skinny. >> that was a great example of appealing to the masses, but ultimately, i think like a lot of characters, he became demagogy, concerned with his own power, and he was consumed by that. >> huey long gave a lot of grief. they need to keep the institution bubbling, but they if they all were mavericks nothing would get done. the huey longs have been a minority. announcer: the history of the house and senate, its leaders characters, and scandals, tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a."

announcer: now, a discussion on the 2016 election and debates and possible changes in the rules and structure. we also hear some suggestions by both parties during the primary series. from today's "washington journal ," this is about 40 minutes. host: for those who have been following presidential politics, you have been getting a lot of attention lately. guest: some interesting attention. host: less take a step back and talk about the commission, why it was formed, and basically what is your mission? guest: you know, most people do not remember when there were not debates. i mean we go back to 1960 where , you had kennedy against nixon and then we went 16 years -- host: and is responsive other

-- and was sponsored by the networks. guest: they were sponsored by the network, but there was no way very goldwater would be getting up with lyndon johnson. lyndon johnson just said no, it is not going to happen. then nixon had such bad memories of the 1960 debates of kennedy that he said no, i am not going to debate. it wasn't really until he got to 1976 after the pardoning governor nixon that ford was trailing in the polls and really had to go forward with the debate. in 1980, the 15% rule which we will talk about in a moment, was placed by the women fleeing voters and most people, again, don't remember but there was an independent third party candidate. his name was john anderson, and he was 16% over the 15% and he was invited by the league. president carter said no, i will not debate if john anderson was at that debate. it was in baltimore and it was just the two candidates and the president did not come. by the time the next scheduled debate was scheduled, anderson had fallen below the 15%

criteria standard and therefore, there was only the one debate that year between president carter and governor reagan. host: in cleveland ohio. -- in cleveland, ohio. guest: that is right. i should say this, with both president reagan and president clinton, they enjoyed the debate. we never had problems, but what did occur in 1984, and you may think back to this, the candidates were allowed to be joe suggested analysts or moderators, and about 90 people, as i recall, were vetoed by one side or the other, so after the 1984 collection -- election there were two study groups put , together. one here in washington at georgetown and one at the kennedy school in hartford. they came to one conclusion independently and that was that

there should be created an entity that exists for one purpose, purpose only. that is to conduct general election debates every four years. i was chairman of the republican party and in 1987, we created the commission, and we have had every debate since then, starting in 1988. have been 19 presidential debates and seven price presidential debates. i'm talking about general election as opposed to primary. host: according to the commissioner of presidential debates, you receive no dollars, no money from political organizations, candidates, or political action committees. it is a privately funded 501(c)(3). it is not controlled by or does not have any relationship with any political party. the criteria to participate, you have to be 35 years of age which is the criteria to be a u.s. president. natural born citizen and here is the sticking point -- have at least 15% support in national polls. some are saying that is unfair. guest: you also have to be on the ballot of the state to considerably get 270 electoral votes.

so as you know, if you do not , reach the 15% of criteria that we will talk about, then you can still go ahead and get on ballots. one of the proposals we now have facing us -- i should say this, steve, it was only in 2008 where there were not cases -- where we either were super people not invited to participate in debates or hearings before the electoral omission. every other cycle, they have faced challenges. there are two challenges now before the federal election commission where their decision has to whether or not the 15% rule is fair or should be changed. and then, you may remember the libertarian candidate for president, the former governor of new mexico. host: johnson. guest: johnson. he filed a litigation last time and was dismissed. he has not yet refile but we think you may refile.

looking at the 15% rule, looking at having an objective standard, and objective standard, so we went back and looked at what they had done, and they had done a very, very good job establishing that 15% rural. -- world. -- rule. it has been in place since 2000. like a challenge -- it has been challenged many time in the courts and in all of those cases, the rule has been found to be within the mandate of our doctrine, within the mandate of what we are trying to do and within the law. we always look at that role as we look at the whole question of format. we had some major changes in debates, particularly since the last 20 years. you may remember it used to be with a moderator and a panel of reporters. we are down to one moderator where you can have more follow-up. you have debates were people are seated at the table. he had done a lot of research. the nature and discourse really changes when people are at a table discussing them behind podiums.

we do have debates sitting at tables. the town hall meeting came about after 1992 and i thought a significant change was made three years ago when we took the 90 minute debate and rather than one candidate getting into -- two minutes to answer the question, and the other gets one minute, we divided the 90 minutes into six 15-minute sections, and the moderator has the ability to cross examine, if you will or drill down on , issues. also, looking at those right now, we have a special committee that we have between every election cycle that are looking at, should we change any of the formats? should we change the 15% rural --rule? she we change the 15% role? that is ongoing right now.

our subcommittee is the head of the women leave voters and that committee is taking suggestions online. we will look at them, the special committee will, and once we have a chance, we will make recommendations and they will make the decisions. host: when you pick up "the wall street journal" and see this ad two men and their friends is what it looks like, stonewalled and secretive guaranty dominance of the republican parties in presidential elections and saying it is time to change the rule now. your reaction? first of all, what do you think of the picture? guest: we have joked that all that is missing is the numbers on the front of our shirts or jackets. [laughter] guest people have a different : approach to how they want to make change and this is an interesting one. a very expensive one i suggest but again, we have met with those people. i have met with the leader of the change group and so is mike mccurry. they have ported it to every member of the commission, a detailed analysis of the suggestions as to what they think the change ought to be and they will be considered. we told them, along with others,

that we have other suggestions for changes. last week, there was another organization who filed a rulemaking petition with the federal election commission actually attacking the proposal by level of playing which has to do with whoever gets the most signatures to get on a ballot is automatically in the debate. we will consider those two and consider them very seriously and a determination will be made. host: fellow republican, had this to say last month on c-span's "washington journal." >> the point that we handle to an and many others are making is not that we are no longer republicans or democrats. i am a republican and will support the republican nominee. but we are seeing record levels of discontent with the two parties. and over 40% of the public use -- now view themselves as independent and that is the largest number in the history of the gallup poll. we can't march our democracy on without giving those people who are dissatisfied with the two parties some sense that they can be represented.

the presidential debates have become institutionalized over the last 30 years and that is a good thing. but what it has done and the way it is being conducted is to freeze out the possibility of an independent candidate. in other words, the candidate who wants to achieve status as an independent or third party candidate today has a hurdle to overcome by the virtue of the fact that he will not be in the provincial debates. the presidential debates are an essential part of the presidential campaign, just like republican or democratic nominee convention. if well in advance we already that the third-party candidate by journalists, country leaders, activists activist, or by average voters. so we are asking that the system be opened up now, not because i am dissatisfied with my own party but because i think the health of our political system depends on it. host: former republican congressman and he is behind the website changethrrule.org.

your reaction? guest: i don't really disagree that much with the basic premise that then laid out on the show and that is that the american people are raising serious questions about the two political parties. whether washington works, etc. but to make the jump that the rules should be changed and guarantee that someone who gets the most signatures should be in -- i mean, i'm not sure i make that jump. we have not made a conclusion on that yet. like i said, and we have told them, and we have told people at his organization that we will consider it very seriously, as others. we are not alone. we normally every four years get two, 3, 4 proposals for modification and we take them very seriously. we take very seriously our charge and that is to make sure that those candidates will have a realistic chance to be elected president are put before the american people so that they can watch them under different formats, answering difficult

questions from tough educated , moderators will go after them so that there will be in education function. that is our role. an education function. all of us who served are not paid. we volunteer our time. we pay our own expenses. we have two full-time employees and that is all we have ever had. and so, i mean we take our , responsibility very seriously. and i think he has pointed out the problem -- the american people are disenchanted with politics in washington. we take that very seriously. we will look at it, look at various suggestions that come before us and do the best to make the right choice. host: where's the commission in terms of identifying locations for the debates and how many , will the be in 2016? guest: we have noted to 16 -- narrowed it to 16 schools that have put in applications. we have our teams of technical people lighting, sound, and so forth, and they will go out and recruit the 16 position, along with the secret service, who, of

course, is very, very much involved in having a campus that they can close down for security, and what we normally try to do is give the candidate whoever they may be, at least one year advance notice, not only on when the debates are going to be, where they're going to be, but also what the criteria is going to be, so they have a year to know whether it will be 15% or some other number after we make that determination, so they know what the target is and what they need to do to be a part of the debates. we use the gallup organization and about one week before each of the debates in the fall, we sit down with gallup, come up with the five leading polls and the president of gallup who works with us and we average them. if you are at 15, you are in. if you're not 15, you are not invited. host: our phone lines are open and we are dividing them between democrats, republicans, and independent.

202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents. would george stephanopoulos be considered as a moderator? guest: i think he would. everyone is open. the hardest thing we have to do, i must tell you -- host: you know why i ask? guest: i know you ask, and apparently george has taken himself out of or the republicans have taken him out i am not sure. i am not involved in the primaries. we look at everyone. the field is big. we never, we are talking about four people. there are three presidential and one vice presidential, with which is where i think we are going again. we always look for diversity. we also have limited the people who, like you, are used to working with this bug in your ears, and that is why we have not really had any print individuals, and that is one of

the things we have on our agenda. we also have a question this time, and historically, we have done them in october and many people have already voted with early voting so does that mean we have to move the date earlier in the cycle? the parties have moved their conventions earlier, so those are a number of factors that we take into consideration before we come up with that announcement this fall as to where, when, and what the criteria is. host: just to be clear about george stephanopoulos and he gave money to the clinton foundation -- does that could -- does that disqualify him? guest: you know, we take it very seriously and we look very closely at the body of work of people who we invite. we want people who are not going to be activists or either -- for

either candidates or if there are three like there were in 1992, when ross perot was included in the debates that we produced. but we want someone who is down the middle? we also want someone who has an ego that is not going to the moderators ego and inject themselves into the debate but someone who is in a way to traffic cop and moves between the candidates fairly and is not try to bias it one way or the other. we look very, very hard but george probably should have revealed but that is for him and others and abc to be concerned about. i would not say to you that he is automatically out. i am one on a commission and we will make that decision down the road. host: don is joining us from redding, california. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call on the subject of ross, i can't think the party he was affiliated with.

you are talking about changing the rules and wasn't the rules changed for independents in the debates after ross perot? host: he did run as an independent. guest: yes, no, what happened back in the late 1980's and during the 1990's, we had a different group of criteria -- factors to take into consideration. the advisory committee led by professors at harvard with some academics and other parts of the country and we looked at many different things. the organization that they put together, how much money they had raised, how much space they were getting in newspapers. there was a whole number of factors and ross arrow meant those criteria and the recommendation of the advisory committee to us in 1992 and was invited to dissipate. he did not meet that criteria in 1996. we then took a hard look, we always do, we took at the criteria again and said, we want to be as objective. the law requires us to have an objective standard and therefore, we thought it was a little too much subjectivity in what we were doing previously

and we thought that the 15% role -- rule in the five leading polls an average was more objective and that is what we made the change since 2000. that has been the criteria rule . host: the essay that sparked a lot of this from ben weber is available online at politico.com this is what it looks like -- wrongful reforms for the presidential debate commission. we go to randy in pennsylvania. good morning. caller: two questions. do you believe one person and one vote is the fairest election? host: one person one vote. guest: yes, that's a lot. i believe it. caller: then how can the electoral polls be justified? guest: i am asked that question a lot. i'm from nevada, a small western state and you find some of the smaller states always object to any attempt to change the electoral college. if you go back and read the

wonderful book by the name of "the summer of 1787" and it has talks about the drafting of the constitution and it talks about the agreements that had to be made to get the constitution approved and really the creation of our country. one of the compromises that was made -- the person had to do with the house and senate. every state would get two senators regardless of the population and regardless of how big the state was and that the house was going to be determined on the basis of population. that is why we have the senses -- that is all we have the census every 10 years. another is we wanted to put in place the electoral college for each state with the same number of votes as they have house of representatives. the feeling was, back then, -- if you go back to those days

that the power centers work boston, massachusetts, new york city, and pennsylvania. the rest of the u.s. was agrarian and those other colonies did not trust new york and philadelphia and boston to the best interest of agrarian issues, farming issues and so forth. the compromise that was reached in order to create our constitution was to create the electoral college. every four years i know there are people who are deeply concerned about it but it has been there a long time and it would take a constitutional amendment to revoke it. being from a small state like nevada, we sort of like it because we think otherwise, the candidates would not pay attention to smaller states. host: this is clearly not your issue, but the other complaint is how restrictive it is for third-party candidates to get on the ballot. it is a 50 state process. guest: it is. every state is different. host: as the complexity. guest: it adds to complicity but there are a lot of parties on ballots. the battalions, greens, if you are starting from scratch sort

of it is very difficult because you got to go state-by-state. some states require 100,000 signatures and some others 50. it is an extensive proposition. you have to hire people to go out and in effect gather those signatures and then you have the whole question of validation of whether or not they are good. it is a difficult thing, but that is by state law. host: the complaint is that the parties have been rigged and the democrats and republicans want to make it restrictive to have competition. guest: i don't think that is the case with the commission. we want to be open. now the whole question of , gerrymandering and what happened with former governor gary of massachusetts creating that salamander type district outside of boston -- i mean, that goes on. that is state legislatures that do that. i think and the commission does that if a candidate, independent or with another party, has a realistic chance to get elected president, they ought to

be on that stage. we don't care what the big -- what the democratic or republican, or any party thinks. that is our standard. host: rick is next on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. thank you for your information. i have got the pharmacy school and law school and i would like my mom -- my mom is vice president league of women voters in baltimore. i would like to know why the democratic party and the republican party seem to have gotten together to form this commission when it was being run -- the debates very well for so many years by the league of women voters, a truly independent entity? host: we will get a response. guest: i thought i mentioned it, they wore following the 1984 debates which the league ran and there were great controversies. there were two independent study

groups. one at georgetown of international studies and went up at harvard at the kennedy school. both of those groups were made up of politicians, journalists people from academic, basic citizens who had no connection with either political party, but they both came to the conclusion that there needed to be a change. it was that combination of suggestions that led us to create the mission. host: any idea for expanding the debate from 90 minutes to two hours? guest: that is something we always consider, steve. how long should it be? i mean, one of the problems, for example, with primary debates is a you have gotten people on the stage and 90 minutes. i mean -- if you are one of those candidates, you are looking get five minutes to say anything. you are always having to deal with that and it may be what we look at whether or not to go to ours. we have considered it in the

past and kept it at 90 minutes. we are not locked into it. host: i want to come back to the republican debates in just a moment, but let's go to vernon first, in danville, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. how are you today? guest: good, thank you. caller: well, my comment is, number 1 -- i think that there should be independent and at least two hours of competition talk. we are a competing country. i believe independent is my choice at this time. i have voted before and i don't need to tell you who i voted for, but i plan to vote and i also want to tell you that this is a great country and i stand beside the decisions of this country more so than the state more so -- we have competed with wars, we have competed with football, we have competed and even over two hours is my idea. i don't think it should be in a

timeframe, sir. guest: thank you. like i said, we have considered the question of two hours over 1.5 hours. you know, when you talk what independent candidates. what most people don't understand is that every four years, about 200 people filed with the federal election commission and run for president. 200. clearly, we cannot have 200 people because it would not be a debate. our question and what we wrestle with is how can we do that? we make sure those candidates who have a realistic chance to be president will be on the stage at the same time, be fair of those independents if they reach the point when the american people think they have a realistic chance to be elected. it is difficult and we take a hard look at the two-hour suggestion. thank you. host: from pennsylvania, joy.

good morning on the democrat line. caller: i will try to make this short. are you ready for me? guest: i am ready for you. caller: i agree with the democrat caller that we need to expand it to a third party because if 40% of us are dissatisfied even though i would probably vote for a democrat, i think that is huge. the third person is actually shut out. i don't see how anybody could see it any other way. guest: again, that is what we wrestle. who was the third party be go to? out of the 200 you maybe filing. -- out of the 200 who may be filing. one of the groups -- the group that sponsored the ad, you ought to take the president gathers the most signatures on getting on the ballot to qualify 270 electoral votes and that person gets the most signatures and you

automatically should be in the debate. the problem with that is -- was raised by another independent group that filed a complaint with the federal commission last week. wait a minute -- if you have the libertarians, green, and other parties on the ballot, they don't have to go out and gather signatures. you are forcing them, even though they are on the ballot, to go out and rather signatures. no one argues with the point that an independent or third party candidate -- if that person, he or she, has a realistic chance of getting in on the debate, they ought to be on the debate. i agree with you 100%. the question is -- how do we find out who that person is and do it in a fair way? host: your friend along with cochair mike mccurry, richard parsons, executive director of the commission, janet brown leon panetta, mitch daniels, olympia snowe, alan simpson -- who are these individual? -- individuals? guest: these are members of the commission. we put on six new people in the

last few years. they cover a broad sector of the united states. where they lived from a geographic standpoint. there are people from academia. we have the former president of princeton, father john president of the university of notre dame. we have former journalists who are on. it is former senators and you named a couple of them. i think we have tried to create a broad spectrum of people throughout the united states who make these judgments. they are all volunteers. no one has paid. i think they take their responsibilities pretty seriously. host: you can get more information fight locking onto debates.org. our guest is cochair of the commission. paul joins us from maine. good morning. caller: good morning. two points -- i enjoy sports a lot but it seems to me that we are willing to sit in front of

the tv and watch three hours of a baseball game or race or football game and this is the most important decision that an american needs to make. to be arguing over the 1.5 hours versus two, i think it would be wise to move it to two hours or even longer if necessary. if that is what it takes to hear the information that is coming from the candidate. as far as the candidates are concerned, i don't see a problem -- i understand you do have to make a number to cut it down to -- but split it up into two if you have to. they don't all have to be on the stage at the same time. i'm not looking at them to argue back and forth, i'm looking at them to answer the questions that are asked of the moderator and to make a compelling argument why i should listen to them and vote for them. guest: i think the caller has really touched on what we are not talking about in the primary debates. as i understand it now, the republican debate which fox news is going to do, it is going to be the top 10 taking five of the leading polls averaging in the

top 10 in the debate. i understand that cnn, which is the second of may, is also going to use the polling data from the five leading -- pixies me -- five leading polling firms to choose of the top 10 but those who do not make the top 10 will debate in the second debate. the difficulty is how you do this and how you work it out in a fair way. i would probably approach it a little differently where the chairman of either party and i like to use the analogy of the olympic games where in the 100 yard dash, there may be 18 competitors from all over the world, but what they do is they run heats. usually, you need heats and move onto the next debate. to work something like that were everybody gets a fair shot because i think the problem with the polling data that they are looking at may depend on when someone gets a name and they announce and start to convert.

it is a very difficult problem to deal with. host: obviously, you will have some candidates, including george pataki, one example three-time governor of new york will not be denied admission in the first debate. guest: if he does not change, as i understand the rules, i have nothing to do with them. but if when they apply the pole test, if he is below that and not in the top 10, he will not be in it. host: henry has this suggestion -- how about having a multitude of debates? you can show your thoughts at c-span wj. next is james from fort worth texas. good morning. caller: expanded debates is the right idea. our current system is so corrupted by money and my suggestion is we eliminate all commercial advertising and limit advertising to t-shirts or

articles of clothing, bumper stickers and that we have a series of 25 debates, one half or a collection of states and other cap ports cities and you allow the public to have part of the questions and you bring all the candidates who pole above and qualified. including if they are democrat republican, independent and let the public get in there. let the public get in there. the public owns the airwaves, so broadcast these on public airwaves and repeat them and tell the public populist over the course of the year so they have the time to here with the -- to hear what the candidates have to say. it is not sufficient to hear what they have to say. 25 debates in a one-year period, not much. host: the question is where the candidates agree to something like that? guest: that is difficult. we have to approach debates in the once the commission produces as they early-onset, our task is education of voters.

that is number one. i think the fact that we get somewhere between 60 and 90 million americans who tune in to those debates and we know from outside polling that we have done that about 60 percent to succeed 5% of the american public say the debates are important but not the only criteria they look at but an important factor in considering the candidates and who they are finally going to cast a ballot for. we feel that we are performing that educational function. again, whether or not the candidates would do 25, who knows? but if that we are concerned about -- i don't think there would be a concern if there were three people in the debate with others not participating. if you start getting to five or six as you go through the primaries, i think you really

destroy the opportunity for the moderator and the candidates to really get a coherent message out to those watching on television. host: this editorial from open -- from "usa today," on the commission and presidential debates -- a third person in the general election debates would make it harder for the major party candidates to stick to their talking points and platitudes. the proposed change in the cpd rules would also make it easier for third-party candidates to raise money and to be taken seriously earlier in the process. guest: well, i disagree with the usa editorial board with regards to that statement. i think the fact that we have changed the format to have those six divisions of 15 minutes with an experience moderator who is able to ask questions and drill down, you get away from the platitudes. positives. any candidate that stands there using something they did out on

what platitudes will not get far. they will be drilled down on them and they will have to come forward and other candidate can ask them questions. we are not limited to the candidates who up to spain in our debates answering only the questions of the moderators. they are free to ask each other questions and you may remember president obama and governor romney did in fact get involved in an interchange. i disagree with that. i think a change -- that may have been true. to be fair to "usa today." in the old days when you had two minute to respond to a question and your opponent had women to respond, i don't think you could -- and your opponent had one minute to respond, i don't think could really develop a real understanding of those issues. host: we will come back in a moment. one defining moment in all the debates. first, let's go to aubrey from anchorage, alaska. up very early on this sunday morning. good morning to you. caller: good morning, gentlemen. pardon me if i sounded nervous. i am not used to calling into television programs. host: what time is it there for

you? caller: it's almost 6:00 in the morning. host: relax. no one is listening. caller: i love c-span. my question requires me to use an analogy. i hope that is ok. jackson, the former head of the ncaa -- no rating can hurt that film. i feel like major candidates are like major studios and independence are like independent film studios. if the criteria for an independent candidate to be in the provincial debate is that people are aware of him, people need to know to vote for them in order for them to have the viability to be in the presidential debates. if they are not in the presence of debates, people may not be aware of that candidate in order to know to vote for them. host: thank you. guest: that's a very good

question. i think one of the things has really changed it in favor of that independent candidate or third-party candidate is best -- social media today, facebook etc. if you are going to run for president, you can communicate with millions of people without much cost. using social media. i think it is a little bit easier than it might have been back in john anderson's days or in ross perot's days to get that attention although ross perilous affair -- a feeling well known person with a profile. if you are some of the with no profile and no one has ever heard of you, i think it will be very, very hard to do that even with social media. if you are someone who has been in the business world, someone who has any kind of political profile, i think social media helps you and i think it is easier to get to 50% although it may not be 15% only make our final determination for 2016. host: from hillsboro, illinois mark, good morning. caller: yes, i was listening to

the debate and understanding that they have to decipher presidential debates the number of legitimate candidates and the 15% role. in regards to asked if we were allowed to have questions submitted from the pacific -- from the specific parties or candidates that reach a lower mark or perhaps candidates who have fewer than 50 states or a certain number the committee would determine to make questions, which would broaden the debate and the discussion the on the two ideas that are presented with the parties and allowed to frame it to present a broader idea or at least to have ideas presented would be much more educational and i'm not sure exactly how you would draw the rubric to decide without legitimacy level lies, but certainly, it would force candidates to recognize that there is is a broader spectrum. i would think that each of the different parties, whether you are talking green or libertarian, would have a large enough support to at least submit a question to the debate and could be framed as -- this

question is from the libertarian party, these are the suggestions -- and they would be able to find a well-crafted question that would rot in the discussion and allow it to work rather than focus so much on the individual because i think the presentation of ideas is the most critical part in educating and being able to make informed decisions. i think it would steer the public and thinking of these terms which are not so polar and help politics. host: thank you, mark. guest: i want to make one thing clear. the commission has no control over the questions asked by the moderator. we don't in any way intrude on their journalistic integrity. they are the ones who make the determination as to what questions. but i know that most of the moderators usually once they have been named have a website and they solicit questions to come into that website which they might answer -- excuse me, they might ask of the candidate. i think will me get around to naming the moderators, i am sure that will occur again.

average citizens can send in a question or organizations, political parties and so forth and hopefully those questions will get asked. but the commission does not get involved in what questions are asked. host: you have been part of the commission since 1987. the defining moment, one of those debates? guest: i don't think there is any question that occurred from the campus of ucla in 1992 when bernie shaw asked michael dukakis -- host: 1988. guest: excuse me, 1988, yeah. if you would still be for or against the death penalty if his wife was raped. and michael dukakis, who is a great guy and very respectful, he caused and said, well

bernard, i would rather say, yeah, i would go out and do it myself. i think that was a real turning point in that election. host: frank fahrenkopf the cochair commission on presidential debates. thank you for stopping by and share your thoughts, and, again the website is debates.org. we appreciate it. guest: send us suggestions if you have them. we will look at them very seriously. announcer: presidential candidates often release of books, and here is a look at some written by declared candidates for president. neurosurgeon ben carson calls for greater individual responsibility to preserve america's future in "one nation." lincoln chaffee has a book, and hillary clinton looks back on "hard choices" and texas senator ted cruz.

carly fiorina, former ceo of hewlett-packard, is another declared candidate for president. in "rising to the challenge," she shares. and my cup of the has "god, guns, grits, and gravy." former new york governor george pataki, also running for president. in 1998, he released "pakaktaki." and rand paul calls for smaller government in his latest book, "taking a stand." another entrant is a former texas governor rick perry. in "fed up!," he reveals government has become too intrusive and must get out of the way. and marco rubio talks about restoring economic opportunity.

bernie sanders is a candidate for the democratic nomination for president. his book "the speech" is a printing of his eight hour long filibuster against tax cuts. presidential candidate rick santorum argues the republican party must focus on the working class in order to retake the white house. others who may announce their candidacies for president include vice president biden. in "promises to keep," he looks back and discusses his principles. and george bush argues for more immigration policies. more candidates with books include louisiana governor bobby jindal. in "leadership and crisis." and john kasich calls for a return to traditional values.

businessman donald trump has also expressed an interest in running for president. in "time to get tough," he criticizes the obama administration and outlines a plan for prosperity. and scott walker argues there must be bold solutions to fix the country and having the courage to implement them in "unintimidated." elizabeth worn recounts the events in her life that shaped her career and finally, former virginia senator james webb looks back at his time serving in the military and the senate in "i heard my country calling." announcer: discussing a recent, in-depth story i'm how the clintons built their $2 billion global initiative -- on how the clintons built their $2 billion global initiative. and patient health.

and a former worker with the transportation security administration looks at the training and technology used by screeners at the tsa. as always, we take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington >> the new congressional pamphlet has information with all of the congress members twitter handles, federal agencies, and more.

next, ray smock takes questions. then, british premised mr. david cameron takes questions. -- british prime minister ♪ this week on q and a our guests are historians don ritchie and ray smock. they talk about the history of the house and senate, focusing on leaders, characters legislation, and scandals. brian: don ritchie, you spent 40 years as historian in the united states senate. what was the toughest part of the job? donald: finding out what had just happened so that we could answer the question. reporters would catch