>> rose: welcome to the program. tonight mitch mcconnell, the republican senate majority leader, regardless of who is president, he is one of the most powerful people in washington. we talk about that tonight and his new memoir called "the long game." >>ed two biggest things the country needs right now for the future, changing the eligibility for a very popular entitlement programs, and comprehensive tax reform. those are the two sort of mega issues that will determine whether or not we succeed in the future. and divided government is the perfect time to do hard stuff because together no one can take political advantage of it. i was running for the senate right after reagan and tip o'neill raised the age for social security. >> rose: right.

>> since they did it together, i was never asked a question about it in the whole race. >> rose: it was not a political issue. >> it was not. ovided by the following:srlyfect captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. mitch mcconnell is here. he is a u.s. senate majority leader. he has represented kentucky since 19 '84 and is now in his sixth term in office. mcconnell has been at the center of some of the hardest fought plilt kal battles in recent history from campaign finance to

o bam-- obamacare to the current clash of president obama's supreme court nominee. senator john mccain once said there are few things more dawnting in politics than the determined opposition of mitch mcconnell. recently mcconnell pledged his support for donald trump. >> i think most of our members believe that he's won the nomination the old-fashioned way. he got more votes than anybody else. and we respect the voices of the republican primary voters across the country. we know the alternative is four more years, just like the last eight. i don't think the american people are thrilled. senator-- was just talking about the growth rate in this country. i believe it's the kaition the president hasn't had a single quarter with 3% growth in his whole presidency. this country needs to get going again. and we know that hillary clinton will be four more years of barack obama. i think that's going to, in the end, be enough to union fie republicans across the country. >> rose: mcconnell's new memoir is called "the long

game." it spans almost the entirety of the senator's life from his childhood bought with poll-- polio to his conflicts where obama and reid. the story he calls an engaging and compelling memoir and once entertaining and essential. i am pleased to have senator mcconnell on this program for the first time at this desk. welcome. >> pleasure to be here. >> rose: pleasure to you have here. how do you see this? what do you want the reader to come away with? >> well, i think in an era when people are all into instant gratification, instant information, there's still a place for early presentation, and playing as i call it the long game. most people who are successful in life, you know, hit a few speed bumps along the way. are not overknight sensations, work very hard to get to where they would like to go. and you know, you could argue

that someone like myself in today's political world, is a little out of fashion because people are looking for something new. >> rose: yeah. >> and something-- they have not noticed in the political environment before. >> rose: although there are some who say that while bob dole was right for his time, you are right for this time. for the republicans. >> well, i think this. i think the founders of this country, a lot of people don't know much about american history any more, constructed a system that is not into instant solutions. the powers divided, both among the branches of government and the two houses of congress are quite different. it's hard to make a law, hard to do something quickly. they thought that was the best thing for this country. and i think it worked out pretty well for us. but patience is not something that people are frequently rewarding these days. >> rose: in this age, velocity is a common term about

everything, how fast. >> yeah. >> rose: but at the same time is it a conservative government that the founders established because checks and balances, they want to make sure that this country didn't rush into anything. >> conservative in the sense that they did not want rapid answers to complicated questions. and so they constructed a system that guaranteed it to make it very, very difficult for the government to do things quickly. now there have been occasions where one side was completely dominant. take the new deal, the democrats had. 76 out of 96 senators at one point. >> 76 out of 96. >> rose: they couldn't even get all the democrats on one side of the senate. normally we are on each side of the senate with an aisle down the middle. >> rose: the middle was somewhere else. >> but that's pretty unusual. the first two years of president obama, he had significant majorities, could do what he wanted to pretty much. after that, two years people took a look at it, seemed to be suffering from buyers' remorse

and changed the congress. >> rose: but he would argue, i assume, that he couldn't get necessarily all that he wanted in terms of the stimulus program. he might argue that. he would argue that. >> he would argue that. we thought a trillion dollars was more than enough. and then you add it on top of that, obamacare and dodd-frank. so he had control of the legislative process for two years. the american people recoiled, actually. d decided to as a result of being seized with buyers remorse to change the government. bill clinton experienced the same thing after two years. >> rose: some will argue and i'm wondering how you feel about this, that the country sort of likes it if the president is in one party and the congress is in the other country. >> yeah, you know. it's funny, americans complain because not enough is being donement but then they turn around and frequently elect divided government. in fact, we've had divided government more often than not since world war ii. and i think there is very muched feeling that maybe they don't want either side to get everything they want. and you're going to have be a

interesting election this year where both of the nominees for president are quite unpopular. i think there will be a lot of tickets floating this year. a lot of feeling whether you end up voting for trump or clinton. people are going to want to make an independent judgement about their senate candidate or their house candidate. this is going to be a really unusual year. >> rose: one of the fears when donald trump became the presumptive nominee was that you might lose the senate majority. and some of your senators seem to have been worried about that too. >> some may have been fearful of that. let me give you an example. a couple of examples that are instructive to me. when bill clinton was re-elected in 1-9d 96, my party gained two seats in the senate. when ronald reagan carried 49 out of 50 states in 1984, a sweep, the republicans lost two seats in the senate. when gold water got wiped out, republican lost two seats in the senate. what was happening. people were voting one way for

president, but then hedging their bets in the congressional races. so one thing i can safely say about senate races, they're statewide. they're big enough for the kind of incumbents we have running in purple states, competitive states like new hampshire and pennsylvania, ohio, wisconsin. to paint their own picture, and what i have recommended is i think it's a good idea to support the nominee. he won it he got the most votes. whether it was. >> and then some. >> and whether he was the people's first choice or not, the way you get elected in this country is you get the most votes. >> okay, but stop there because we'll talk more about that. but does he represent the republican party, does his values match those of the republican party that you believe in? >> not entirely, no. i don't think donald trump will change basic core republican beliefs. i don't expect him to change the platform, for example. i'm glad that he's hopefully

going to bring new voters to the party. but i don't think dorn ald trump is going to change the republican party. >> rose: some of your republicans are worried about that. >> i'm not worried about it. >> rose: some would argue, listen, during the primary season, that was a different time. i had some say to me, donald trump is the nominee it will destroy the republican party. if he is the nominee and loses badly, it will destroy the republican party. i know you are here to say no, the republican party is way too strong for that. >> he's not going to destroy the republican party. >> rose: even if he loses badly. because barry gold ddz water didn't destroy the republican party. >> there are core beliefs that most republicans share. and in fact, i think post reagan, the two parties really mean something. when you and i were young in the south t was pretty hard to tell the difference between a democrat and republican. there were democratic conservatives, republican liberals. i think there has over a period of time been a basically realignment. i think the labels actually mean something today. the republican party is a right

of centre party, the democratic is left of centre. >> rose: my own home state goes republican and democrat. they voted for obama in 2008 and voted against obama in 2012. >> that would be a purple state. a competitive state. >> rose: and still is by the way. >> yeah. when you look at trump, what does he say to you. i want to talk much more about you and this book but what does he say, when you have these conversations with him. when he comes to washington, does he express some sense of how he-- how he may not be what he seems. how he may be how he may be whatever? >> let me share a story with you, i think is kind of instructive. he and i were both at the nra, the national rifle association meet wig happened to be in my hometown of louisville a couple of weeks ago. we were in the green room. >> rose: can i not wait for this. >> i said hey, donald, you have got a script. he said yeah, he pulled it out of his pocket. i said are you going to use it he said i hate using a script.

it's boring. the audiences don't like it. i said donald, put me down in favor of boring. i said you have entertained audiences and you've tweeted all the way to the nomination. but in my opinion, for what it's worth, you need to pivot at this point and use a script more often even at the risk of being boring. now i stayed and watched the speech. he did both. uld tell he really didn't want to, pulled the script out of his pocket and read a bunch of boring stuff that was important for him to go on record. my point is, i think trump needs to convey to the public a certain level of seriousness about the position for which he is running, and i think it is not at all inappropriate to follow a script because it means you have thought through the positions you're going to take, and you want to advocate

something. i also don't like the add how manyinim attacks. i thought the attack on suzanna martinez, the governor of new mexico. >> rose: after he was the presumptive nominee. >> yeah, was unacceptable and he ought not to do stuff like that. >> rose: did you say that to him, why do you do this. >> i said it publicly. i haven't seen him since then, but i will when i do. >> rose: he says i only attack after they attack me. >> well, he ought to be less sensitive. if you are running for president, you can expect to be attacked. it goes with the job. >> rose: how do you see the race. do you see it even up. >> i think it's going to be close. you have a very upset electorate. i think they have a good reason to be upset. the average person has not done very well during this administration. and people are feeling like they're fallk behind. >> rose: but at the same time as you know, there are two things happening. one in the democratic party, it is a bit of a protest against wall street. >> and actually-- go ahead. >> rose: and in the republican side, it's, seems to me more of

a protest against government and the government that they don't think works. a lot of republicans believe it's because they didn't see their things that they believed in, enacted. democrats say there is gridlock and that's bad for the country because we're not planning and spending, you know, and making investments. >> yeah. >> rose: in the future. >> well, i think that is the attitude. i think democrats are upset about wall street and republicans are upset about government. i also think there is a strand of democrats who think the president hasn't been liberal enough. which to people like me is truly astonishing. but whether th are angry at wall street. >> rose: not as liberal as bernie sanders. >> apparently not. from my perspective, the president has been a very far left guy. he had a chance to be bill clinton after he lost the congress two years in, to pivot to the middle. >> rose: bill clinton familiar usually said at the state of the union, the era of big government is over. >> he did, indeed. we did welfare reform, we

balanced the budget three years in a row. reagan did the same thing. he and tip o'neill raised the age for social security, the hardest thing to do in politics and did the last comprehensive tax reform. both of them confronted with a congress that could not totally control decided to move to the middle and do major things. obama after losing in 2010, after having his own way for two years, after losing the congress in the mid term of 2010 disrnlt pivot to the center. he doubled down, through the people that he control, the regulators, the executive orders and all the rest, and continued to pursue a sort of leftist agenda which is why i'm astonished that the sanders people think the president has not been progressive enough. >> rose: let's put you back into the picture. you are the one who said, and you have the right quote, basically said at the time that he was elected, our responsibility is to see that barack obama is not re-elected president. many people looked at that and said no, your responsibility is to make sure that you act in the

national interest of the country. not to play politics and depend on electoral success or failure. >> i'm glad you brought that up. in the book i pownt point out that one reporter got it right, bob woodward works didn't snip off the rest of what i said. and by the way, i didn't say it when the president first got elected. i said it is two years in, after he had been rebuffed by the voters fairly thoroughly. and here's what i said. obviously politically i would like for barack obama to be a one-term president. but bob woodward pointed out that what got snipped off was the rest of what i said was, in the mean time there's a lot we need to accomplish for the country. during that two year period between the time he lost the house and got himself re-elected, joe biden and i negotiated three major by part san-- bipartisan agreements. december 2010, two year extension of the bush tax cuts. the august 2011 budget control act which actually reduced government spending forb two years in a row for the first time since right after the

korean war. and the december 31st fiscal live deal which-- cliff deal which prevented a tax increase on 99% of americans. the points i'm making, charlie, is sure there were big things that i disagreed with the president on. and obviously as the republican leader of the senate, i hoped he would not be the president in a second term. but there was after all the mean time. and thases' what i did in the mean time. >> rose: so you misunderstood when people said my responsibility is timply to not. >> they just snipped off the balance of what i said. and i set the record straight in the book. >> rose: and you talk about joe biden. and you talked about the idea of to focus. that joe biden show could negotiate and focus in terms of getting something done. >> well, what joe is willing to do is to not sort of lecture me like the president likes to do to me and others. and sort of impress us with his intelligence. >> rose: you seen suggest he thinks is he the smartest person in the room and he likes to show

you. >> i think he could resist that. it is kind of grating on people. i hear that complaint from democrats as well. the beuty of nshting with joe is he doesn't waste any time trying to convince me of things he knows i can't convince him of. and i don't try to waste any time trying to convince him. so we were able to get to the things that we could come together on. the president does deserve credit, i think, for designating joe to do these negotiations. he knew what he was doing. he did it well. and a personality type that didn't try to convince your political opponents of something you know that you can't convince them of. so yeah, we did some business with the administration. >> rose: how close did we come during the difficult years in terms of gridlock to coming to a grand bargain? >> that's a very good question. the two biggest things the country needs for the future are entitlement eligibility changes. that means medicare and social

security have to be adjusted to the demographics of america tomorrow, rather than in the 30st when social security was passed. and the '60s when medicare was passed. youngsters being born today have a reasonable shot of living to see a hundred years old, a reasonable shot. last year the average male lived to be 79. the average female, 81. the programs are simply unsustainable. and they're eating up well more than half of the budget now. >> rose: and people can lead a more productive life for a longer period of time. >> absolutely. the president is extremely resistant to tackle that. he knows it needs to be done. he simply doesn't want to do it on his watch. the other thing we've been unable to do that the country desperately needs is what reagan and tip o'neill did 30 years ago. we need a major overhaul. tax code again to make america more competitive. so those-- . >> rose: that seems to be an appropriate-- in other words, if there was entitlement reform,

thrr having a look at revenue and spending and investment, you could therefore make changes in the tax code in terms of deductions as well. >> yeah, but the idea of the tax code is not to grow the government. reagan and tip o'neill had an agreement. would would be revenue neutral to the government it wasn't revenue neutral to people who lost their preferences in the tax code. those would go away and that revenue produced by losing those preferences would be used to buy down rates. president obama won't agree to that. he also won't agree to entitlement eligibility changes without the kind of tax increases that couldn't pass a republican congress. so you get my drift, charlie. he's one unwilling to make the deal that would have tok made in dealing with a congress he does not control. so those issues. those mega issues we have not been able to solve. >> rose: and my question is how close did we come to a grand bargain. it was close? >> thot that close, yeah. >> rose: because there was a famous question about he and

john boehner and whether they could have made the deal. >> there was a serious discussion about it. i was involved in those as well. >> rose: and democratic senators were involved in that. >> this was mostly the administration and the republican leadership. thed president would have had to bring the democrat as long. because they were not interested in doing these deals. it would have required the kind of thing that reagan and tip o'neill did the kind of thing that clinton and the republicans did. these deals have to be done with the guy with a pen, there is only one person out of 330 million americans who can sign something into law. the president in our system is a very important player, the most important player. so what do you do and again i talk about this in my book, what do you do when you have divided government fully which happened after the 2014 election. i had a press conference today after it became clear that i was go to be the majority leader. i said what are the american people looking for when they elect divided government.

i think they're saying we know you have differences. why don't you look for the things you can agree on and do those. and i have just said we can't do the mega stuff because the president doesn't want to do it. but there are a lot of other things that ending a disfunctional senate, and it was completely disfunctional before this current majority, we didn't even vote any more. we had 15 local call votes on amendments in all of 2014, the whole year. we had over 200 last year. which means everybody is getting to participate, regardless of party. we did trade promotion authority. we did a complete rewrite of no child left behind, very unpopular, leftover from the bush administration. a five-year highway bill that hadn't been done in 20 years, cybersecurity. permanent r & d tax credit, permanent internet tax more torium. comprehensive energy bill. a whole array of things. what were they in the category of? important, worth doing, could

get a presidential signature, but not the mega issue that we really needed to tackle. >> rose: are republicans in the senate and you as their leader willing to say you know, in order for this country to remain competitive, we really have to invest in the future an make that kind of commitment, that has to do with research and development, has to do with supporting signs science, it has to do with a whole range of things. >> well, if you are talking about government spending, democrats call government spending investment,. >> rose: i'm talking about specific things. i think you can say spending on the one hand and investment in science and research, it is also an investment in the future. >> good point. we have a major bipartisan agreement on significantly plussing up nih. the national institutes of health. >> rose: plussing up. >> yeah, cancer research. the president's interested, the vice president in particular, the cancer moon shot, which we're excited about and

interested in doing. the president's interested in precision medicine. i'm particularly interested in some kinds of fda reforms that will quit slowing down getting into clinical trials, some of the very exciting new things like inner body cell transfer, from taking it out of one party and putting it in another. >> we have gotten the research at the brain cancer at duke has gotten the fast track. >> i think we have a bipartisan agreement to do that. but i think we can do it without dramically overhaul spending increases the government. we are massively overspending now. we have added more debt during the obama years than all the presidents from george washington down to george bush. so i think the overall spending doesn't necessarily need to go up. but some of the spending does. and the highway bill say good example. we hadn't passed a five-year fully funded highway bill sints '90s. and so that's infrastructure and that is important to the country, to keep the transportation system working. >> rose: should we do more?

>> we certainly need to do more in selected areas, in selected areas. >> rose: bridges, highways. >> yeah. >> rose. >> medical research. >> rose: but i'm talking infrastructure. it seems to me, and i'm asking this, as a citizen might ask, are there areas of common ground that we should have done more or are you simply saying here today looking we've done more than you think we have. >> we have done a lot more than you think we have. and the reason for that is everybody is angry about their own situation in life. they're blaming the government which is understandable. but there is no disfunction in the senate any more. and i just have given you a whole list-- . >> rose: because harry reid is theminority leader and you are the majority leader. >> we're opening the place up. people are getting to vote, to participate, to develop bills on a bipartisan basis in committee. we're bringing forward legislation. we're passing, this will be inside baseball for a lot of people but you know what i am talking about. we're actually passing individual appropriation bills,

from the government, as opposed to leading a big old omnibus at the end of the year, which is embarrassing for both sides. that hasn't been done in 20 years. all of those things are happening. they will not make the front urt justice, would you support it? >> here's the deal. we're in the middle of a presidential election here. you would have to go back 80 years to find the last time a vacancy created in a presidential election year was filled. you would have to go all the way back to grofer cleveland to find the last time a supreme court vacancy occurring in a presidential election year was confirmed by a senate of the opposite party. let's go back to 1992, joe biedern was chairman of the judiciary committee. >> rose: he wishes, he said, he hadn't said what he said, i assume. >> it wasn't a vacancy but he said gratuitously, he said if there is a vacancy that occurs

this year, he wouldn't fill it chuck schumer said 18 months before the end of george bush 43. in a vacancy occurred, they wouldn't fill it. so what is everybody saying here. if you are in the middle of an election year for president, a vacancy on the supreme court will not be filled. and it is not about merrick garland personally, although the president calling him a moderate doesn't make him a moderate. but it's not about him personally. >> rose: but he has been supported by the republicans in the past. >> for lower courted appointments. this is the supreme court we're talking about. >> rose: but is he on the court of appeals. >> this is the supreme court. >> rose: but is he on the court of appeals. >> so was clarence roberts, so was robert bork, you know what happened to them. so look, and that was not in i presidential election year. what is happening here-- . >> rose: and that really started the acrimony about supreme court justices. >> it really started under nixon. nixon had two supreme court justices shot down. >> rose: some would say republicans. >> but there was a majority

democratic senate, shot down two of nixon's appointments, then boxer, then thomas. i think it's safe to sairks i have studied this a lot. i wrote a law journal about it a long time ago. what does advice and consent me? i think the answer is whatever the senate says it means at any given point. we are in a period of senator yal assertiveness. but even putting the assertiveness aside, it was fever going to be possible to fill a vacancy in the middle of a presidential election year when you've got a president going out of office. >> rose: but are you not rolling the dice. because some will argue that if, in fact, hillary clinton is elected president and she may appoint someone more to the left of judge garland and therefore you will get something more than you might have gotten if judge garland, who is a man of temperment. >> i have heard that argument. he's a a nice man. we will not get anybody any more

liberal than merrick garland. >> rose: i wouldn't say that. >> i would. i have looked at his record very carefully rdz ang you have had conversations, i would suspect that there are some other people that might be nominated, and i don't think the president thinks he chose necessarily the most liberal. i think he chose a person he thinks, you know, who would make a great judge but who was as close as he could find in the center. >> that is what the president is saying. i have looked at judge garland's record-- . >> rose: and you find. >> a very liberal guy. >> rose: you think you could never support him if he was nominated by president-elect clinton because he's too liberal. >> i wouldn't be voting for him, no. as to whether or not he would be confirmed, we would see what the senate looks like at the time. >> rose: yeah, exactly. let's talk a moment, i want to come to some other things. the power of the majority leader, i don't think people understand how much power you have. >> the big advantage to being

the majority leader, i like to use sports terminology. you are the offensive coordinator instead of the defensive coordinator. what does that mean. you get to set the schedule. you get to decide what we're going to debate. doesn't guarantee the outcome. the senate is a place that requires 60 vote, not just 51 which is a majority to do most things. but setting the agenda is helpful. it is helpful. and so we have a very, very different agenda in the senate now than we had under the previous majority leader. it still requires 60 votes to do most things. which is why i focused on things that could enjoy at least some bipartisan support that were worth doing. and that's why we've had such a productive year and a half. >> rose: the other thing that has always intrigued me, i once spent a summer there, an aid to a senator,in 1964 which is a very interesting time to be there. is this idea that a senator can put a hold on a nomination by a president. it is extraordinary to me that

one person can say for whatever reason, i don't want this person to be confirmed and it will not be voted on. >> let me tell you what a hold means. a hold simply means you would have to get 60 votes to go forward. >> rose: to override the hold. >> and would you have to use multiple days to do it the reason a hold is frequently effective for an individual senator is we don't have the floor time in the senate. the point of the realm in the senate is floor time. what are you going to devote time to. because the senate is working out pretty much like george washington predicted. according to legend, when he was presiding over the constitutional convention, someone asked him what is it going to look like. he said like the saucer under the teacup. the tea will slosh out of the saucer and cool off. nothing happens quickly in the senate. and that's why a hold, which means you're going to have to get 60 votes to go forward, can frequently be very effective. and that's why in the senate, every senator has the ability.

>> rose: for whatever reason. >> to gum up the works. and that's why almost everything i do as the majority leader requires unanimous consent. because unless i can get everybody to agree to a process to go forward, it takes a long time to do it. >> rose: how has the senate changed since you've been there. you are now in your sixth term. 1984. 32 years, right? >> right. you sit next to legend, bob dole, ted kennedy and so many others, come and gone. >> uh-huh. >> rose: how is it different? >> i don't think it is all that different. >> rose: in terms of either the institution or the membership? >> i think the perception that we're all at each other's throats is incorrect. it's a very college y'all place. -- college yal place,. >> rose: you and ted cruz are best friends. >> i can't tell you that every twosome in the senate loves each other but is t say cle collegial

place. let me give you some exdrk dsh examples. most americans don't know american history. we have had with a congress in carolina almost beat to death a senate. >> pres tonbrooks almost beat to death charles summer in in the 1850st rdz with a cane. >> yeah, almost killed him t was one the major incidents leading up to the civil war. anything we may have said about each other pales in comparison to what hamilton and jefferson said about each other. >> rose: i'm sure, we know that now because of "hamilton" the musical. >> we have had raucous debates forever. what is different today, the internet and 24 hour television. so the american people get in their faces on a virtual daily basis. the kind of debates we've been having for 1200 years. and they assume it's because we all hate each other. >> rose: the argument is made, you know, that because of redistricting and the house of representatives, that we're

getting more idealogues coming. and they're less open to compromise and per situation. in the house and in the senate. >> not true in the senate. you know, we don't have a freedom caucus in the senate. this is a group in the house that i think has been a challenge for the speaker and the previous speaker. we've got maybe one or two people that operate that way. and they mostly go over to the house side for reinforcement. 52 of my 54 members are probably what i would call the constructive caucus. they get up every day saying how can we make a difference for the country. they're willing to talk to a whole lot of ways under the new majority. honestly, that was not always that way under the previous majority. but i'm interested in making progress for the country. most of my members think that's a good idea. >> rose: does the president and his administration, not just the president personalizing it, recognize that, have you been successful in communicating to them and is it resonating with

them that you would like to in the remaining seven months this administration has, do something really constructive and finding common ground and if so, they should be held accountable if, in fact t is common ground they believe in. >> well, we've been doing that on a whole array of things i mentioned to you. all of those are either on the way to being signed or already signed by the president rdz so here you are giving credit to the president. >> he has to sign the bill. >> rose: exactly. but you are i sag this president, who i said these things about at the same time, we found common ground and he signed off on it and that is a good example of what is possible. >> but charlie, why is that happening? end all of our-- we couldim.he spend all of our time sending him things he would veto. >> rose: right. >> or we could understand that there are certain-- and we've done that at least once. we sent him o bmacare repeal and yvetteoed it. or we could say, we know we have big differences. why don't we work on the things

we can agree on. and i'm giving you a whole litany of things worth doing. much more is coming, particularly in the area of funding health research that he will sign. and the goal is not to make a point, but to make a difference. and you make a difference in this current configure raise of government when you pass something that's worth passing, that you know will get a presidential sightd. that has been the a grenda in the senate. >> rose: okay. how about trade. >> if it were not for the guy are you talking to right now, there would be no trade promotion authority and there would be no trade deal that was an interesting situation in which i was totally aligned with the president against harry reid and nancy pelosi. and both democratic candidates for president, and the republican candidate for president. so that's a classic example of putting the presidential election aside, looking for what we can agree on to make progress for the country. and that's how we got trade promotion authority. whether the trade agreement that the president is now negotiated can be approved in an atmosphere

like this-- . >> rose: a political year. >> yeah, with all of the major candidates for president-- . >> rose: but he used that as a legacy act. >> it is an important step in the right direction. >> rose: and so do you. >> but it needs to pass. >> it needs to pass and the question is can you pass it. i do not think it would do the transpacific partnership, the agreement much good to be brought up and defeated. >> rose: right. >> it needs to be passed. >> rose: will you bring it up? >> here's the point. if it is defeated, it is a big step back for international trade. if st not done before the president leaves office t is still there. and so is trade promotion authority unlike most things that we do, it doesn't die at the end of the congress. i think the worst thing that could happen to the trade-- the transpacific partnership, the agreement would be if it went down. trade promotion authority, the ability to negotiate the

agreement and send it up is there for six years. it's there for this president and for the next one. >> rose: on the question of where we go and in terms of what ct there had been commonf in ground found early on in the obama administration and say after the first two years when there was a clang in to 10, would we have found common ground and therefore would there have been a lot more done? did we miss an opportunity to find some things we could do together, democrats and republicans, the president and the senate? you were not the senate majority leader at that time. >> but i was involved in things in a pretty significant thing. >> rose: in other words, i want to be historical for a moment and say did we miss opportunities that would have served, because both people would have realized what the possibilities were. >> absolutely. and i mentioned it. the two biggest things the country needs right now for the future are changing the eligibility for a very popular entitlement programs. and comprehensive tax reform. those are the two sort of mega issues that will determine whether or not we succeed in the

future. and divided government is the perfect time to do hard stuff because together no one can take political advantage of it. i was running for the senate right after reagan and tip o'neill raised the age for social security. since they did it together, i was never asked a question about it in the whole race. >> rose: it was not a political issue. >> it was not. this would have been the perfect time. and some would argue divided government is the only time you can:do really hard stuff. which is why i mentioned reagan and tip o'neill and bill clinton doing welfare reform. >> rose: how is clinton different than obama. >> transactional. >> rose: obama is not transactional at all? >> no, and willing to accept the government that he had rather than the government he wished he had. in other words clirch ton the first two years like obama the first two years had the government he wanted. but then the american people changed the government. and you have a choice at that point. >> rose: in 1994 with the contract with america. >> right. then the question is, you don't have the ability on your own to do what you want to legislatively. do you go to the political

center and make deals, or don't you. clinton went to the middle, obama has not. >> rose: what is your case that he is so far to the left? >> it's the regulatory rampage that has been going on all over the country. this is the poorest recovery after a deep recession since world war ii. america on average over its history has averaged a growth rate of about four percent a year. this administration has not had one single quarter of three% growth. in fact, its averaged about 1.5%. >> rose: it say big problem. >> a big problem. so we have a difference. >> rose: most people think the answer to growth is not-- they've done everything they can do with monetary policy. they think the answer to it is more physical and it is in fact creating more demand in the economy. >> the way you do that is you stop the regulatory rampage. there is not a single business in america that's not being overregulated. health care and financial services, epa, nlrb, fcc, you

name the agency. >> rose: but then the question becomes, does it not t become was doesn't think it is too much regulation. >> the people who actually hire people and expand are-- . >> rose: business people feel like there is too much regulation. >> they're the ones who make decisions to expand employment. >> rose: do you think wall street is overregulated today? >> i'm not talking about with us waws. >> rose: i am. but let me. >> you can talk about wall street if you want to. but main street is the place where the jobs are created. >> rose: agreed. >> small business creates most of the job. >> big firms on wall street can deal with any regulatory environment the government puts forward. they can deal with it. it's the little guys who are growning. the regional banks who can't make loans. the small businesses who can't expand because of the regulatory assault that's been going on all across the country. so it's a main street problem, not a wall street problem. >> rose: in terms of the regulatory, are you talking about dodd-frank or talking about other kinds of regulation. >> dodd-frank is part of it. >> rose: are you talking about regulation from various government agencies.

>> epa, nrb, fcc, you name the agency. it is a steady stream of people coming too my office every week from one agency or another. there is a new rule in the labor department put out called a fiduciary that is basically destroying the financial services, advisory businesses. just one after another after another after another. so what it dusker charl-- charlie is it creates a kind of sclerosis in the system, like your system is clogged up. and everybody is just limping along. and that's why we have this tep i had growth rate. the labor participation rate, that is the percentage of people who want to work, working is back where it was in the 70st under jimmy carter. >> rose: i do argue with you a little bit on the fact that we need to create more demand in the economy. and so the consumers want to spend more. because i believe the consumers were spending more, that businesses would be investing more because there was the demand there and therefore they would be willing if they saw the demand to expand in factories an hire more people.

i mean that's a central economic argument i would make with you. >> you and i can argue economics. but i'm telling you that in my opinion, the people who create jobs, uniformly across the country. >> rose: feel like they're not creating them because regulations. >> they can't expand. they can't borrow. the regulations, i was just reading an article today by one of the founders at home depot, bernie mark-- who said regretfully they couldn't have started home depot in today's environment. >> rose: because the regulatory-- environmental issues. >> no, regulatory. >> rose: health care issues. >> microunion, quickie elections. the whole effort to turn us into a western european country. that's what the-- the president wouldn't put it that way but that is what he wanted to do. >> rose: you think he did he wanted to turn us-- give me an example of what western european country. let me stop you, he didn't want to turn the country into france. president obama does not want to turn the country into france.

i'm not defending him. i'm just saying, why would he want to do that. >> he wouldn't put it that way. >> rose: here is the guy who said, go ahead. >> he wouldn't put it that way. >> rose: yeah. >> so let's look at what you got in western europe. big debts, high taxes, overregulations, slow growth. what has been the last eight years, big taxes, high regulation, slow growth. i mean the formula is the same. when you do all of that, you slow the economy down. you slow the economy down. and you don't have as much growth. >> rose: i'm--ogue, so let me, because you take the position that you do, and i'm just raising questions here, we have seen, the president takes great credit in what happened to the economy. he believes,-- bear with me. >> i'm bearing with you. he believes that the economy, he believes that the economy has significantly improved from where it was when he was president in 2008. we came out of a recession in 2007, going too 2008.

unemployment was up around 9, 10% it is now at 5%. is that progress? >> well, depends on where you start the measurement. >> rose: you start at 10% and you go back to five. >> if you go back to 2007 before the meltdown, we haven't recovered. of course from the low point, things are better than they were. but z remember this st the most tep i had recovery after a deep recession since world war ii. and the pattern in the past has been the deeper the recession, the quicker the bounceback. >> rose: is that because of some systemic problems in terms of structure or because of bad policies by a president. >> overregulation, the principal reason. ask anybody in business, large or small, anywhere in america. >> rose: is donald trump talking about that? is your nominee talking about overregulation. i hadn't heard that. >> i don't know what he is talking about. >> rose: but is he your nominee. >> i'm giving you my opinion. >> but is he your nominee. i mean you wish he would talk about that rather than talking about the republican governor of new mexico. >> well, you and i are not sitting here talking about the presidential race all the time. we're talking about that book right over there. >> well, we are. >> rose: let me go to the

book. i want to make sure we go to it. a lot of this is in the book. this is what it is. >> much of it is. >> rose: the interesting thing about the long game as well, which i do like very much the title, you have said to me, and in interviews you have talked about the fact that, you know, senator kennedy played the long game. he decided he wanted to be in the senate. and he could have impact in the senate over the long-term. >> yeah. >> rose: i would argue too that people like warren buffett have been successful investors because they're playing a long game. >> right. >> rose: they invest in companies, american companies. and they hold over the long-term. >> i like that. i think that's the, you know, the clearest way to have a successful life is to not look for quick fixes, to not be-- not think you can be an overnight sensation. some peel are but most people aren't. >> rose: i certainly was not. >> yeah. and you know, you just knuckle down and keep going. >> rose: you had polio when you were two. >> i did. >> rose: in alabama. >> yeah. >> rose: a loving mother.

>> yeah. >> rose: had much to be, to do with the man you are today. >> i think it was an early lesson and exactly what we're talking about, how ten asity and hard work can overcome adversity. on i was a very young guy. the first memory hi in life was the last visit to warren springs, the polio treatment center that president roosevelt set up. and they told me, told my mother that after two years of hard work, she administered this physical therapy regimen four times a day, every day and kept me from walking prematurely. i was not going to have a brace and i was going to have a normal life. but for her, i would have had air sle different kind of life but it was an early lesson in ten asity and work. >> rose: and love. >> and love. >> rose: she kept her eye on you. she made sure that you were not walking. >> she did. >> rose: she understood the consequences. >> yeah.

she did, indeed. and even at that early stage, i thought it was a good lesson. and i've tried to apply and have i wamped you and your career do the same thing. like a friend of mine said, you know, the harder i work, the luck year i get. >> rose: that's true. so you change kentucky politics too. >> we've changed-- the state has changed dramically from when i began my career. >> rose: as a judge and then as a. >> yeah, i think we have a genuine two-party state now, probably tilting in the republican direction. and it is-- i take no personal credit for this. but i have tried to help along the way. and we're now a state that i think republicans will carry most of the time. and that's a big change from the south that you and i grew up in. where republicans were nonexistent. >> rose: lyndon johnson said i'm changing the democratic party in the south. >> he didn't do it immediately. >> rose: but then game george

wallace. >> yeah, it didn't do it. >> it changed it in presidential elections but it didn't change it all the way down. to the state level. >> rose: yeah. >> and congress until very recently. >> rose: when you look-- i know many people who look at america today. and they say the following. >> we've got the best economy in comparison to other economies. got the strongest military. we've got the best universities. we've got the best, the best, the best. we've got the most technology. we've got all these things and the only thing that can stop us is washington. now you seem to be suggesting that's right, in your judgement if you impose too much regulation. will you stief el the economic miracle that has been america. >> three things need to be done. change the regulatory environment. adjust the entitlements to fit the future of america, and do comprehensive tax reform. those three things, this country

will take off like a rocket. >> rose: and what is the responsibility of government having to do with he conditions in the workplace, having to do with the environment, having to do with health. what's the responsibility of government in those areas to citizens. >> the government has some spobilityd in all of those areas. the question is how much. like anything, you can overdo it. and this administration seems to believe that it can create employment. it cannot create employment it can only make employment more difficult. and so there's a balance here that has to be achieved, that's been essentially out of sync during the obama years. and until we get that balance right, we'll not have the kind of growth rate that gives our children the kind of opportunities that we've all had. >> when you find fault with the president, is it about experience before he went to the presidency or is it about

instinct and ideology that he had grown to adopt? >> no, it's about ideology. it's not about-- i mean he's a very smart guy. i don't think the fact that he had been a first term senator had anything to do with this at all it is not an experience issue as far as i'm concerned t is an attitude, an approach, a philosophy. there is a reason, there's two parties in this country. we have very different views about what america ought to be. the democratic party is almost entirely the party of the government. and we are mostly a party of the private sector. obviously you need both. the question is, what is the appropriate billion. >> rose: i ask, is that-- has that really-- would you say that during the administration of bill clinton? >> that democratic party was a party of government and. >> so if you are for welfare reform as president rick moin han was, dns-- moynihan voted against it. clinton vetoed it twice. >> rose: he disnts like the one that was there. >> it wasn't at the top of his list.

but he was pragmatic enough. he was pragmatic enough to in the end conclude he needed to sign it. that level of practicing mattism i just don't see in president obama. it's too bad because divided government is the perfect time to do big stuff. we have not had that opportunity with him. >> rose: do you see that level of practicing matism in donald trump? >> i don't think we know. i think he's a largely unknown actor? -- factor? >> rose: does it scare you a bit. >> it ask appealing with to a lot of voters. >> rose: but does it scare you a bit with your experience. >> i think will have to rely on the strnlings the constitution, the congress that is there. i think he's much more likely to become like republicans mostly are. because it will be impossible to operate otherwise. >> rose: he can't govern otherwise. >> no. this isn't a dictatorship here. you can't just do anything you want to. you have to operate within the constraints. >> rose: so what worries you most about the country today? if we believe in all the things we said, what worries you the most?

>> it's not a happy choice for president. but that's the choice the american people have given us. >> rose: very unpopular. >> both of them are. and so the american people are going to engage in a choice that they're not very happy about. but this is a big, as you point out, successful country. we'll survive the presidency of hillary clinton or barack obama. neither one of them will be able to do everything they want to do. and i'm eternally optimistic about our country and our future. we have big problems. i would love to have been able to do more during this period of divided government than we have. but we are where we are. and we'll be making a big decision in this country about who we want to be in the white house for the next four years. >> rose: did you ever get up in the morning and go look in the mirror and see a future president? >> no. >> rose: not once. >> no, i wanted to be the leader of my party in the senate, from earlier rival in the senate. i had hoped to be the majority leader. but the long game that i have been involved in, prehaven'ted that for eight long years.

in fact, charlie, the election i got elected leader was right after the election we went into the minority in 2006. and so it was kind of a long eight year weight too have the opportunity-- wait to have the opportunity and begin to try to get us back to the days that i had observed as an early-- as an intern back in the '60s. >> rose: as an intern back in the '60s. here is what is interesting, bob dole said to me once the second best job in washington is the majority leader of the senate when the opposition party holds the white house. >> it could be, if the opportunity for big accomplishments. that's what i had hoped for. but we'll settle for something less. >> rose: okay, but suppose hillary clinton is looked, and the famous words of margaret thracher about gorbachev, this say person i can work with. >> yeah. i hope so. we'll see who gets elected. if we do have divided government

t is an opportunity for big things but they're not going to be done on the political left if the republicans still control the house or the senate it will have to be done in the middle. and we'll need a president-- . >> rose: and nobody can be hostage to any caucus within their body. >> we don't have these caucuses in the senate. >> rose: but you do have in the house. >> yeah. a lot of people saying gooden things. i mentioned john meachham, hugh hewitt t is the long game, a memoir it is senator mcconnell talking about from his childhood talking about the loving care of his mother, overcoming polio, talking about the march to kentucky politics. and the march to washington, the marriage to a wonderful emily c-- who has been at his side. it is the story of an american political life, with the los of understanding and lessons as to how he saw that world, those choices, and the future. thank you for joining us. see you next time. >> for more about this program and earlier episodes visit us

online at pbs.org and charlie rose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> funding for charlie rose is provided by the following: and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and

captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> the united states of america has the strongest, most durable economy in the world. >> i don't think president obama gets the credit he deserves for digging us out of the ditch that the republicans dropped us into. >> you have other countries basically sucking away our money, sucking away our jobs. >> anyone in this country who works 40 hours a week, should not live in poverty. >> if you want a job in elkhart county, you can find a job. >> it's a good place for people that need a job that are not college educated. >> people tend to live paycheck to paycheck. >> the food stamps we get is not enough to feed a family. >> most of our society