tv Public Affairs Events CSPAN November 8, 2016 10:00am-12:01pm EST
picture. he wanted to be first at his polling place, it looks like i need to be used to be number two. whererter writes congressional leaders are the selection date, including paul ryan who is in janesville. mitch mcconnell is in washington dc as well as house and senate in order leaders and others. representatives, 246 republicans. it's the largest majority since 1928. there are three vacancies currently. all seats are up for election every two years. over in the senate, one third of all seats are up. there are 54 republicans and to and dependence.
we will talk about the key races throughout the day on c-span it. the issues they may be faced with is tension on the korean peninsula. conversationthe live at 1:00 eastern. we will have that over on c-span two. c-span,ion night on watch the result can be part of the national conversation. be on location at the headquarters and watch victory and concession speeches. starting live at 8:00 eastern and throughout the following 24 hours. watch live on c-span. usingo our live coverage the free c-span radio app. where history unfolds daily. created byspan was
the cable television companies and is a brought to you today by your satellite or cable provider. >> a look at the transition of power in the white house. officials have helped land the last few agency transitions of power, including white house chiefs of staff. this is about an hour and 20 minutes.
>> one of the most striking features of presidential transitions is the bipartisanship that prevails among government officials in congress who read the transition laws. the president and the white house staff who set the direction of planning and departments and agencies that carried out the policies. it was not always the case. when the 1952, president truman wanted to bring to the white house but the republican and democratic presidential nominees to meet with his cabinet and white house staff members, he met with the partisan divide. he wanted them to come in because he found when he came into office he was unprepared. he came in january of 1945, roosevelt died in april and truman knew nothing of the atomic bomb. seated by that experience, he wanted to bring people so they could understand what was ahead of them. adlai stevenson accepted but general eisenhower turned down truman's invitation in large part because he said he was running against the administration's program and thought the public would not understand why he would be coming into the white house when he was running against it. truman was very upset. he set the handwritten note which he would sometimes do so he can get it by staff, he had a handwritten note to eisenhower commenting on his own way of looking at the turned down by the general.
he wrote, i'm extremely sorry that you have allowed a bunch of screwballs to come between us. you have made a bad mistake and i am hoping it will not enter this great republic. the strong partisan nature of that transition no longer distinguishes the handoff of hours from one president to his successor. our five panelists are in a position to discuss the shape of transition as each of our officials has gone through for one or more of them at a senior planning level. additionally, they are all
additionally, they are all involved in current efforts to fortify the transition process and find areas of agreement that will ensure a presidential transition in a bipartisan setting, which is the theme of our conference. our conference is one of three and we're going to hold at texas presidential library. the other two will be at the lbj library on september 22-23 yuan with national security and on october -- dealing with national security and on october, crisis management with two scenarios, financial and national security crisis. all are around the theme of the importance of bipartisanship and transition. we are going to begin with two chiefs of staff who know the beginnings and ends of administrations. max came in at the beginning of the clinton administration as chief of staff and josh was at the end of the bush administration. the september 11 attacks and the
transition out of office of george w. bush changed the tone and action undertaken during the transition period. in 2008 president bush led the most determined transition out of office that we have experienced. he began the transition cycle in 2007 in discussions with his chief of staff, josh bolten who led the effort. bolten interne -- in turn closed the circle by habit representatives of the incoming outgoing executives meet well before the election. he brought together representatives of the candidates in the white house in july. almost two months prior to the 2008 party convention. clay johnson, who led the transition of the executive director for president bush and to office in 2001, he was the
office of management and lead the department and agency planning work together information for a new team. he will be on the second panel. equally important in the 2008 transition was interest in making use of those administration preparations by those leading the transition effort for senator and bend president-elect obama. christopher lee, executive director of the transition effort for senator obama was in those july meetings and worked with bolten and his deputy on the bush team. he is now the secretary -- deputy secretary and the department of labor and involved in the transition out of office of president obama. lisa brown was codirector of agency review for obama and also begin work in july of assembling
teams to go to the departments and agencies to collect information on programs, staff positions and upcoming schedules and budgets. president bush and his team willing to lead a transition effort that was eager to use by obama. all the panelists are involved in efforts to solidify the gains in transition planning and in finding ways to expand the areas of agreement such as the presidential appointment process. max mclarty along with clay johnson have been leaders of the in situ project for reforming the appointed process. lisa brown was part of the congressional and obama administration a reform effort. they are knowledgeable and i will set to talk about the transition. our program today comes about through the work of many institutions and individuals.
our panelists have come from a distant -- distance to speak about presidential transitions and we thank our guests for coming to talk to us about the subject. thank you for the support of the moody foundation and for you and jamie williams interest in the project. we appreciate it and the work that you are doing in the presidential leadership programs that you support. next, the george w. bush presidential center has provided our state and significant logistical support. we thank you as well as her colleague -- your colleagues. the baker institute for public policy is our partner in who we are coordinating with on the white house transition process.
finally, we thank the staff of the white house transition project to afford for our conference and often honor analytical programs. let's begin with josh bolten and max mclarty to do transition -- no transition to their work as chief of staff. this will be followed by a program on the presidential appointments process and the discussion of the administration transition out of office. thank you. [applause] sit where you like. >> you can tell who's in charge. [laughter] >> the 2008 transition was by all sides viewed as the best
that we have had. you all put attention anyway that had not privily been the case. i wonder if you can talk about the elements that you see that were important in that transition. why was it so good? >> thank you. for the recognition of the work that the bush administration did and the president did himself. that is my answer to your question. it comes from the president. max knows this better than anybody, so much in a presidential term and the executive agenda comes from what the president says he or
eventually she is interested. -- interested in. that was sure of the 2008 presidential transition which president bush directed me more than a year before the transition and as he mentioned, late 2007 it's on the president first spoke to me as his chief of staff and talked about how important he thought this presidential transition would be because it was the first presidential transition in our modern history during which our homeland was actually under threat. 9/11 changed everything. about the bush presidency in our country.
so he was determined that we not have an unnecessary period of vulnerability during the early months of the incoming president's administration regardless of party. that was a relevant to president bush's consideration when he said he gave me the direction to run the most effective and most complete transition in american history. that was a low bar to meet. [laughter] traditionally, i've been on both ends of a transition already, both going out of the bush 41 administration in the coming into the bush 43 administration. it is a low bar in a bipartisan way.
just on something that attracted attention. -- not something that attracted attention. not a question of partisanship. i think you will agree. >> i do agree. >> historically in america, a question of we don't need to do that. learn on the job. they had time to get there feet on the ground and run the place the way they want to run it. we don't need to spend a lot of time doing stuff, doing preparatory work for the next gang and that probably isn't particularly welcome in the first place. it was deftly a change of psychology and in the 2008 transition, we had ultimately a terrific partnership with a very well organized obama team that will be represented on your neck
panel -- next panel. >> what direction did he give you? >> the truth is, i don't really remember. [laughter] i do recall that it was not detailed instructions. that wasn't george bush is style to say i want to make sure they have all their appointments in place and that the briefing books are here in the diagram of the west wing, that is, anybody who knows george w. bush knows he is a leader and a man of principle. he empowers people to do their jobs. he considered it my job and the
job of clay johnson to figure out what the details were. but, what i do recall him saying explicitly is that i want these people to be as prepared as possible to deal with a crisis should one happen on the first day of the next administration. that is both a tall order and a major undertaking. >> there was a threat on the inauguration. >> there was. we were particularly concerned about a terrorist attack during the actual inauguration.
it is a moment of extraordinary peril when you think about it. because so much of the government actually moves. in other systems a key people at the top move around but most of the government remains in place. in our system, the top few thousand leaders of government are actually replaced in a transition, especially transition between parties were basically everybody who used to be there is out all at the same moment. it is not like it is a slow process of the one-month a few people come in the next month or people and so on. it is noon on january 20 every four years that the people who have been in charge suddenly have no authority anymore. they are done, you were out. your badge does not work. you can't get back into your office. nobody either expects to or
should follow your instructions. it is a very abrupt change in our system and the new people, i remember walking into the white house on january 20, 2001 and you walk into a blank office and there's nothing on the walls, a few supplies on the desk, computers but there is nothing in the memory bank. you might know the phone numbers of a few of the people you may need to reach but it is a very complete and abrupt transition and for the country, that is a real period of vulnerability and i don't think it lasts all that long. but the first few days in a crisis, the people who need to
make the decision might not even know how to reach the other people that they need to reach to take action. what we did in the transition period in 2008 and 2009 was we did our best to prepare the incoming folks to work with each other and also to pair up the outgoing people with the incoming people. we held a tabletop exercise in early january in which we assembled cabinet officers who were relevant to a national security crisis. we assembled in the old executive office building and we
had all the outgoing officials there who would be involved in a national security crisis, secretary of homeland security, the national security advisor, the secretary of health, we populated a chemical-bio attack. we had all the right officials in the outgoing message and who knew each other and you who did what. and we brought in their incoming counterparts and we went to the tabletop exercise with the old people sitting next to the incoming people and i don't know if -- i don't know how much you can learn and it three hour tabletop exercise about how to act in a crisis but the main thing was that they laid eyes on the other people with whom they would need to communicate and i
will bet for most of the people in the incoming obama cabinet, that was the first time they had met fbi director muller was one key official who emma because the nature of his position, transitioned across administrations and would be a key person to know and can in the evente with of a crisis. one other thing i will mention that we did, we asked the home and security secretary, who had planned a vacation with his wife beginning at 1:00 p.m. on january 20, we asked him to stick around for a day and during inauguration day he was in an off-site with the incoming secretary, security in the control center where they could
monitor all the threat information and we asked him, even if his authority would be eliminated as of noon on generic -- january 20, we asked him to stick around, be there for advice and so on for secretary napolitano as she takes the reins. it turned out to be important because there was a threat on inauguration day. it turned out to be a credible threat. it turned out not to be an actual threat, an actual incident but there was credible intelligence suggesting an attack at the inauguration itself on the mall. so, we weren't perfectly prepared. i imagine if that happens in 2017, folks will be a lot better prepared than we were in 2009
but we at least have thought about it, had talked with folks, had our people as well-positioned as we could under the circumstances to have a smooth handoff. >> and a bipartisanship, they had both worked as prosecutors and knew each other very well. it was an easy discussion between the two of them. can you tell us about the discussions about transition into office that you had with president clinton. >> i would be glad to. first of all, it is good to be with you. and a privilege to be here. and a privilege to be with the chief. our transition was different. it was a different time and
place. josh makes a key point about 9/11. personal security became national security and vice versa. it affected transitions. ours was a much earlier time. i think at that point, governor clinton, like most presidential candidates before him was very concerned if you have a serious developed large effort underway entrées at that it would be easy for the press to say, such a show of arrogance here measured the proverbial drapes in the oval office and indeed even with president obama, there was a little talk about that with his transition efforts even after 9/11. that was part of it. i think in our case, as lisa remembers from her time, unlike
josh, i came into the transition late from the private sector having served as a chief executive officer of a new york stock exchange. you were coming in knowing some of the people but not all. the positive side, governor clinton, like most president for candidates had laid out a clear agenda of what he wanted to accomplish in his first 100 days and first two years. that in and of itself laid out a roadmap in terms of the policy work in the administration. secondly, during the transition, a high priority was placed on the selection of the cabinet. we spent a lot of time there and i think our work reflected that. talked about the loyalty and competency and engagement of the
cabinet in the clinton administration. we also spent a lot of time integrating offices. it was a priority of president-elect clinton as he and al gore had run as a team and before that the vice president, including president bush 41 had been an important figure. where we got behind the curve with the selection of the white house staff. i think that was a setback for us. although on the policy side, we were able to move forward with the economic plan. we were able to move forward with the cabinet and i like so much the spirit of bipartisanship because we did receive good cooperation from the republican members of the senate getting a cabinet members in place. as clay johnson know so well, that is only a start.
you had get the deputy and the assistant secretaries and place -- in place. on the national security front, before 9/11, before the terrorist events we have seen that we are so troubled about, a different landscape although there were on her abilities. i do think that there was a experienced team that worked during the campaign, able to make the transition. the final point, and josh has alluded to is, the real two hallmarks of the transition other than being open, prepared, start early, vucevic now has become much better understood and much more accepted, i've spoken with the business roundtable he has been active with your projects, i think it is much better understood how
critical transitions are. it is that moment in a 77 day period where there is so much to be done, so many various stakeholders to respond to and it is a moment where it is a essential to have it from campaign to governing. that is what transitions, the hallmark of any successful transition. >> one of the aspects of moving from campaign to governor -- governing is that there are different needs. the rhythms of a campaign are different because you have, you trying to win each day and you have a policy agenda that is limited that you are talking about. when you come in to govern you
need people that are less partisan in a sense and once with experience in the washington community. you will move from one issue to another where you may have coalitions of supporters and then your enemies are your friends in the once afterwards. when you have campaign people, another mindset -- you know their mindset. how do you make that transition of personnel, of bringing in people who are appropriate for governing who may not have been on your campaign and what do you do with the campaign people that you want to reward and how does president deal with that? >> i'm getting a headache just thinking about this. [laughter]
you make the right point. you have had people in the campaign that have truly worked their hearts out for the candidate and the campaign and in many cases, made tremendous sacrifices, whether they've taken a leave of absence to the job or moved to little rock, arkansas in our case or texas to spend a year plus of their lives trying to get george w. bush or bill clinton elected, there is a feeling of loyalty. by the same token, you do have to be pretty steely eyed and not insensitive or empathetic -- on empathetic that you are moving into a different passage and a different requirement. you have to have a blend of people that were in the campaign you are naturally and hopefully
well-suited to make the transition to governing and there's usually a good number of people in the policy realm and the press room. you need new people, bother people, in our case, governor clinton knew a lot of other fellow governors that were natural cabinet selections. he had worked with a number of people in education so that was a natural area. a number of people in the national security area. that is how you make the transition. you have to keep that balance. this one other major factor that is different, that is the members of the congress and the house and senate. you are not going to get your first hundred days moving in the right direction with your legislation as josh knows so well it is so skilled and handling members of the house and senate, without establishing immediate rapport with leadership there.
i think the other part of that is to reach out early and carefully and appropriately, he can't get ahead of yourself or that will create problems, in our case, i don't think we did as good a job reaching out to the republican side as we could have in retrospect. i think we caught up with that on welfare to work in other legislation later, but that is absolutely key and very different thing campaigns. i think finally, in our case, you will talk about this a little later or plant to talk about it, -- plan to talk about it, we had 12 years of republican been in the white house. that is quite a big change when you have a different administration and different party come into the white house. in our case, i think it is worth noting, governor clinton only
got 43% of the vote. that had a difference in our dynamic. >> josh, how did you all establish your legislative relationship? you had less? >> first of all, toward dubya bush came into a -- came in with a landslide by comparison. [laughter] don't underestimate 571 votes in florida. >> now you tell us. [laughter] >> that made it challenging. that made the start of the administration pretty rough because of the substantial portion of the country was pretty raw and felt that president bush had not been legitimately elected.
had been decided by the supreme court and so on. we were keenly aware of that. the president was aware of that. aware that he needed to reach out at the beginning of his administration and make sure that everybody understood that he intended to be the president of all the people, not just the phone that had voted for him. there were a number of outreach efforts at the start of the administration. governor bush, bush 43 when he was governor here in texas, as clay can describe well, had governed as a real uniter and he had hoped to be able to do the same in washington. he had been intending to go to washington at the education president and do that on a
bipartisan basis and so the administration started out with an agenda that included tax cuts and education reform as the top priority and that education reform, -- the democratic chairman ted kennedy in the senate and they were his close working partners on what eventually became the no child left behind act. sadly for the country, that kind of momentum was very hard to came paying -- maintain even after the aftermath of 9/11. >> why do you think it was? >> that is the $64 trillion question.
why have we not been able to stitch together some substantial element of bipartisan cooperation in the last 20 or 30 years. if you do have degraded through each presidency and there are a lot of things to point to. there are a lot of things to point to. gerrymandering in the house. makes the vast majority of house members safe in their seats. except for the challenge from the fringe of their own party. it tends to make house members much more responsive to the right, the extreme right in the republican party, extreme left in the democratic party and make them less and client -- inclined
to be receptive to compromise. there is the influence, the dramatic change in how and where people get their news that the explosion of media outlets from which we all benefit it has been a tremendous and it must respect positive change in our society. also means that people take the bias in the news and aren't operating off of a common set of facts.
that used to have a unifying effect in the country. there are semi-factors involved. don't think you can identify one but you can't say that i think the biggest challenge for the coming generation of government leaders to try to bridge the divide. >> certainly the transition has proved to be an area that democrats and republicans can work together whether it is in congress or in an administration. at least we have one area and i guesa there are a few others -- guess there are a few others. for both of you all, what is the advantage of a fast start? and if you have trouble at the beginning of the administration, lose the way on the fast start, how can you get it back together? >> first impressions are important. all of us have heard the phrase in presidential history and campaigns, the first 100 days, that is the goodwell coming off
the election. what did its 100 days or the first six months of the administration. it is also the same time as he pointed out, you are to get your team plays and may have the least experience in some ways to implement that. i think in our case, the economic plan was crucial because the campaign had largely been about domestic issues and the economy. had we not been able from a policy standpoint to develop an economic plan and to move that to the congress and get it passed in the beginning of the administration, i like her to as far and say that you might have had a failed presidency, but i certainly think that would have been written about had you not been able to follow with anything on the plan. much like joshua to do with the election, we passed that by one vote in the house and vice
president gore both the time the senate. that was crucial. that was essential to the start. you are also going to have, in most cases, we certainly did, some bumps, some unexpected unforeseen occurrences that are going to come in and you had to deal with whether they are micro, unsettling problems or whether they are major unforeseen occurrences. you can have all of your plans and agendas laid out as perfectly as you would like, but you are inevitably going to have to deal with the unexpected events. it is essential that you left off. i think a real crucial element comes into place, many of you in the business world here and it is what clay and i have been so adamant about a committed to, he got to get your team in place to deal with all of that and it starts at the cabinet level in
the white house senior level. you have to fill out the remainder of the administration. >> you all had some bumps at the beginning as well. the economic transition, i was in part of the transition that was well formed when you came in. he created the national economic council which continues today. i think the president management council was created early too, and the economic program and it was coupled with -- troubled with appointment. >> john sky-mobi interesting to get your perspective.
i think most administrations have had some issues on appointments and are confirmations. we certainly had it on the attorney general. on the other hand, as i had noted earlier, and i get the republican leadership and the senate a lot of credit for this, we got our cabinet in place say the attorney general office. i believe more properly than any other administration i got in there can in place because we had cooperation from the senate and getting those approved. we got those in place but we also had some other issues, some military issues that came out that were distracting for a central messaging and central efforts to that things in place. i think what you have to look at is at the end of the day, most presidencies will be judged by piece, which i would now say security and homeland and prosperity.
that's the two goals you have to keep before you. >> getting the white house staff in place early is something that now everybody seems to recommend and clinton has talked about how -- -- that was one thing -- >> that is a lesson learned. i think we spent a lot of time on the cabinet which pays big dividends. not only did we had the collegial cooperative cabinet, they give us great advice and were able to amplify and you know this from your time and the and obama administration, amplify the president's message and a pretty impactful way both in the country, internationally and on the hill in congress. an important point on transitions, that gotten in a
understanding way how critical it is to have early, developed, engaged transition efforts that are on a separate track from the presidential campaign and that will help and is key to getting the white house staff in place in addition to the other positions of government. >> to underscore what he said, that is crucial and important that the environment that the white house transition project has created, the legislation adopted as a result of the efforts has altered the mindset about presidential transition because it used to be that those candidates who were even focused on the importance of the transition were reluctant to admit that in any public sense because you at the merely be accused of measuring the drapes,
getting ahead of yourself, being arrogant. we found that even in 2008 when i reached out at the direction of the president in the summer of 2008 all -- before the conventions, i reached out to the presumptive nominee campaigns, the romney and -- obama and mccain campaign. the obama campaign got it. they were well organized and had a terrific team in place led by john podesta and chris lu. the mccain campaign was very nervous and very reticent to be
seen as having a plan, having leadership of the transition and so on precisely because they do not want to be accused of measuring the drapes and getting ahead of themselves. there's been an important change in the environment just in the last few cycles about the propriety and necessity of making the preparations and is one of the ways operations like yours and terry's and others have made an important contribution the way we run our public life. >> if i may build on what josh has said and such a thoughtful and articulate manner, i think the environment has changed. a lot of people in this room and a lot of others have helped to move that forward. i think 9/11 has changed the psyche too. i think administration's coming and have a bit of a different attitude, how much can i learn from this other group that either i was
smarter than or better than, after all i did defeat them? you write about that in your book. there is a much better understanding that even if you have sharp differences on policy, there is a lot to learn from prior administrations who had been in that change -- chair or seat in the white house. there has been a change in that environment. building on the broader change that john spoke about. >> the outcomes of these transitions out of office, one has to be legislation. institutionalized many of the things that you did.
you had an executive order that could it be for knitting council. that is in law. you have legislation in 2010 that create the pre-election transition effort so that after you have the national party nominating convention that the transition headquarters that is open up to the general services administration and provide support for candidates if they choose to use it. >> people should understand, this is paid for by the federal government. which is crucial that, he not just that you get the money, but that you have the standard operating procedure to set up an office, put people in it and let them start planning and hopefully going forward, it will be a natural thing for both candidates to engage in that important planning activity.
>> and 2016, march 20, president obama signed legislation that the presidential transition improvement that is going to provide even more because the transition cornet in council has to meet their by law and it is created six month for the election and there is an agency transition director counsel that was created that has career civil service people running it. information happy provided, the kind of information that you and clay have put together in 2008. so that there was a legislative impact on the kind of work that you did. max referenced a conundrum. the conundrum i discussed here is the transition is the time that has the maximum opportunity to change. for example, when you're coming into office is a good time to make organizational changes.
because the public is watching and are willing to support and members of congress also are more willing and the public is more willing to support you. if at the other hand, you are bringing in a team that is an experienced, that really doesn't know where the levers are and how to make them work, how did do with that? -- how do you deal with that? >> it has not been fully resolved at this point.
it goes back to what i tried to note earlier, you have to try your very best to blend the organization of the campaign staff, many of whom have been deeply ingrained in the policy development as well as the campaign on both domestic and foreign policy issues but with new blood and implicitly, experienced hands if you will from the washington scene. in our case, howard pastored came in as head of legislative affairs and how it had a long-standing relationship in washington and had a partnership there on a bipartisan basis. he was well suited on the legislative front to have a number of relationships already established. a little bit later on as you recall, we reached out to david had served five residents and he served in a number of administrations and we
specifically wanted to get someone from the republican side that could help us build those bridges. those of the types of things you do. the only other point i would make that maybe we have not decided enough for this group and for the c-span viewers and so forth, just the magnitude of what is really entailed in a 77 day transition. you really have so much work to get done in such a short period of time. and our summary stakeholders who voted for you, the opponent process, getting your people in place, in our case, the governor stepping on the world stage, meeting other international leaders. establishing relationships with members of congress, often who think they are pretty important
in this process. the press, it is a different press that covers the white house and had generally cover the campaign. there is a multiplicity of stakeholders that have to be engaged in a very short period of time as you are lifting off. >> how did you deal with the conundrum? >> we had a blessing in the outset of the bush 43 administration. in the campaign in which george w. bush was elected in the blessing was that a large portion of the country thought that george w. bush was stupid. the reality is that he's exceptionally bright policy person.
i spent my career in government policy and george w. bush is one of the sharpest policy minds i've ever encountered in decades. but that was not the reputation he had. we had a political necessity to run a campaign that was chock-full of substance. that would have been george w bush's instinct anyway. we ran a campaign that was disciplined and setting out in one month it would be to health care policy in the next month would be tax policy and the next month with the energy and environmental policy. there were speeches that went with that. fact sheets that well with that. with the end of the campaign we post a 300 page book of campaign speeches and policy papers that were the governing agenda for the first hundred days that mac
was talking about. so that made the conundrum period you're talking about much easier for our crowd because, we had the agenda in a 300 page book that people had internalized. people those who had worked for the campaign. we had the game plan set out for us and the reason i say that is a blessing, that we were blessed and having to run the campaign is that it made the george w. bush administration unusually well prepared to govern and the said development and a lot of -- and are campaigning now is that policy does nothing to be that important and i think what we need to find is a way back, i don't think a particularly helps of the country thinks it is candidate is not bright.
we need to find a way back to a mode of campaigning and politics where the candidates with the agendas and the agendas that suggested people, and what the people do in the first hundred days is what the country wants done. i think that is good be critical for our politics going forward. >> you could say that the most important thing going forward
for the transition is having an articulated policy agenda as you come into office and really developing it at this point said that you know what you are going to do and organizationally that you can put together. >> both. >> as a much better way of saying what i intended to say. [laughter] >> you set the table very nicely for the professor. [laughter] >> there are differences in types of transitions that you have. we going from democrats did democrats or republicans to republicans. the change of party transition. both of you all were involved in
change of party but how did you, you are in the george h.w. bush administration and that was one from reagan to george h.w. bush, whether the differences between the two and how should the two candidates, hillary clinton and donald trump think at this point about the differences in the types of transitions they're going have and what differences they should make to how they prepare? >> i will take a first stab at it. i think first of all, the fun of the point i would make, the one that we have suggested a couple thousand is discussions of art is that both the clinton campaign and the trunk campaign already have established transition efforts in place and i think that reflects the
environment that we talked about this morning. obviously as some know, with john podesta as secretary clinton campaign, chairs -- he is very knowledgeable. the trump people have have a credibleredibletrump pee transition effort, so that is number one. where we have a change of parties, that a very than where youic have a not a change of party. chris can speak to it probably more knowledgeably than anyone. elected,ary clinton is how that transition takes place with the obama administration,
because that is going to be one with the same parties. in our case, you're clearly going to have a significant change not only in terms policy, , buttion and style personnel. that was understood and agreed upon. i would hearken back to a central point you have made. this is one of the few areas where truly bipartisan cooperation, truly engaged, bipartisan cooperation takes place. when the combatants truly put down there swords and cooperate in terms of the transition, i think that happens regardless whether it is party to party or a different party. is a very different dynamic. i think the change is more youatic or significant when have republicans and democrats or democrat and republican. it. and others can speak to
i think it's probably more complicated and tedious when you have one party transferring to the same party. we will see if that takes place this time depending on how the election turns out. >> it's bound to be better than the last swing. i was a junior appointee in the incoming bush 41 administration. the political appointees of the incumbent think they can stay. so there's an important element of expectations management that needs to be done largely by the
outgoing president. to let everybody know that you don't automatically get to stay. maybe some of you will be invited to stay, but it will be at the sufferance of the new president. term.s not a third reagan if secretary clinton wins, it is not a third obama turn -- third obama term. it is important for the outgoing president to set expectations directy and probably to that everyone sends to the president their resignation now and let the president decide, let the incoming president decide whether to accept them.
there is a benefit to same party transition, and that is although an incoming president of the same party will almost certainly want to change over all or almost all of the cabinet and senior white house staff and so on, there are a number of subcabinet positions that are technical in nature and it will take time to get your own good people in place. you can keep the gears of government running more smoothly and aggressively if you can keep a number of those people in place, but it requires both expectations management and a fair amount of planning on the incoming president of the same given thech i assume people involved in the clinton campaign is well on their minds.
>> you were very helpful when you sent the letter to political appointees telling them that their term was up and even provided a sample letter. >> it wasn't really a suggestion. [laughter] >> there is a principle we have of one president at a time. transition seems to be not quite so clear because there were certain things that happened, particularly with the that you alltdown and the obama people had to work together during this time of the
presidential elect. can you tell us about that? did all this planning for postulating a national security crisis. we were actually having a financial crisis at the time but the same kind of planning , the same kind of close interaction between the outgoing and incoming. for the most part, it went .moothly not entirely smoothly. there was an episode involving the bailout of the auto industry in which the bush administration against thed political wisdom of most of the
republicans in congress that the federal government did need to do something to step in to support the auto industry. there be major bankruptcies there that would have a .ascading effect on the economy we had hoped with the support of the incoming clinton team to a a freudian slip. incoming obama team, we hoped in cooperation with them that we would name and auto czar that was acceptable to the bush administration, but was really the obama administration costs autos are so we could set in motion the process of rescuing
the auto industry. woulde auto industry understand they couldn't game the system. is that president bush? [laughter] i'm really concerned. thank you for that endorsement. [laughter] we wanted tostry have a consistent policy so the auto industry would know what to expect and that they couldn't game the system and we were that we survive into the beginning of the obama administration. but we also wanted to be sure we put into place some very tough strictures on federal support
that would require the auto some veryo take difficult steps to make itself competitive going into the future so it wasn't money down the drain. ultimately, the obama administration was reluctant to bcs cooperating with the bush administration and never took us a straddlinger of auto czar and had to put into place ourselves. it worked out ok in the end but of the notionple of the incoming cooperating with the out going through the incoming had run against and if far.d was a bridge too
likes not a truman moment you reference in your opening remarks, but it was a clear indicator that there were limits to the number and depth of coombe by yacht moments that are kumbaya -- depth of moments that are possible. in the midst of the financial crisis, it was absolutely critical to the financial well-being of the entire planet. the steps president bush took at the end of his administration were largely picked up by the obama administration. then extended so there wasn't a number of shift in policy.
it's interesting the person president obama picked to be his first treasury secretary and therefore the navigator of the course in responding to the financial crisis was tim geithner who had been a democratic treasury appointee earlier in his career. at the time of the financial of thewas the president new york fed. he was part of the triumvirate, hank paulson, ben bernanke and the new york fed president, tim geithner. triumvirate is the one that charted out the course for responding to the process and who president bush relied on. there was an unusual amount of continuity in the stewardship of
the response to the crisis. it had to be one of the most effective government responses in the history of economic policy. >> josh, in his typically modest has not stated as starkly as i think it was. that's a fundamental tenant of any transition. but in this case with an economic crisis, not a security crisis, our country looked into of what likely would have been a depression had that transition not then handled in the way chief bolton just outlined it in terms of the bush administration and obama administration coming in.
it was seamless. it was appropriate. they may not have had full of agreement on each issue but it was absolutely crucial at the time to avoid in my judgment what likely would have been a depression to restore stability and order. and the president-elect sitting president, i really commend you. is a real respect between one who has had that sacred responsibility as .resident we certainly experienced it with bush 41 and the clinton administration. i can get served our country and our democracy will. >> thank you very much. now we are going to go to questions.
question, raise your hand and the microphone will come to you. could you give us a quick discussion on what happened in 2004 in terms of transition planning? i think it would be more difficult when the president is still running for reelection to andt transition planning .et it's a vulnerable time what happened in 2004 and 2012? accept a great question and the answer is very little. just against the nature of any incumbent administration to even contemplate the possibility they might have to transition out. as great as president bush's theership was in directing
2008 transition, i have to say there was very little done in 2004. you should close the question to chris lu who was the cabinet secretary in 2012. my guess is you would come up with a very similar answer. that may just fall into the bridge too far category. actually the incumbent doing a lot of preparation to permit the person that just beat them to come in smoothly. here is where i think thenizations like transition can play a crucial role because they are institutionalizing the mechanics and the wisdom of residential transitioning.
when you can't rely on the white house to bs forthcoming as you would like them to be, there are these outside entities. >> there is legislation that covers it. legislation provided a president may create a transition coordinating council and may create an agency .ransition director's counsel but nothing having happened in 2012 and learned in that budget sayshe 2016 the president shall take action. shall create six months beforehand the transition coordinating council and the director's counsel. 8 and may 6,as may
friday. the president issued an executive order that carried and effect that legislation the legislation called for the director's counsel. that one has to meet at least once a year. that's a continuing body of reparation for transition, so you make a good point. people are going to think they know they are going to lose. it was a good point. >> worse than measuring the drapes is taking them down. [laughter] >> other questions? >> president bush and al gore,
they were late in getting elected. did anything change in those days that turned out not to be that many days? >> we did not have 77 days. clay was the transition director. he remembers every minute of those 38 days. i hope you will have a chance to address this when you come up, the first 39 days of the transition, it was uncertainty was going to be the president. clay had gone to work on focus of stuff but the everybody was down in florida.
almost everybody who was involved in the bush operation, most people were down in florida to make sure the true president was recognized. the same was happening on the gore side. it was a difficult thing. you would agree that it worked out ok. 77 days is a really short time. a whole lotot shorter than 77 in this context and if you are well organized done., it can be i think it has more to do with who is involved, what is their direction, what is the plan, is dore a program that has to
with that more than how me days you have? >> our last question? >> i worked in laura bush's office and the transition process is amazing. thereally want to care for next administration coming in, all the way down to the next office. had to put together a packet of what it was like to put for another person coming into town. i was impressed because you hear stories of coming in and it wasn't like that for us. you have two call other administrations and we set this administration up really well. we really prepared the
administration for coming in and i thought it was really awesome. thank you for that leadership. >> i think what you are underscoring is that the tone gets set from the top. president bush was to say this is the way we want it, that is the way it is going to be. i have no doubt that president and mrs. obama have not only said the right things that will communicate the right things to their folks and however the election turns out, there will be a good experience for the administration. add,e only thing i would you talked about not taking the drapes down. the 92 campaign was a difficult time for president bush 41 and while we may not have had a well organized transition effort as we would have liked, the cooperation we received from jim
baker directly at the request of president bush 41 could not have been better. it allowed us to play catch up if you will. that was a case where it was a difficult time. was a smooth and positive transition of power, which is the hallmark of our democracy. you areare seeing is refining that process and moving it forward in a much more serious and develop the way with the funding and technology and all of these things were the transition planning is now becoming an integral, accepting, increasingly understood part of a medical time for democracy in our country.
>> thank you very much. let's all thank josh bolten and matt farland. [applause] >> on this election day, voters going to the polls, and that includes the presidential nominees who have voted today. reuters reporter steve holland sent this picture via twitter. donald trump voting with his ps 50 nine in manhattan. also this one, democratic votede, hillary clinton in chappaqua new york. here's a look.
and 180 sixans democrats. the largest republican house majority since 1928. all seats are up for election every two years in the house. 218 members are needed for a majority. in the senate, a third of all seats, every two years. 10s year, 24 republicans and democrats are up for election. one of the battleground states is pennsylvania. we spoke earlier with the secretary of state there, who talked about preparations that polling locations. >> during the morning, we are joined by several people to talk about aspects of the election. we are pleased to be joined by pedro cortes, the pennsylvania secretary of state. thanks for joining us today. >> good to be with you. howan you tell me pennsylvania prepared polling places, especially when it comes to election security? it is a big talk it -- topic.
guest: this is my third presidential cycle. general primary elections. and pennsylvania, county election officials, poll workers, their professionals who did -- who care deeply about doing a good job. our machines are not connected to the internet, not even to one another. there are strict chain of custody procedures. nothing on the internet, cyber security is strong. we took advantage of an invitation from secretary jeh johnson from the u.s. department of homeland security to look at our servers and systems. everything checked out well. in terms of a general there the election, we have 8.7 million registered voters. come out see seven today. we are working with many partners at the state and federal level to ensure every
voter has a meaningful opportunity to cast his or her vote. itre working hard to ensure is a fair, secure, and smooth election. host: how much of the state has uniform voting machines, or are there differences in different parts of the state? guest: machines in pennsylvania are different in different parts of the state or the election code provides the department of state examines and certifies voting systems, but then leaves it to the county to decide which is best for them. we have counties using electronic voting machines, a touchscreen. we have optical scan. the reality is one size does not fit all. we have large counties in cities like philadelphia and allegheny county. we have small towns like forest are more rural. we have a voting systems that are different, yet all have been certified as the federal and state standards.
they comply with requirements. the criminal is well cap. i am confident the voting systems will work well again as they have in years past. host: you talk about the invitation from the department of homeland security. what led you to that and can you describe what dhs personnel did as far as looking at your system? guest: there were not necessarily looking at machines. the machines go through another rigorous process, including after certification of printing of zero tape. in terms of homeland security, we did not have any concerns that pennsylvania had issues in terms of cyber hygiene or cyber security. savini is acknowledged as one of the foremost states, leaders in terms of security for our systems. however, we want to make sure another set of eyes looked at the servers, our connections. nothing on the internet that impacts voting. we wanted to make sure we took
advantage of tools and procedures. and since the department of homeland security is a credible source for that, we accepted the invitation, not because we anticipated anything wrong, but just to have validation from a third-party who has the tools and knowledge to help us out and everything checked out well. you talkedecretary, about 8.7 million registered voters. what does history tell about the commonwealth as far as voter participation rate and do you expect that to change? guest: if you go back to 1980 and look through 20 12, every presidential election cycle, we had as many as 83% of registered voters vote. that was in the 1992 presidential election. clinton versus bush the father. the lowest participation was in 2000, the bush versus gore election of 2000.
we have seen as low as 63%, as high as 70%. million out of the 8.7 million vote, that is 80% plus. i would love to see 100%, but i would be happy if we get at least 80%. that is why we encourage all of our voters to come and that there voices be heard. host: how has early voting day? do not have early voting as such as in florida. everyone votes in person between 7:00 in the morning at 8:00 at night. we have absentee voting. the numbers have been consistent with years past. in pennsylvania, we do not technically have early voting. we have in person voting from 7:00 in the morning until 8:00 p.m. host: are their systems in place if you need to keep a putting -- a polling place open because of turn our volume? guest: yes.
there is a remedy for the county board of elections. it could be a party candidate who positions the core of commonplace, our course of first instance, where judges are prepared to make those determinations. generally, the reason to keep the polling place open would be that for some reason, the polling place did not open on time at 7:00. it could be a multitude of regions. electionse judge of forgot a key -- it does not usually happen. usually there has to be a good reason as for the polling place having any disruption, for example, not opening on time. at theare in line polling place by 8:00, much like the cash register in the supermarket, someone from the polling place will go to the end of the line. whoever is in line, even if you are outside the polling place, if you are in line, you have the opportunity to vote. host: i know there were some
concerns about intimidation in some polling places. does the commonwealth have anything built in as far as keeping a tab on that? absolutely. in pennsylvania, it is paramount voters are able to vote unimpeded. that they are able to cast a ballot without any type of distraction. federal law,ia and it provides for acts prohibited in terms of intimidation or discrimination. the department issued guidance not just to the counties but to share that guidance with the parties, with the candidates. we have shared it with the county commissioners and the press and others to make sure they understand that there is conduct that is prohibited. if someone is waiting to calm into the polling place and seek conduct that is not adequate, we have rules against electioneering 10 feet away from the polling place. if there's any concerns, we ask
that particular voter having issues or problems to tell the judge of elections, which is the elected person in each polling place that has the responsibility for the owner of the polling place, the person to ask about the issues. thelso recommend contacting county district attorney's office. we work with multiple partners to ensure it is a good election. and we know the u.s. department of justice and others will have observers to make sure laws of the country from the voting rights act to others are respected. host: what is a secretary of mr. cortes, secretary of state for pennsylvania. things for being on c-span. >> whoever the next president will be will be attention on the korean peninsula. we will join the conversation hosted by the institute for corean-american studies live on
c-span 2. >> election night. tonight on c-span, watch the results and be part of a conversation. watch victory and concession speeches in key senate, house, and governors races. starting live at 8:00 p.m. eastern and throughout wednesday. watch live on c-span, on-demand at c-span.org, and use the free c-span radio app. c-span -- where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. it is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. more now on the 2016 elections with the cochairs of the commission on presidential debates. they took russians from
international observers and others during this discussion, hosted by the international foundation for electoral systems in washington, d.c. this is about one hour and 15 minutes. morning and welcome to the celebration of american dub office he -- democracy. all of the housekeeping is done, and now we go to substance. [applause] >> as we all know, over 40 million americans that are devoted, using absentee ballots, early voting, electronic voting, internet voting. the expectation is there are hundred million americans in line today to cast their votes through machines and on paper. all of that will be known tonight, and we will elect the next president of the united states. 33 members of the u.s. senate. 400 35 members of the u.s. house of representatives. numerous governors. members inity of
state legislatures. on the half of all of that energy and on the half of ifes, i welcome you to our 13th u.s. election program. this program started under my distinguished predecessor in 1992, when the diplomatic community came and said "we need somebody to talk to the local election officials so we diplomats can go around and witness american voting." 1993, he had the bright idea of welcoming people from election commissions and parliaments where ifes had projects. by 2016 now, we have no room for diplomats. we have over 200 leaders from election management bodies from around the world. we have over 100 members of parliament and legislatures. we have over 30 judges,
justices ofo chief their courts. and we are particularly honored, and i am going to get in trouble for this, but i will at least highlight one former head of state, the former prime minister of the netherlands joining us here today. [applause] william: you have to be head of state to get a shout out in this crowd, so congratulations. but now we have election day. it is my great pleasure to introduce two longtime friends of ifes. the democratic process in the united states. the democratic process around the world. and bill sweeney. as our panelists. we will have a discussion about a great american tradition that these two derailment are now the leaders of. oft is the tradition
presidential debates. we have the cochairs of the u.s. commission on presidential debates. to my left, which is a surprise to both of us, frank fahrenkopf. frank was chairman of the republican party under both president reagan and president bush. he was the cofounder of the national endowment for democracy. he has been the cofounder of the commission on presidential debates and a personal friend since i first met him when he was the nevada chair in 1982. to my rights, which is also a surprise to him and me, is mike mccurry. mike mccurry is the democratic cochair of the commission on presidential debates. he was president clinton's spokesman. state secretary of spokesman.
he was involved in every presidential campaign, i think, from 1976? all the way through. i have had the pleasure of, first, working with him and frankly, we have been so long -- she was the spokesman of two decembers senators i had the privilege of working with. the senator from new jersey and new york. and somewhere in our calendars, we will figure out where we first met. but two great friends of all of us for many years. who are going to give us the background and some insight into the presidential debates this year. where the commission started. and where the commission is going. i know for many of you, this commission has been a model for organized by political
parties, civil society, and, in some cases, election management commissions. with of that, let me turn it over to frank and then mike. at the end, we will take questions. this is all live. and all on the record. so take it away. frank: thank you. good morning, everyone. i want to welcome you to the united states on the half of the commission on presidential debates. -- try to bell be as brief as possible and give a little background as to what we are looking for in the future in the changing world we are living in. this is an iphone -- and the impact of social media as to how we run elections. to say the least, we were tremendously pleased with the results of the three presidential and one vice presidential debate in this cycle. i must start by making it clear that we have nothing whatsoever
to do with the primary debates. which i think calling them debates, in many ways, is being very kind. when he have sometimes 16 or 17 people on stage as the republicans have, a really is not a debate. we only do general election debates. when you count the people who watched on all of the television networks in this country, including c-span, which is not included in what is called the ratings, and you count the people who streamed on their computers and ipads and iphones -- well over 100 million people watched each of the three presidential debates. that was not always the case. the history of debates by presidential candidates in this country goes back to 1960, really, when richard nixon and john f. kennedy debated. it was the first televised debate. they were extremely successful. and in the opinion of most
experts, there he important in how the election came out. four years later, after the assassination of john f. kennedy, lyndon baines johnson was the president of the united states. and he refused to debate barry goldwater, the republican nominee. four years later and eight years later, richard nixon was back. and because of the traumatic experience he had in the 1960 debates, which was not good for him, he refused to debate. it was not until 1976, following president nixon's resignation, when gerald ford became president of the united states, and he pardoned richard nixon and was tremendously hurt in the polls, running against georgia -- former georgia governor jimmy carter that he agreed, president ford, to debate. jimmy carter. they conducted the debates. and the debates again were very
critical in how people voted. four years later, in 1980, it was an extremely interesting time. in time, jimmy carter was president of the united states. there was a third-party candidate. the debates in 1980 were run by an organization called the league of women voters. rulesad, as part of their as to who they would invite to participate in the debates, something called the "15% rule." in order to be included in the debates, you had to of course meet constitutional requirements. yearsare you must be 35 of age, and you must be a natural born citizen. that was put in the constitution by our early founding fathers, who were always afraid some rich european would, over and tried to take over and become
president. so you have to be natural born. the league adopted the same the 50% rule. which is prior to the debates, you must, at average, in the five leading polls, be at 15%. if you are, you are invited to participate. if you are not, you do not participate. at that time, a congressman by the name of john anderson from illinois was at 17%. he accepted the invitation to debates. governor ronald reagan of california accepted the invitation to debates. jimmy carter, the president of the united states said "hell no, i won't go. i will not debate if john anderson is on stage." so the first debate, which took place about 60 miles down the road and baltimore, took place between reagan and anderson.
by the next debates, anderson was at 12%. debated.immy carter we only -- we never had any problems thereafter. when ronald reagan was president, he had no problem with debating. bill clinton always loved to debate. so there was no real concern with people being involved and participating. now, the commission did not exist. but following the 1984 election cycle, when there was great controversy in the media particularly over the debates held by the league of women voters, two commissions were put together. one at the center for strategic and international studies, which at that time was at georgetown university, and the other at the john f. kennedy school at harvard. both of those commissions came to one agreement on something. that there should be created and entity that exists for one purpose and one purpose only -- to ensure that general election
debates are held every four years. i was the chairman of the republican national committee at that time. paul kirk of massachusetts was the chairman of the democratic national khamenei. he and i come across party lines, agreed to create the commission. we have done every debate since 1988, the final debate which was three weeks ago in las vegas, was the 30th debate our commission has run, calling -- including vice presidential debates. we had some controversy going into this campaign. that was because there were two other candidates who were on an f ballots to considerably get to 270 electoral votes. towho were on enough ballots conceivably get to 270 electoral votes. we had the libertarian candidate
and a green party candidate. the libertarians and greens mounted attacks on the commission for us to not apply the 15% rule and just say everyone who runs and meets a certain standard of whether they are on the ballots or not ought to be included on the stage. our commission reviewed it and held it at 15%. as you know, when we first applied the rule, the libertarians were at 8%, i think. i think the green party was that 3% or 4%. they were not even halfway to where we were going. always sat down, as we do, with the professional teams put up by both campaigns. both campaigns had a debate teams. people who are good with these things, with microphones and sound and lighting. and they work with our team. as you know, they went forward. we are very pleased with the results. a be during the question and answer period, we can get into
some of the intricacies that were interesting with these three presidential and one vice presidential. paul kirk, who was to be the original cochairman with me when we started. but when teddy kennedy died some years ago, paul kirk was named by the governor of massachusetts to take ted kennedy's seat in the united states senate until election as a special could be held to replace senator kennedy. at that time, paul had to step down. we are most fortunate to have mike mccurry, who had been a tremendous spokesman for president clinton during a difficult time in that presidency to step up and be my cochairman. mike: thanks. just to review a little of the work we do on the commission on presidential debates, we do not receive any funding from our federal government. government related
entity. it is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization. is toincipal assignment really choose the dates and places where our debates are held. we designed the format to give the candidates some opportunity to present their ideas and vision for the country. then we select the moderators, who stepped in to conduct the debates. we have no responsibility for the content of these debates. that is up, for better or worse, to the candidates themselves and to the moderators that pose the questions. that is our principal assignment. history that frank just went through, i would say that the principal achievements we have made over the time the commission has existed is to really institutionalized these the politicalt of process here in the united states. there is nothing that requires candidates to debate.
no law that stipulates they have to appear with each other. but i think it is now almost a given that the american people expect these debates to happen. it will be difficult for a nominated candidate in our system now to avoid doing these debates, even though that has happened in the past. now we almost see the candidates automatically agreeing to the formats, the eights, the design of the debates we put together. in fact, four years ago, president obama was the first incumbent president to actually willingly accept the arrangements we made through the commission without any fussing or debates about the debates themselves. i think that is very important. what role do these debates actually play in our process? we know that by the time we conduct these debates in the fall of the general election season, there are probably not that many undecided voters. withvoters have aligned one candidate or another, one way or another. in thise some undecided
campaign, because it is unusual aspects. we probably have a higher degree of undecided voters than we have seen in some of our previous election cycles. but the important thing these debates do -- and you saw that at the debates we had here -- is that it gives the candidates some chance to articulate what they are governing agenda would be once they arrive in office. build some trying to support for the program they would initiate if they became president of the united states of america. very important. the second thing -- and you saw a great deal of this in our debates, is to get some sense of the temperament and character, the personalities of the president. we in the united states obviously do not have loyalty, but we do have this unusual hip of relationships
between the american people and those we elect. the state and local systems. the american people develop almost a personal relationship with the person who becomes president to a we get to know the personality, style, the family, the names of the dosident's pets, because we have a personal equation that becomes important. i think these debates really expose a lot of that. we certainly saw in the way donald trump and hillary clinton engaged with each other a lot about their personalities in these debates. it is almost, in some ways, it becomes part of a narrative that reflects who we, the people of the united states, are, for better or worse. ofking at it and thinking what you would take away from this, i cannot say that this campaign we have had in the united states of america this
year in 2016 has been one we paragon ofup as a democratic virtue. it has been an ugly, nasty, in many ways very polarizing debate. i think the proper dominant feeling in most americans today as they go to vote is just "thank god this thing is over -- finally." and that is on like many of your systems, where you have short campaign seasons, parliamentary seasons, a much different atmosphere. this campaign here in the united states has gone on well over two years now, and it probably has not produced the best we call democratic virtue. i think most americans, i will end by saying, most americans probably expect something better to come as a result of this. they expect the new president, whoever he or she may be, to rally the country together, to try to establish some sense of the common good. and then to really begin to build some consensus around how
this country will move forward, facing the difficult issues that we face. one thing i forgot to mention and wanted to cover it, too, is, the work that we do in the commission depends on a collaboration that we have with the five major television networks here in the united states. so all of them together go collectively into what is called the network pool. the major networks -- abc, cbs, nbc, cnn, and fox -- together pool their resources in order to simultaneously broadcast these debates to the entire american public. that arrangement is probably going to change. bill mentioned that we would maybe think about where did we go in the future. with the decline of a traditional mainstream media and the less influence that these major in -- these major networks have, i think we'll probably see
some reconfiguration of the way in which the american people engage with these debates going ahead in the future. obviously, the rise of the internet, social media, becomes, you know, a very, very critical part of this. this recent series of debates produced the highest number of tweets and responses on facebook and other social media outlets in the history of our political process here in the united states. over 83 million people tweeted or went online or went on facebook to register blogs or opinions on the first debate. there was decline toward the end, but even 50 million people were somehow or another registering their own views as we went through the third debate , and i think of the future, we will see much more of that. these will be much more participatory events with a lot , of people trying to express
their own opinion. probably wanting to be engaged in shaping some of the questions the candidates themselves are asked. i think we will see, partly because of changes in technology, the changes in media, a need for us on the commission to think through how we present these debates to the american public, because they will no longer be exclusively televised events. there will be something that is much more interactive and much some of theg technology, something i think all of us in this room know are increasingly important in democratic systems. with that observation, bill, i turn it back to you. we look forward to having your questions. bill: thank you, mike. thank you, frank. terrific first round presentations. [applause] bill: what i would like to suggest is we try to have two questions from the right and two questions from the center and two questions from the left. i would appreciate it if the