to him shortly. to my left is the deputy director of the research service. she is somebody who has worked on capitol hill. she combines practical knowledge and her scholarly knowledge and

is at crs as deputy director of the institution and one of the organizers of this collection. next to colleen is the assistant director of the government finance division with the congressional research service. also a political scientist, who has written the author of books -- who has written books such as "fundamentally flawed." he also wrote a textbook on congress -- "congress in context." my colleague at the bipartisan policy center is next. he is also a scholar at the woodrow wilson institute for scholars. he has a long history on capitol hill as a staff director of the house rules committee and a staffer on the house rules committee for many years. both of the minority and a little bit in the majority. he also ran the congress project at the wilson center for many years.

he thinks and writes about congress, including his book "congress of the people." then, to sarah binder, who is both a scholar at the brookings institution, as well as a professor at george washington university on politics. she is an expert on the workings of the senate and the confirmation process and other topics. what we are going to do today -- i am going to turn it to john and then we will hear from our congressional research service representatives, who will talk about the collection. we will have reaction from don and sarah, we will have discussion, and then we will turn it to you. don: we appreciate the support of the bipartisan policy center. we have been in washington dc for over 30 years. it is one of many regional

political a science associations. it stretches even to west virginia and pennsylvania. one of the things we are doing is to try to bring together the broader political science diaspora in this community which includes not just those of us who have phd's and worked at universities, but those who have expertise and work in a variety of institutions and other places. this was a neat opportunity for us to put together a group of people that brings the real wealth of expertise to this subject. the second thing we wanted to do do was to draw attention to the important work that crs is done with this particular report. if you follow congress in a casual sense, it is not difficult to see that things are changing. a decline in the number of laws being passed.

there was a phrase in political science from roughly the mid-20th century that was the textbook congress that we used to have. all of the textbooks have been revised substantially. [laughter] >> now we have a congress that is very different. even the congress of the 1990's is different. we are much in an era when congress is evolving, for better or worse. it is a useful opportunity for us to reflect on how it has changed and draw on the expertise that crs has obtained. i will turn it over to colleen. colleen: thank you. i want to thank the bipartisan policy center, the national capital area political science association, and the national press club for hosting us to talk about the evolving congress. what i am going to do is talk about why we decided to write

this committee print at this particular moment in time. crs has one mission, which is to serve congress. we assist members in all aspects of their policymaking and wreck -- and represent occasional -- representational functions. we find ourselves in the weeds and facing a lot of deadlines. our unique mission is to serve congress and its research functions and for their research needs. the talented analysts and experts that crs also have the ability to look at the big picture. more specifically, we ask this question. how has the institution of congress changed over time? the evolving congress committee print is our attempt to answer this difficult question.

then the question becomes, why would congress want us to grapple with that particular question? the main reason is because if you want to really examine a political institution, it makes sense to understand why development, why change has taken place. some scholars out there and pundits label congress, label the legislative branch right now as dysfunctional or as broken. i think that comparing the contemporary congress and the lawmaking function of what is going on a capitol hill right now to the congress 30 years ago, 40 years ago, or 50 years ago without understanding fully how those representational and policymaking functions of changed does not provide a full answer to that question. it is problematic. it comes to this. the incentive and decision-making structure has changed. we know the institution and

those who inhabit the institution will respond accordingly. the dichotomy of the congress today -- congress functioned well and the good old days versus a contemporary congress that is supposedly failing -- i think misses the larger picture. furthermore, it is very helpful for members of congress to look at the institution with this perspective. it is also very helpful for them if they want to understand the institution and a larger historical, and political environment to have easy to read, accessible essays to help them understand the evolution of congress. i think some cynics would say that members of congress are not interested in those types of inquiries and learning about the development of the institution. both myself and john, we both know that that is simply not correct. that is not a correct supposition to make. lastly, i think the evolving

congress was also written because it helps fill the void present today in academic political science. i recently attended the midwest political science association conference in chicago and i was looking at the panels that were presented over the three days in chicago -- you flip through the program and decide what you are going to attend. it seemed to me that there were very few panels addressing the development and the history of institutions over time. i was not sure if it was just me looking at the program or not, so i talked to some of my colleagues and everybody concurred that that was the case. the study of american politics has moved away from the focus on answering very difficult complex, messy questions, such as how and why does congress evolve? there are notable exceptions to my generalized statements.

american politics seems to be much more interested in finding very neat answers using very sophisticated methodologies to very small questions. i understand why this trend occurred in political science, however, it has shifted the focus of talented graduate students away from answering the most relevant and difficult questions that can be answered by our discipline. let me be clear. everybody in this room and everybody who works in politics knows that difficult political questions are not answered by models. causal arrows point in both directions. these challenges cannot be completely discarded by political scientists. you cannot do whatever you want in your research. it is not a license to discard social science methodology.

they have to be accounted for and dealt with by political scientist. that does not mean that that analysis should not be attempted or done. legislators look to scholars for answers to the big questions such as identifying the institutions in which they serve. crs is filled with analysts that are trained, but steeped in the day to day workings of congress. they are uniquely able to look at the challenges in the congress. thank you and i would like to be joined by john haskell, who is the person committed to bringing this print to fruition. john: i second what colleen said and we appreciate the opportunity to discuss the

committee print, not just with this distinguished group of panelists, but also, we are here to hear your questions. any criticisms of the print should be directed generically to john. our objective with "the evolving congress" was to provide perspective on the debate about the evolving institution. we wanted people to get the context right. in my view, the authors of the print -- there were 29 people involved, all analysts at crs -- they all did a great job of getting the context right. speaking intelligently discussing intelligently potential reforms. i will do a brief summary of what i think they achieved. i think they made at least three key contributions.

first of all, we reminded people in the print that high levels of partisanship in congress are more the norm in u.s. history than the post world war ii period of compromise and consensus. as an aside, i think it is amusing and interesting to note that much of the thinking in the 1950's and 1960's criticized as dysfunctional the system that people think to look back at nostalgically. as an undergrad, i was assigned the "the deadlock of democracy." he made the case that the system was dysfunctional and that was written in 1963. the apsa fervently advocated something that might resemble a parliamentary style or responsible party style. we cannot wish away the way the party system has evolved and the way it is now.

second, crs pointed out how members' lives and work have changed irrevocably through the evolution of the parties and campaign financing pressures technology, social changes, and the housing market. these changes relate to the representational side of members' jobs and they have an impact on the members' legislative work. those changes, we cannot wish away either. last, but not least, the evolving congress committee print makes throughout an obvious, but forgotten point that no political institution operates in a vacuum. congress is not a static institution. congress reflects and invariably responds to social and political dynamics. change and uncertainty are really the only constants in congress. one could say that we could

safely project out this congress's popularity -- it is likely to continue. we don't take a position on that it crs, but i am just making a projection about the current unpopularity. i think the bpc and many other organizations, there will be many changes in that. without taking a position, i would like to hypothesize on a plausible direction that the change might take. francis lee and others contend that party leaders believe consensusbuilding and compromising with the other party undercut efforts to maintain or retain congressional

majorities. these majorities hang on a razor's edge in each election cycle. the incentive structure, as is described, works against what it takes to legislate consistently unproductively. the political balance sheet weighs heavily in the favor of scoring partisan political points over against compromise and legislating. the calculus will change in one direction or another. i think it is shifting under our feet now. i'm speaking for myself and not for crs. republicans do have some reason to be more comfortable in their majority, at least in the house, then they have been. democrats have reason to be more resigned of their minority status in the house. research seems to indicate that the structural advantages are strong for republicans in the house. the imperative t