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: >> the new congressional directory is a handy guide. plus bio and contact information and twitter handles. district maps, i foldout map of

capitol hill and they look at congressional committees, the cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. order your copy today through the c-span online store. >> president obama posted entrepreneurs at the white house and from around the world to highlight the importance of investing in young entrepreneurs. president obama: everybody, please have a seat. welcome to the white house. we have more than 20 countries represented here today. for those of you visiting for the first time, welcome to the united states. we have a lot of brainpower here, business leaders entrepreneurs, even a few sharks. damon and barbara had a chance

to talk to some of these young super norse -- entrepreneurs and decided they were pretty nice sharks, as sharks go. i want to welcome senator koontz who is here, a great champion in our engagement with africa. [applause] as well as our small business administrator. and all of the leaders from across the administration for their work to empower entrepreneurs like you. we are here because we believe in the basic idea of entrepreneurship. but if you are here and you are willing to work hard, you can turn that idea into a reality.

this matters to us because encouraging the spirit can help us tackle some of the greatest challenges we face around the world. at a time when we are still working to sustain the global economic recovery, helping folks to start new business can spur broad base growth. at a time when the world is more interconnected than ever. we have unprecedented opportunities to help more people access capital and resources and networks that they need to succeed. at a time that we are facing challenges that no country can meet by itself, lifting people out of property -- poverty combating climate change and the spread of disease. helping social groups organize to provide solutions. entrepreneurship breaks down

barriers. at a time when we need it more than ever. the capacity to understand and work across borders. no one understands this better than our young people like those here today. i do have to say that i feel kind of old hanging out with you. i used to think as entrepreneurs as old grizzled people and now i am the old, grizzled person and the entrepreneurs are young and an extraordinarily good-looking group of entrepreneurs. more than half of the world population is under the age of 30. in some countries it is an overwhelming majority. there are places where it can exceed 35%. were so many young people don't see a future, if they do not see a path to success, it holds the

entire nation back. it is a recipe. for instability and conflict and violence. . around the world, we have seen how violent extremists are tapping into these frustrations of some people and what they offer are dead ends and yet these young people don't feel there is a positive path for themselves. they are vulnerable. poverty alone does not cause terrorism or sectarian violence, but investments in youth entrepreneurship and education are some of the best antidotes that we have. all of this matters to us and our share of prosperity and security. that is why, from the very beginning of my administration, i have elevated my support for

entrepreneurship to make it easier for young people and people generally to start a new business or social venture. i hosted the first global summit in 2010. over the past five years we helped to train and inspire thousands. we helped small businesses expand in new markets and mobilize new investments. connected emerging innovators and expanded access to capital. as part of our young african leaders initiative where offering training and grants and resources and leadership centers to help young oxford doors will businesses that can drive growth and africa. in southeast asia, we connected people across the countries. that is a region that will only grow in importance for the global economy. last month i was in jamaica, not only to visit bob marley's house. i'm telling you, if you can go

-- [laughter] also to launch our initiative for young entrepreneurs. everywhere you go, you need these incredibly inspiring young people. young palestinians i met working to improve the lives of people across the west bank through business and creating opportunity. young men whose town is currently in darkness but berg -- building generators to have electricity. just like you, they are daring to dream and dedicating themselves to building something lasting for themselves and also for their countries. all told, we have set a goal of generating $1 billion for emerging entrepreneurs worldwide by 2017. [applause]

half of that money will support young entrepreneurs and women entrepreneurs. we are calling the spark global entrepreneurship initiative. some of the most successful programs across the government and make sure they are working with the private sector in ways that allow for long-term sustained success. today we are taking next steps. first will step up our efforts to support entrepreneurs in women. what to store it -- spur it where it can do to most good and have the greatest impact. finance, support networks and mentors. second, i am proud to announce that more of america's is this leaders and innovators are joining us in this effort. we call them our ambassadors

they do not have to be confirmed by the senate. [laughter] [applause] president obama: which is worth cheering. our first class of ambassadors has been doing extraordinary work. steve case has been working with me on promoting different worship here in the united states and now oversees. he just ended his bus to her, -- bus tour investing in young oxford doors across the united states. today we are welcoming nine new ambassadors, how to build a business in underserved communities. how to improve the affordability and accessibility of medical care. each of our ambassadors have committed to a signature object focused on the communities we are looking to help. i will give you two examples.

although each one of them have amazing stories and are doing extraordinary partnering. brian chesky of airbnb, where is brian? there he is. [applause] in addition to stealing a few of my employees is going to help the cuban people navigate new business opportunities as their economy opens up to greater internet connectivity and modern payment systems which provides enormous -- julie hanna, where is julie? [applause] julie will use her expertise leading kiva to increase access to capital. her project commits to delivering $100 million in crowd

funded loans to 200 million women across 86 different countries. i want to thank all of our global entrepreneurship ambassadors for stepping forward and being part of this important work. i want to give them a big round of applause. [applause] finally, i am challenging our partners across the private sector and around the world to join this effort. they have joined together to form the spark global entrepreneurship coalition which will coordinate this work and help us mobilize even more funding to support entrepreneurs. today i am also encouraging governments and organizations and individuals to support. whether through training or

mentorship programs or to help them access capital and connect to markets, everyone has a part of play. this summer i will travel to kenya. all right yo. [laughter] so, we are going to participate in the sixth global entrepreneurship summit. i will have the opportunity to meet some of the brilliant entrepreneurs from around the world. if enough folks respond to the challenge i am issuing today i believe at the summit we will be able to announce new investments and commitments that will pay off or years to come. we want to empower people in ways that empower society and ultimately the world. women like humana -- gimena

flores, of columbia. i just had a chance to meet with her. she started her own company making healthy food which michelle would be very pleased with and she started a company entirely a fellow women entrepreneurs which michelle would also be happy with. through our support with women entrepreneurs we have helped connect mentors and training so she can access new trade opportunities. to her work she is also helping colombian farmers adopt colombian farming and benefits to new markets as well. we want to thank you for looking up your community. we're very proud of you. [applause] we want to empower pioneers. when this man was 17, he lost his father to a heart attack. he first came to study out at

fulbright. he earned seed funding to develop his innovation which is a heart monitoring technology that clips to your waistband. it will help places all around the world. thank you for helping save lives. we want to honor leaders of social change. like li na of jordan. there she is. [applause] [laughter] after seeing her friend abused,

she started an organization. thank you, lena. we want to be your partner. you are helping women to live with dignity and safe the. to all the young entrepreneurs out here, you are the face of change. you have the power to drive solutions. you know how to drive people together to work toward a common goal. i believe in all of you. as i was traveling around the country, i was telling some of the entrepreneurs earlier, you go to some of the toughest arts of the world where violence and deprivation are sadly, daily facts of life. what people are most eager to hear about is opportunities to start a business. what they are most interested in hearing about is the power of

entrepreneurship to allow them to shape their own destinies not just to be subject to the whims of aid agencies or geopolitics, but to be part of something that allows them to pursue their dreams and by doing so empowers all of us. i believe that entrepreneurs like you can make the world a better place one idea at a time. you are going to be how change happens. one person, one business, one step, one country at a time. there are brilliant hard-working women and innovative thinkers from countries all over the world. people just like you, ready to make a difference. but they have not been given a chance shed and we can change that by making anyone with the creativity and drive to work hard, no matter what they look

like, no matter what their background, they have a shot at pursuing their dreams. and that is why of america is going to keep supporting entrepreneurs like you. and, as long as i am president it is going to be a critical point of engagement in our diplomacy's with peoples around the world and i suspect i will still be working on it well after i am president as well. so the thank you very much people. [applause] >> president obama will participate in a round table discussion on poverty. we will have a discussion at georgetown university at 11:25 eastern on c-span3. later, sloan gibson will testify about utterance health care benefits. that is live from the senate

veterans affairs committee at 2:30 eastern, also on c-span three. >> here are a few of the book festivals we will be covering on book tv. we will visit maryland for live coverage of a book festival. also, it's senior adviser to obama, david axelrod. we will close in new york city where the publishing industry showcases its upcoming books. then printers row lit best including our three-hour live in-depth program. and your phone calls. that is this spring on c-span's tv. >> the congressional research service released a service on how the congress has changed over the last 100 years and what to expect over the future.

this event was sponsored by the bipartisan policy center. >> are we good? are we ok? i can start? >> good morning. i think we are going to get going. thank you all for coming. my name is john fortier. 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. but we are here with a number of , hosts. we, the bipartisan policy center we are a host. , the president of the national capital area political science association is also jointly hosting this event with us. and, 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. i will do some quick introductions of our panel. we will talk amongst ourselves but we are also looking to turn it over to you.

in the audience, we have it the even greater wealth of not -- wealth of knowledge. so 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. but he wears many hats. he is an associate professor of politics at george washington university. one of the founders and contributors of "the monkey cage." he is with the washington post. 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. colleen. she is somebody who has worked on capitol hill. combining practical knowledge and her scholarly knowledge and at crs is 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. john haskell. 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." to my left 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 in the minority and a little bit in the majority. he also ran the congress project at the wilson center for many years.

and he thinks and writes about congress as well, 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 one of our experts on numerous things, including the workings of the senate and 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. john: 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 is one of the the many regional political science the aspera 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 want to to do was to draw attention to the important work that crs has done with this particular report. if you follow congress in a casual sense, it is not difficult to see that things are changing. a rise in the use of the alabaster. -- filibuster.

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. and basically all of the , textbooks have been revised substantially since that point in time. [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. and so, this is a very 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.

as john said crs has one , mission, which is to serve congress. and we assist members in all , aspects of their policymaking and representational function. and because of this mission, we find ourselves on a daily basis, often as you can imagine, 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. but the talented analysts and experts at 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. so 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. there are a lot of pundits, and some scholars out there who label congress, who labeled the legislative branch right now as dysfunctional or as broken. but, 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 policy making functions have changed does not divide a whole answer to that question. in fact it is problematic. , it comes to this. the incentive and decision-making structure has changed. as political scientist we know

the institution and those who inhabit the institution will respond accordingly. the dichotomy of the congress today -- congress functioned well in 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 haskell who will join me at a podium soon, 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. and i was not sure if it was , just me looking at the program or not, so it talked to some of my colleagues and everybody concurred that that was the case. quite simply, i think 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 certainly notable exceptions to my very

generalized statements for sure. but american politics seems to be today much more interested in finding very neat answers using very sophisticated methodologies to very complicated 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 tightly-defined models. causal relationships are most likely over determined. now 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 scientists. but, 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 pressures in the institutions in which they serve. crs is filled with analysts that are trained and i could emea -- trained in not only academia, but steeped in the day to day workings of congress. they are uniquely able to look at the challenges in the congress. so thank you and i would like to , be joined by john haskell, who is the person committed to bringing this committee print to fruition.

john haskell: of course, 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. i will defer to the organizers of the panel. our objective with "the evolving congress" was to provide perspective on the debate about the evolving institution. in other words, we wanted people to get the context right. in my view, the authors of the print -- there were 29 people involved in writing the print all analysts that crs -- they all did a great job of getting the context right. kind of a kickoff to, you know, speaking intelligently discussing intelligently potential reforms. i will do a brief summary of what i think they achieved. i am leaving out a lot but 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 that folks often harkin back to. -- often hearken back to. 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 nostalgic. as an undergrad, i was assigned the "the deadlock of democracy." the author made the case that the system was dysfunctional and that was written in 1963. the aapsa fervently advocated something that might resemble a parliamentary style or responsible party style. in any case 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 really even the housing market. these changes relate to the representational side of members' jobs and they have an impact on the members' legislative work. by the way those changes, we , cannot wish away either. last, but not least, the evolving congress committee print makes throughout an obvious, but forgotten point that has already been said a couple times already this morning that no political , institution operates in a vacuum. congress is not a static institution. congress, as much as annie other institution, reflects and invariably responds to social and political dynamics. change and uncertainty are really the only constants in congress. although i guess one could say

that we could safely project out that congresses unpopularity is likely to continue. we do not take a position on that at crs, but i am just making a projection. i think the bpc and many other organizations, there will be many changes in that. now whether hyper-partisanship intensifies or lessons, that is up for us to find out. but without taking a position, i would like to hypothesize on a plausible direction that the change might take. i see that francis lee is here. 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 congressional majorities hang on a razor's edge in each

election cycle. essentially the incentive , structure, as is described works against what it takes to legislate consistently unproductively. another way to look at it is that the political balance sheet weighs heavily in the favor of scoring partisan political points over against compromise and legislating. but the calculus will change in , one direction or another. i think it is shifting under our feet now. although 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 every sin to be more resigned of their minority status in the house. the imperative to score partisan political points might not be as critical as it has been. as the political balance sheet begins to shift may be ever so gradually in favor of other things than scoring political points, it might even go in the

direction of showing that you can govern or get things done. in effect, in this formulation compromise and consensus building can become on some issues political benefits for the majority party and maybe for more than that. i will stop right there. i just want to say that i thank you again for the opportunity to the bpc and the political scientists in the washington area to talk about the print. we appreciate the publicity that it is getting from an event like this. and i will leave it over to john. john: great. we are going to stay here in our chairs. i will turn first to don and then to sarah bender. they have comments about the print. colleen and john noted that it is 29 essays. they are going to go through

them one by 1 -- no. [laughter] they are not going to go through them. they will pick topics of interest. we have it well set up to have the house and senate well represented by each one of you. don, could you give a little summary of what your reaction is to it? and then tell us some of your thoughts about some of the pieces that you are looking at. don: i will take the first 250 pages, you take the second 250 pages, all right? [laughter] don: thank you. i want to commend the bpc for organizing the event and inviting me here and to congratulate crs on its 100th anniversary. i think this book is a testament to the type of quality staff you have and the diversity of subjects that you cover. it is marvelous. i cannot say i have read it cover to cover, but i have had a -- hit a lot to of the high points that i thought related to what i wanted to know a little bit more about. it is a great

thing to read. what i thought i would do is relate some of the first things in the book on not necessarily the role of members so much, but there is a great introductory chapter that traces the history of the congress and that brought back to me a lot of memories. because i have actually been observing congress for five decades. i started in the summer of 1965 as an intern with john anderson and he had me covering the joint joint committee on the organization of congress and that is where i met some brilliant political scientists like roger davis, who was kind enough to lend me the manuscript that they were about to publish, "congress in crisis." but i think something that john haskell mentioned is very apropos. throughout the last half-century, congress has \half-century, congress has always been portrayed as being

in crisis -- an obstacle course on capitol hill is another one of the titles and so on. here was a joint committee trying to work through this to get some ideas of how to improve the institution. i remember that it was surprising to me, since a lot of this was fresh coming out of iowa and not having been to dcb for, that here were especially a -- d.c. before or anything, that here were especially a lot of witnesses reading from the same page and that page was the same page used in testimony back in 1945 before another joint committee. there were three obstacles to congress doing its job. one was the senate filibuster. the second was the seniority of sort of seniors southerners that were dominating the system. and the other was the house , rules committee, which was then controlled by a conservative coalition of southern democrats. often resulting in 6-6 ties. fast-forward 10 years to 1975. what happened in 1975, the cloture rule was changed, from 2/3 present and voting to 60 votes.

then, fast-forward to 1975. what has happened in 1975? the cloture rule was changed from 2/3 present and voting to 60 votes. the rules committee had been brought under the aegis of the majority party. they were nominating members and the seniority system was dismantled that year with three members outed saying that caucus members be voted by chairman rather than being elevated. it was a lot of things going on, a lot of ferment in between 1965 and 1975, a joint committee produce something in 1966 and came to fruition in 1970. but, there were a lot of things in there that really changed the face of congress. roger covers this in a lot of chapters.

one thing is they had a committee bill of rights that meant members could overwrite -- override its chairman to get things on the agenda. they have more open meetings and hearings required. televising hearings in the house was allowed for the first time. the senate had been doing it but sam rayburn put kibosh on this. there were a lot of transparency reforms taking place throughout the 1970's. this was a reform revolution taking place in the congress as a whole, but a lot of this was going on, a lot of this are meant was -- a locked of this -- a lot of this ferment was happening in the house. i thought what i would highlight are three things that i think have changed dramatically since

i first came full-time as a staffer in 1969 with john anderson, covering the rules committee for him, and coming on to the rules committee staff. one is the shift over time from committee governance to party governance. i would say the turning point here happened with a letter written by -- cosigned by 40 democrats in 1970 night, speaker tip o'neill, saying give us more closed rules. we're spending too much time on the floor with amendments, being brought up by the minority, used for political ads, and tip o'neill gradually obliged, and we began to see more restrictive rules. whereas, when i came in 1969 the only bills that had closed rules that had were ways and means committee bills. you can't have those, it would open up the whole tax code, they said. more and more closed bills were shut down together on the floor from being amended. that was one of the things that happened that i thought was very dramatic. but the shift in power that , happened between committees to the parties and their elected

leaders i think really was a result of the fact the committee chairman were now let it come had to be responsive to the caucus, but they had lost a lot of power they used to have when it was concentrated in their back pocket. that was one of the things that happened. to add to that, the leadership bringing the committee along on having their way on the house for where they could change a bill altogether. lee hamilton later recounted how he would bring a 25-page bill to the rules committee and it would emerge as 50 bills after things were added. that was the other thing. the third thing, transparency, and my boss was a great supporter of the sunshine rules that began to come forward in the 1970's, making committees a lot more open, more permeable.

we had a lot of subcommittees created. the transparency -- and then we went in 1979 to opening the house for to tv cameras and the senate in 1986. house floor to tv cameras and the senate in 1986. these are the three major changes i have observed, some for better, some for worse. but it is overall the congress is better for it because it has always had a bad reputation with the people. ms. binder: i was going to remark that i would self assign a field trip. i would walk over to the madison building -- i recall a crs window where you can get reports and go into the reading room and then go back to work. i never thought 30 years later i would be talking about the 100th anniversary of crs. i think i am the world's biggest

fan of crs, particularly in recent years, but despite the rise of what we might think of as data journalism and increased importance that reporters play on gathering information and data about, in particular congress. i think crs remains on the top that they are not only the masters of collecting these types of data. they know which data are meaningful which are not and how to make sense of them. they understand not just the details, but the institution but how they fit together as well as for why these details matter for understanding congress today as well as in the past. that strikes me as what has been brought together in the evolving congress report. briefly, two general observations about the report and highlight three chapters in particular. first, i think the report offers both a deep appreciation of the micro level, whether behavioral

at the level of the member, or institutional, at the level of the rules and institutions, but not only the micro contexts, but also the broader macro context, the legal context in which congress tries to work in sometimes cannot. a chapter in particular makes clear our ability to understand how congress has changed requires us to think at the micro level as well as step outside the institution to understand the forces that have tried to effect change. in a world where we try to find these explanations to single out the one thing that has made the biggest difference, i think the report is an important and refreshing way to encouraging us to think more broadly about multiple exclamations that may come to bear in explaining the development of congress.

so second general observation, i think the chapters collectively point us to a very path-dependent way of thinking about congressional development. the idea that past choices within the institution very strongly affect future development in the institution. sometimes that path delivers what we think of as increasing returns to the institution, so that members might benefit from those inherited practices, so they do not want to give them up. and colleen's chapter gives us the sense that their willingness to struggle to keep those practices so it improves their ability to get a defense bill each year. sometimes i think the report makes -- the path that generates decreasing returns. the case in point, from walter's

chapter, the evolution of the extended debate in the senate and senators' willingness to exploit the roles, but at the expense of the ability of the institution, decreasing the ways that the system can be working which was on full display this week as the majority tried to get through the iran bill. two general reactions that i think of the lessons of the volume. i would offer three more specifics to highlight from the chapters. first, the walter chapter, what

he speaks to me there is he puts into perspective these recent calls for the return to regular order, particularly in the senate, and as walter puts it this week, that regular order is a flexible construct, that calls for regular order, and when i say regular order, i usually put quotes around it. now i have permission to do that. the call for regular order misses the evolving nature of congress on the floor, and today we have a new procedural normal, and that is what we see majority leaders struggling with last week and this week. and changing the leaders of the senate and calling for the return to regular order, they might be necessary, but not sufficient to change the way the senate operates. if regular order is a textbook -- flexible construct, we need to be clear what we are try to restore in the way the senate works. second highlight from the chapter on the defense bill, which tries to address the public, why is it in this stalemated institution the armed services committee each year returns an annual defense authorization bill.

and she recognizes the ways in which they are struggling to keep the annual process going as it encounters other issues on the senate floor points to three issues here. there are practices, the way hearings are constructed consultations across defense agencies as well is across staff. the bipartisan staff culture not even just physically sharing space, but the longevity of the staff, and the repeated interactions across staff that we think perhaps helped facilitate the types of negotiations necessary to come to an authorization each year. and colleen notes the closed markup on the senate side, although not on the house side but raises the question about whether closing the doors despite all the benefits of transparency, whether there are trade-offs and perhaps closing the doors, keeping lobbyists and journalists out of the room, might help foster these deals, we are trying to expand the pie

in how the senate operates. third, the chapter on collaboration, a look at the difficulty of sustaining relationships in today's senate with a classic quote from tom daschle, "because we cannot bond, we cannot trust, because we cannot trust, because we cannot cooperate, because we cannot cooperate, we become dysfunctional." probably what i took away most from mark's chapter was the carefully worded criticism of political scientists, suggesting we had perhaps lost the sight of this social part of social choice, and where we are good at social choice, but do not good at understanding the nature of social life, which is hard to

study in a systematic way, how majorities and coalitions are built, but i think as a report suggests it warrants a sustained a more systematic attention of students of congress like myself. so on that, i will stop there. mr. fortier: thank you. john and i will take some time to ask questions and have a conversation here, and we will turn our audience. at the risk of going on too long, i have two related questions, with an advertisement about what the bbc has done. my first one to john haskell who hinted that the era that many of us look bad to as the golden era of congress, of american politics, much of the late 20th century, was maybe an aberration, that we had political parties that were not left and right as much, much more overlap, that some of the institutions of congress really

stem from this party differences, seniority, the importance of committees decentralization of power from leadership. i wanted to go further on that to say if that is the aberration, do we know some things about earlier eras and how these things work? maybe pick up on your optimistic note that parties are more separated, and still can be productive in some ways people think. i want to ask sarah, where sarah was picking up on putting scare quotes around the term "regular order." we had a commission at bbc looking at a variety of things focused on congress, with a lot of former members, a had an interest in regular order matters. you're right, we have to know what that means. but let me put it this way. i think our members were concerned that in this old world where committees dominated

where power was decentralized, the legislative process functioned in a certain way, but today as we have had an incredible amount of centralization of power, we have lost the role of committees, of average members, of debate on the floor, so even a simple way of thinking of regular order as schoolhouse rock version of legislating that we think about legislation and debate and refine it in committees that we have a relatively robust floor debate where voices are heard and that there are conference committees to resolve differences between houses somehow grafting some of that older traditional process on today's world would have a benefit. it does not necessarily fit currently with the party system, but it would have a benefit. i mentioned our healthy congress index, which is meant to mentioned how congress is doing, how much the senate is opening up to amendments, how much

members of congress are working in d.c., how much -- how the committees are doing and how the floor debate on the house looks. those are some of the things we should get that that is restoring the old era to maybe a new system. i want to get your reaction to that. both of you want to -- mr. haskell: an advertisement not just for walter's chapter, but mike's chapter. those are the two most sweeping chapters in the volume, and both emphasize among other things -- the partisan situation particularly post-world war ii different than it typically is and there is more ideological overlap. the other thing emphasized that sometimes people miss, it is not as though the issues battles were less intense, it is that -- which is to say whether it was commie witch-hunting in the

1950's or the whole range of battle on medicare or federal aid to education or especially civil rights -- the battles on those issues were more intense really than the battles we have today about incremental changes in the size of the government or incremental changes in the tax code, i think. it is just that the parties did not line up along those issues. and that has real institutional effects. today, to the extent we have serious disagreements, i think none of them quite as intense as the battle over civil rights through the 1950's and the mid-1960's, a lot of them line up on the way that the parties break down. that is one thing that people forget about. it's not more intense now. the book about some of the congressional activities in the early to mid 1960's with regard

to the great society is an eye opener that they had to change congressional rules to get things done because congress was not functioning. ms. binder: a good question -- how do you have a set of routines on the floor that you are trying to get back to some sort of decision-making where there is a capacity for offering consideration of amendments, amendments to amendments, and working your way so the majority leader does not feel compelled to block off amendments by filing cloture. if there is some sort of procedural practices that we are trying to get back to, the question is on the challenges, i think i have come to the conclusion that it is hard to institutionally reengineer the chambers unless members and parties' incentives are

compatible with the exercise of those procedures. the classic example is the supercommittee created out of the debt debacle in the summer of 2011. they designed an almost failproof system, no filibusters, special rules balanced committee, some with -- some way to engineer so if there was a bipartisan consensus, it could be protected to the process on the fourth and to the president. but they could not reach the incentives, which were not aligned to find a way to come to that agreement to be protected. the question on the senate floor in particular is, are members and the parties' incentivized sufficiently that they have restraint to allow the collegial process to go forward? just watching what was going on, we have been attuned over the last several years to think the problem is these competing party

messages and that harry reid as majority leader did not want to expose his party to threats from the minority party, but what has been very clear this week and last week is the problem of the majority leader is the restraint not from the other party, but the strength of his own members who found the amendment tree and found a way to get in the mix, and that in this case blows the thing up, and we are back to the old ways of shutting off amendments, much to everybody's discontent. the question is, how much can we institutionally engineer our way back to a functioning senate and what is the raw material are the leaders working with? we have interesting good examples coming out of committees, and that speaks to colleen's point in the venues where we have senators who are used to working with each other and mark's chapter, if you can find these negotiating spaces where people trust each other

and have some past history perhaps that is the environment in which they are able to close the doors often defined that way to say we are going to give your party what you want, and craft a bigger deal. i think those who see that coming out in education, on the iran bill, but the question is 100 senators, can you sustain that on the floor, and that is the big challenge. mr. haskell: what you're saying, that mcconnell's life is organized around five senators who are up for reelection in 2016. if the senate looks dysfunctional in some way, that does not help keep the majority. there is the political incentive structure, really. mr. sides: there have been a couple articles recently that argued the congressional

capacity is in decline. the article talked about congressmen being lobotomized, because you have seen a reduction in the number of staff. there is a companion piece by a former crs staffer who argued that crs has suffered in some respects in terms of the number of resources it has in the number of staff it has. i wanted to get your sense of whether you guys saw that as true and the tenor of these articles is that it is problematic, but where do you guys come down on the policymaking capacity that congress has right now? ms. shogan: we're happy at crs.

the appropriations committee continued to fund us. we're happy to come into our jobs as we enjoy our jobs and working through congress. it is addressed in part in the evolving congress. we have one chapter on legislative branch staffing that talks about changes in branch staffing. one thing important to keep in mind about legislative branch staffing is that as we have been talking about here today, when there are larger effects going on in the larger macro political world, that affects the decisions that members of congress make. one of the chapters we have not talked about is the one about how technology and how technology and communications is changing in the world, and then also eventually on capitol hill with the rise of social media and how members represent

constituents. when you start to communicate with constituents in different ways, necessarily you need to hire people to assist you. we know on capitol hill there has been more resources directed toward press secretaries coordinators, and it is finite resources. you do that, there are less people available to other -- to work on other functions that a member is responsible for. i also think the larger picture respect to the 1970's and the purpose for the legislative reorganization act and why did congress decide to look at itself in the early 1970's and pass the modification act, and that has to do in part with not congress internally and congress' policymaking or representational capacities, but those capacities vis-a-vis the executive. one of our chapters in the evolving congress talks about resources afforded to the legislative branch, and they pale in comparison.

that is historically something to keep in mind, that really congress, no matter who is in control, republicans, or democrats, senate, it is one branch of government and its ability to garner collect information and analysis to enable it to bridges but in the policymaking lawmaking functions vis-a-vis the executive branch. i think that is something that perhaps congress understood well in the 1970's given the pressures of situation the presidency was in an something that perhaps they would start to look to today. mr. fortier: that does not make it any easier for us, but are more essential.

>> did you want to weigh in with your top 15? mr. wolfensberger: "roll call," over the years i have kept track of that and those at one point it was if the percent of those people were committee staff where nowadays only about 20 to our committee staff. the rest are leadership staff. that shows you an example of the shift in power from committees to leadership. we looked at the titles of the staff and a lot of them are communications director,

assistant to medications director. it is shifted towards messaging and that is a big part of what goes on. in the process, policymaking takes a backseat for a lot of members and gets back to the incentive system. is there incentive there for members do get engaged in policymaking, do they really want to go back to more detailed amending processes in the committees and so on, and that is of the that i still haven't answered, and it varies, but the committee markups are now perfunctory. you come back here at 4:00 and we will have 20 votes on amendments, and that will be the

markup. things have changed considerably. mr. fortier: although committees' influence may have waned, but never still want to be on them. that puts pressure on leadership. mr. wolfensberger: what is the main incentive there? do those committees attract campaign funds? mr. fortier: it is both. ms. shogan: members choose constitutional functions. one is policymaking. the other function is representational functions. personally, i think the representational unction is equally as important to the policymaking function, and at crs we support members in both of those capacities. they are related to each other not completely distinct. it could be that the emphasis in this time has shifted from policymaking and perhaps more heavy into representational. another point made in the essays when i was reviewing the evolving congress in the past couple weeks is the size of the members' house districts has grown over time, over 700,000 people in a house district average. the amount of time to represent that many people obviously, even if everything else was held

constant, if there were no other changes in the larger political environment, just that alone would necessarily probably shift time and resources toward that function. >> do we have a microphone coming around? we will ask you to identify yourself. we are done at -- where's the microphone? ok. we will go back here and ask -- >> good morning. bethany jones. i am with the agronomy crops and soil society. first of all, i read most of the chapters, well written, and a really good read. so, if you have not read all 490 pages, go for it. my question is the theme of the

chapters that i felt were interesting, there was this theme of globalness and this connectedness. i think we are all familiar with the saying, all politics is local, but i'm interested in the question of has politics changed to be more global. i was wondering if colleen or john could comment on your observations or things you have noticed about how decision-making, congressional decision-making, has evolved to be more about the global context. ms. shogan: american politics has become more nationalized. even though they spent more time in the states than in previous eras, you would think that perhaps localism would reign supreme. i think what they are spending time talking to people about is

of course to some degree local issues and local concerns, but i think it is also that interaction with constituents about national and possibly global issues. and this, once again and goes back to how communications are with constituents. the messages they are sending. i was part of a research project about looking at one minute speeches over different areas and goading them as a distribution of speeches in the house. it was amazing how these speeches in the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's were still talking a lot about local concerns going on in their district. over time, that decreases and at becomes more about partisan messaging and national issues. so, i think that just in general, how members interact

with who they represent is more in line with what you observed. >> certainly, social media makes the represent tatian all -- representational aspect effort. that may be what you are referring to with respect to your question, that a lot of the bigger issues we struggle with today are international. whether it is time a change or any of a number of others and it may have been less of the case in the past. >> high. -- hi, i am richard skinner from washington university. this year amount of time members spend on fund raising. that is not that surprising. most members want to be as safe

as possible, but most members are pretty unsafe. one thing we have seen in congressional elections is they are nationalized, partisan, local and individualized. those things that were so important in the 1960's and 1970's are less important. so why do members spend so much time fundraising? is it just pressure from the hill committees? is it important to the error advancement -- to their advancement in congress? what is lacking in the work of congress that members are spending so much time on this? >> it is hard for me to say anything about members exact motivations but i will say, yes the reelection rate is also involved. that is actually reflect did in sam gehrig and kevin coleman's speech in the evolving congress

about what has changed and what has stayed the same. we know what has remained the same in part is incumbent rate so it is not like a whole lot of members are losing left and right. but having spoken -- worked with someone who lost, i will tell you that affect on other senators was in measurable. it was not that they were feeling the primary challenge immediately but it was because now they knew someone very well who had lost a primary. so, it is not so much you are going to lose the election it is that you know someone who lost the election that motivates you to act in certain ways. it does not necessarily have to reflect the percentages, the empirical does not matter as much as knowing someone who went through it and that will change and alter behaviors in the ways you suggest. >> you partially answered your