tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 5, 2014 5:00am-7:01am EST
louis,eeks later in st. a robber fires three shots at a police officer. the police officer returns fire and kills him. you can getting more justifiable than that. the problem with the outrage of the community was, the police must have thrown down a gun on the ground. not irrationale or illogical. they are smart as anybody else. they support police as much as anybody else. the fact that there was no trust in their whole criminal justice system, that speaks volumes. >> that is not just perception. if we are honest, in the teams i'm span -- same time span, -- >> the one with the knife. >> different than even what the
video showed. within 16 seconds of the police pulling up, the young man was shot. he was not lunging towards them, was said.at there are reality issues, not just perception issues. how do citizens feel comfortable when in many cases the only option provided in certain cases are a grand jury or judge, neither of which they trust? says is not a rule that that a special prosecutor come in during searching -- certain situations. how do we manage that? review,ere is civilian do we see more effective accountability of officers? >> i would say this. could a special prosecutor coming in making difference? maybe, maybe not.
cincinnati, a special prosecutor was brought into prosecute the young man who shot and killed a young man and lied about it. a poor job. i was a witness to this man admitting he lied. i was never called as a witness. the officer was found not guilty. moved onto a suburban agency, healed as an exceptional police officer. how do we explain this? i don't think we have an explanation for that. there was one way to prove the officer had lied. we had started to put -- mounted ash-mounted cameras. we only had them in 15 cars. what is the chance that that car
went through that intersection and recorded the entire incident? can we win the lottery tonight? guess what happened. that one car with one camera drove through that intersection at that exact point, the exact millisecond when the officer fired the trigger career that is how we were able to say the liar -- trigger. that is how we were able to see the officer was lying to read his story -- as lying. the officer gave a convoluted statements that made it just a file for him to have fired his weapon. as a police chief, knowing that i have an officer who is not truthful, without that technology, i could not have said we have a dishonest police officer. my point here is, technology can help this in the future.
body mounted cameras. i see people walking around with them on their chests. if i am training an officer, i where's my camera pointed? it is pointed there. i am talking to you here. i'm getting a recording of that screen while my decision-making is based on what your actions are. we have to not only have this technology, we have to require officers to wear them had mounted.- head i don't want a picture of the lawn. i want a picture of what the officer is viewing. we need not only cameras on officers but to make the officer, require officers to wear them so that we are recording exactly what the officer is looking at.
officer has a clear opportunity to explain what he or she did and why he or she did it. those are the critical questions that have to be answered. as quickly as possible, that information needs to be disseminated to the community's of the community can understand what the police do and why they do it. like what you talked about at the beginning and what these two gentlemen have talked about. exactly. >> that happened in new orleans. >> let's be honest, even when the camera is on, there are people in new york who would say, we have video. there is still a perception between what is excessive force and what is not. and how prosecutors are connected. i think there could even be debate among the audience right now about, was the force used against eric garner excessive?
there would be members of the law enforcement community who would say it is not. others who say, it is. the video was their favorite human one may have the technology, there are still our even when issues -- we have the technology, there still our perception issues. that alone could be a discussion. the gentleman who are helping me with the mic, if you would stand at the bottom of the stairwell. question, if you would begin to get in line so they do not have to run around so we can get as many questions as possible, that would be brilliant. as you are getting in line, i would like to ask the reverend -- there are two sides of this. i think we have admitted there
are issues of policy and training. there's also a community site side of this. what are we saying to citizens, young people in particular, about how to engage police officers and how to know your to behavet also how in a way, even if an officer is wrong, you can walk away from an incident? without the police officer using force or pulling their gun? how do you communicate to citizens, even in the face of bad law enforcement, how to walk away from a situation? >> that is a powerful piece because it goes back to training. definitelyg is necessary beyond the basic training. i'm a military guy. you go through basic and then you are on your way.
the training has to be community training. there are pockets in our would be that i think open and accessible to ng some of the dynamics you mentioned. how do you deal with dialoguing with police? w are uses of in your day to day operation with the police officer who pulled you over? my understanding is the officer in ferguson told the young man, brown and his partner, to get on the sidewalk. maybe that kind of dialogue, if it would have taken place appropriately, maybe would -- we would not be talking about ferguson. sensitivity training, curriculums.
for instance, with our young people. we have a curriculum that is well known called faking for change. what you do and how you do it. not just with police but life. in terms of everyday living. you mentioned, i don't know if you are being prophetic. that something down the pike will bring about this best change. --be there is having something we don't know about. what does that mean for the community? i understand what that means for law enforcement, from the president to the u.s. attorney.
we are going to have some sweeping changes. what does that mean for the community? that ate ensure, jeff, the local level, the neighborhood level, there is leadership built up and trained, ready to understand here are ways to build better relationships with law enforcement. be honest that a lot of this stuff is not new. we all know the deal. jay has had money to talk about these coalitions to reduce violence. or has been community policing dollars at the federal level for quite some time. there has to be a well at the local level to make that happened. i want to make sure we get to these questions. as we do that, there are rules. the first rule is, ask a question.
second rule, ask a question. question.rule, ask a that everybody who came in the room it is brilliant. you don't have to prove it. if you can come a it to one of our panelists, -- if you can, directed to one of our panelists. please do not hold the might. it is proven if you hold the mike, you talk 30% longer. i want to ask the panelists -- probably be chief can take this. the issue of the militarization of the police force vis-a-vis infusion of resources into
communities that are underserved. there is perception that there is money for militarization but not for education, jobs, and community development. a lot of we do with -- those materials come from the warsal governments everywhere else. those we balance resources coming but other resources not coming? >> i think that is a question beyond us as chiefs. that is surplus military acquit meant that we did not buy. department does not have that equipment. part of that have it, what you are going to see happen, part of the chain you are going to see happen with this, there is going to be accountability attached to it.
the material is not just going to be shipped from the department of defense. it has to go through a process. you have to show calls and training. you cannot use it in civil disturbances such as ferguson be read that will not be allowed anymore. we will see some sweeping change their. that is nothing that chiefs across the country are funded to do. that is just equipment that has been given to them if they choose to have it. the way that has been done the past has been wrong. you can't just take it and say, give it to a local police agency. without some training or some policies being written as to when you utilize it. >> you talked about that not being able to happen. there's not any policy in place right now that the departments
will be held accountable for using the equipment properly. >> there is nothing in place right now. i think the chief would with me. thatere is a department misused it like we saw in ferguson, they would be insane. there may be people out there who may do that. thatu and i both know -- is great, but we know insane is a perception. there are police departments that can justify the use of that equipment based on situations that are happening. what currently is the witness -- tmus?
to exist forn has it to be used? >> police agencies are ruled by local governments. officers or agencies would have the equipment. i think cedric will agree with me. they will have the equipment for extraordinary situations. we have a sniper who is helping -- hurting people. we have to get close to that person. these are the types of situations that were visualized. i don't believe that they were intended for everyday use. i think that agencies that use it responsibly don't use it for everyday. >> it is a misstep on the part of the government to not have more stringent guidelines and say, specifically -- you are handing out heavy weapons. 2020.can say that now,
where in the situation you have to have common sense. communities need to help make these decisions for agencies. agency ismunity -- not allowing the community to help them make that decision, toy are allowing them to fail. will why do i is, look threatening just as i am standing here leaning on something? 3:00iced a break in at a.m.. the police showed up. i'm standing just like i am right here, well lit in a well lit cab. the officer slid into the parking lot, got his shotgun out, and leveled it at me. had i moved, i'm not so sure i
could have told you the story. ght me not to point a gun. my question is, why don't they receive that training? can't speak for the officer, why he or she perform the duty the way they did. to it from your perspective, it does not sound like a reasonable response. i would offer you this. if it ever happens again, and you have the courage to call the police again, here is where i am. i'm going to keep the phone open. i'm on the phone. please tell whoever is responding, i am the good guy. it is difficult. people ask this all the time of police chiefs.
i had this happen, why did it happen? i can only ask the officer what he or she was thinking. they may have a reasonable response. then again, they may not. i doubt they could have a response that was reasonable enough to satisfy you. difficult situation. >> did you report the officer? >> i did not. i was happy to be alive. >> i'm going to be honest. if i am white, i do a lot more reporting. a lot ofat there are black men, if they were white, they would pick up the phone and give a badge number quicker. what are our
rights and responsibilities? if we feel we are treated unfairly, what is our options? and how is that viewed? that is department by department. responsible, progressive agency will have the opportunity for you to make a complaint about any police officer at any days 24 hours a day, 365 a year. you can make it however you want to do it. that agency, if it is responsible, will thoroughly investigate that incident and get back to you with at least an officerion for what the said he did and why they did it. it might not satisfy you. that.ey do if they are very good, they will
also explain to you, here are the circumstances. here is why we do what we do. hope you understand. some agencies will not do that. texasat a conference in with an agency. their use of force policy for guns was never take me out in anger, never put me away in shame. had you make a complaint and that agency? howdy you make a complaint in that agency? i would say one is horribly wrong and not progressive. the other is what we should expect from our agencies and demand from police agencies. we have to demand accountability not to demean
officers or agencies or d-them -- demonize them. we should know whether we are doing a good job or bad job. if we cannot, something is not going well. >> we have about 15 minutes. i want to make sure we can get to as many questions as possible. if we can get three questions we will get the panel to answer them. and then we'll get to more. yes sir? >> talk about how police officers are recruited and whether it needs to be approached as more of a community service or national service type arrangement? a short-term a --
commitment as opposed to a long-term career? and whether it makes sense to create a pipeline where you are recruiting veterans. >> yes sir? >> i don't know if training will solve this. statistics, fbi ofre is a higher percentage white shootings on minorities than minority shootings on whites for officers. what will we do about this? >> you talked about mistrust of the police in the african-american community. what do you think as a community you would need to see from law enforcement on a day-to-day basis to rebuild that trust? >> thank you. three questions. each of you, please take one.
some of, you mentioned those things. talk about what you would like to see from law enforcement. the other two questions dovetailed in some cases. we are talking about the percentage of african-american officers shooting non-african-americans. we have fewer african american officers. that goes to the first question to read if you can deal with pipelines, i would love to hear about programs targeting the development of officers from hades of color, -- communities of color. are there programs or pipelines you are seeing working? reverend, and then mr. alexander. >> i think i heard him say rebuild trust. we have to first build. we cannot rebuild what has not
been built. said, i have kind of responded to some of that. i think the consciousness across the community has to be elevated from leadership. not just governmental, political, law enforcement leadership. leadership across the board. in my community, some of my plan. not my plan but my colleagues -- is to bring the white business community closer to the black business community. white churches closer to black churches. in the sense that the collaborative efforts to begin reductive -- pro duct of dialogue across the board. young people have to begin to notleaders coming together,
just ceremoniously. not just to say we had a great conversation and joined hands . but to have serious, short and long-term goals about transforming the village. president of morehouse college wrote, crisis in the village. ferguson represents a unique situation in terms of trust or mistrust of the criminal justice system. unique say that is not to ferguson. you look at mass incarceration across america and the like, mistrust of police is nationwide. ferguson happens to be the metaphor right now. easy take.n it will take some serious planning, dialoguing.
thatmenting initiatives can turn this around at every level. at theust be leadership top, leadership at the bottom coming together. holding hands together. ensuring that we not only dialogue but come up with creative long and short term plans to turn this around. >> if you could take on part of that question, should we start looking at how we recruit police officer differently? where does not deficit -- necessarily a career decision but a service decision? is that a thought process in certain communities? less and less career police officers joining the force. what we have learned is the millennial population in particular, i see it every day,
a lot of the young people coming in at 21 or 22 years, they are moving on. the 25-30ot doing years as their parents or others have done. they come and stay for a short time and then move on. i see that every day in and around the atlantic community. we are going to have to recruit better. every thousand young people, they are not this is not necessarily 21, 4 every thousand that apply, we may end up with 30 or 40 or 60.
we train them. i think the training modules are going to have to change in terms of how we train police officers. to be done in the area around communication, cultural competence, confronting and facing biases and knowing what they are because we all have them. therdless of whether officers are black or white, what we want at the end of the day, we want a good public service that is going to protect t large.unity a >> i'm going to have you give some closing thoughts. the other question asked was about african-american officers. ist of the reasoning i hear about fewer african-americans applying to be police officers, fewer making it through the process.
there are young people that make themselves ineligible to go through the academy as a result of things that have happened to them in their lives. our departments beginning to do a better job of creating to young, talking people about being in law enforcement? some of the schools focusing on law enforcement, whether to be a lawyer or law enforcement officer? thethere ways to build pipelines so we can see increased numbers of latino and african-american officers, especially in some communities? >> one of the disconnects and policing is the decision-making comes with your tenure. if you have several years on, you are considered a veteran officer. you can to make decisions about
how the agency runs. if you have not been there, shut up kid and sit over there. unfortunately, there is a disconnect, a generational disconnect, and policing. ifre are people like myself, you start to talk about technology, i think it is a wonderful thing but i am scared to death of it. grandchildren, three of whom are three years old, who can do things with my ipad i didn't know it could do. we are just now seeing agency start to use things like facebook. twitter. things that appeal to the masses. how do we project police departments? would you like to be a police officer? we tell people there are dozens of not hundreds of different jobs you can do inside
a police department? you want to be a forensic detective? to be somebody who becomes, what do you think of can term -- the person who take different types of images and recordings and put those together and present to you a picture of what occurred based on recordings, both audio and visual? thatget the name of position for writ there are different expect can be done including just being a police officer. historically, in every single police agency across this country, your best recruiting tool at your employees themselves. your employees will say, i know i kid who lives down the street. his neighbors with my mother. is neighbors with my mother. i think he would be a good cop. close to that comes from within of the agency.
in 1971, most recruit classes were 50 white guys and a black person. if you recruiting is coming from inside the agency, and you are hiring 50 white guys and one , what is your recruiting going to be? as we become more open, the agency is about 38% african-american be rich would he 5% female. the rest are white guys. about 25% female. the rest are white guys. but we are going to be reaching out to a more diverse community. i think that is the best method for us, moving forward. quickly ask her
questions and then we will allow the panelists closing thoughts. books this -- >> this question is for mr. alexander or the chief. is there anything in place that routinely or annually tests them psychologically, desideratum in -- to determine if they are having anything going on at home? work?ng their problems to or repressed military problems, if they are ex military? is there anything in place that is testing them for the stress? >> thank you so much. yes sir? me.xcuse since an incident that happened
like this, the entire nation gets involved. it would beng if feasible, since police officers across the country have such extreme authority and power, would it be feasible to have dialogue about federal regulations that govern all police departments? >> i spent the last 10 years working in education. can you talk to examples of trinity engagement opportunities that police departments have taken? as they progress? which not to black males or entire schools? crocs check out the ok program -- >> check out the ok program. >> we only have three questions and 90 seconds each.
there is a program called the ok program. officers come out of a traditional law enforcement role and serve as alms bondsman -- ombundsman. the young people who have gone lastgh the program for the 15 years, all them have graduated from high school. 80% have gone on to college. none have been murdered. it is a program and 13 or 14 cities over if 15 your time that you can take a look at. doing an incredible job of connecting law enforcement and young people. where their role is different than it would normally be. creating broader relationships.
yes, sir? >> let me clear up something real quickly. not a word has been mentioned about the civil rights division of doj. i spent 39 years in the fbi. the criminal section of the civil rights division will look at every single case that comes up that meets certain basic requirements such as in ferguson. or the rodney king case. people are writing on the presumption that justice has not been served. rioting based on the perception that justice has not been served. it is not over yet.
are there programs to change misperceptions of people that are causing riots? job ofve done a poor maintaining the truth and letting people know what is going on. >> all right. that coulduestion start another two-hour conversation. [laughter] moderated a panel with three more prolific people. which is why you can answer these and 90 seconds each. -- in 90 seconds each. if you would keep your closing to two minutes. answer the questions or anything that you think needs to be said. make the i would reverend go last but you are not the most long-winded. i will start with the chief. >> don't stop.
we have started something here that is a dynamic conversation. who would have ever thought that the foundation that built the martin luther king memorial and the national law enforcement officer memorial would come together on an issue as dicey and challenging as race in america? especially where race affects policing in communities? this is something that has long needed to be done. i speak from a tremendous amount of experience, having been one hoste last major cities to race riots in america. that is not a good legacy to have. spokeast gentleman who here from the fbi was right. is there a coalition of people? relationshipsour
between your local agency, federal agencies, and the committees themselves? can pick upre you the phone and make a call? i will meet with you. i need your help getting information into the community. nobody can do that inside a pickle jar. by the way, now i need your help. it does not work that way. the relationships have to be existing to read they have to be powerful. they have to be trusting. they cannot be temporary. they have to be there and have to be worked on constantly, each and every day. happy, andcome fat, lazy, it is time to put somebody in there who is truly invested in the community and wants to see the community get better.
>> thank you. almost two minutes exactly. mr. alexander? when i think about this whole thing. i will be short. that we as aic nation are going to find solutions to much of what we talked about tonight. i truly believe that. i believe, with the help of the president and attorney general, who have made a commitment -- i was in a room with attorney general holder last night and like to -- in atlanta. he has a commitment and has been tasked by the president to do some things to help change this narrative. threat, fromigger a more global perspective. all of us in this room, not just police or criminal justice, all -- whether we are in industry or government or
education -- we are all american citizens. wem a global perspective, are not going to be continuing to be a strong nation as long as we are divided. we have elements of their, i.e. isil, who are infiltrating this untry. as a nation, from a global perspective, we are going to have to fix our own social problems. we know they will not be fixed overnight. what we do know, if we are working and fixing them together, it will push back those who may threaten the integrity of this nation. that for me is the bigger issue out of all of this. we have been wrestling with race from the beginning of this country.
we are still wrestling with it. we are talking about race tonight. we are not going to fix it in some short time . if we begin to work as a country together, regardless of what side of the i'll use it on, regardless of what your race may we have to fix this together. if we do not, we will weaken this nation. that is something we cannot do in order to be a strong united states of america. >> thank you so much. reverend? >> he said he was not going to be wrong. long. >> yours have to worry when some restarts with, i am going to be short. out -- let's make this the
last closing remark. say, without a vision, the people perish. 29:18. proverbs visionaryhave leadership, not only in the moment but in this movement, without visionary leadership, we will continue to see our villages in crisis. represent one of the anchor institutions in every community. church.the local ands a non-nominal church the heart of new orleans. of the day, the faith
community, the business community, the government community, there has to be the that cedric talked about 3-d coalition building -- talked about. building.ion we can't just dialogue and walk away and say, we had a great evening. i would hope that notes are taken and we can begin to talk about how to build on the takeaways. otherwise we are going through the motions, the processes of coming together. all of this can become more of we would put it in writing and declare in new orleans, cincinnati, atlanta, across the country.
we would have more discussions like this that are purposeful. with solutions. i go back to short-term, long-term. this will not happen overnight. there are things that can be done immediately in every community with a great leadership, visionary leadership. inquiring of the lord as to what we need to do. everybody doing it. if we can entrust not only be elected leaders, but as i said earlier, people on the ground. people every day who have voices that are never heard. if we can begin to process ways with which we hear more about young people, not just protesting, but an equal number of them sitting at home with ideas.
coalesce all of that? to say, in every community and neighborhood, we have come up with solutions. oriented solutions. where we have conceptualized actionable solutions for every neighborhood to begin to turn itself around. just on this one issue. building trust. building trust between police and everyday citizens. in new orleans come that trust is already there some parts of the city. and other parts of the city, it has never been there. that is why, often times, we are called the feel of two cities. tale of two cities. we don't lack resources. we lack togetherness. my time is up. thank you for years. [applause] whatgood preacher knows
mens mean. there was nowhere to cover all the things that needed to be covered. i think the conversation was a good one. i know one of the things mentioned was young people. next time there is a panel like this, i hope we have a young person on the panel. if there is an answer to the things that a loss, it is coming from the minds and hearts of young people. so often, they are the brunt of what is being dealt with but we seldom ask them to be in the solution process. one of my mentors is in the house. dr. ben. wilmington of the 10. he personified young people at a time that understood no matter
what, they had to move and act in a way they thought was necessary. i have seen him and others work with young people all over the country. even when they are angry, they give us insight on the direction we need to take. when we are talking about community policing, many of the young people are the ones being policed. i hope as we talk about solutions, one of the solutions is ensuring we never have a conversation of any kind without young people being at the table and part of the solution. if we do, we continue to talk about them as opposed to with them. as one oftake that the solutions. thank you, gentlemen, for your insight. your experience. i would like to say thank you to both of the organizations that have been involved to come together to make the panel a reality. the memorial foundation as well as the law enforcement museum --
it is foundation? i just want to put foundation, because i was can say you need to give them money. i thought you would agree with that. tose organizations do need be supported. i've pressure the fact that they have come together. there are many people who want to have the conversation but don't want to bring people together not normally involved. we should continue to support that. hopefully we can make this digital goal on the road. thank you for allowing me to be your moderator. have a fantastic evening. [applause] saying howlose by proud i am we were able to partner with the national law enforcement officer's memorial
fund. and with the memorial foundation, the group that built the martin luther king junior memorial. what i love the about this evening, we are in a unique position to bring together some of law enforcement costs top topers -- law enforcement's leaders. when we ask people like doctors to come and have a discussion, they dropped what they were doing and they were here. you were kind enough to give us reverend watson. you have 70 great leaders in so many great leaders in your organization. they want to bring their community together, and given the chance, they will do
conversations like this. i love the ideas that were spoken here tonight. i think that the philosophies were all seemingly on the same the reverend so eloquently said, we got to continue this discussion. it's got to be setting goals and working toward those goals and making sure we have the right leaders to do so. know between our two organizations, we can make that happen. thank you all for being here. jeff, fabulous job, and have a good evening, ladies and gentlemen. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
>> two former senate majority leaders talked about the need more bipism. and on this morning's "washington journal" white house efforts to reform police departments after ferguson. and president obama is slated to nominate ashton carter to be the next defense secretary to replace chuck hagel. the president will make the official announcement this morning at the white house and we'll bring you live coverage here on c-span. >> house minority leader nancy pelosi will hold a briefing on her party's agenda. she is expected to take
questions on spending measures needed to avoid a government shutdown. later if the afternoon a forum on north korea and the west. we'll hear from journalists, former diplomats and the president to have korea ips constitute. -- of the korea institute. >> the c-span city's tour takes book tv and american history tv on the road traveling to cities to learn about city st. this week we go to waco, texas. >> to be saved, we began turning over the b sides of the 45's that we received. first of all, gospel music was not widely heard in the white community and if it was, it would bonl the hits. the b or flip side would be
heard even less. we discovered how many of the b sides were related directly to the civil rights move. there are few databases on gospel music. we didn't know the number of songs like "there ain't no segregation in heaven" type songs. singing it was a very dangerous thing in the deep south. you could get in trouble for a lot of things in the deep south. that sort of singing out loud was a risk. >> the texas ranger hall of fame as set up in 1976 for the 71st anniversary to have rangers. rangers who made contributions to the service or gave their lives under heroic circumstances, we have portraits of all of those ranges. they begin with stephen f.
austin. they managed to make the area reasonable safe but when the texas war for independence broke out, the rangers played a major role in texas gaining its independence by staving off the mexican army long enough to allow the columnists to build their own colony. >> watch all of our events from waco saturday at noon eastern on c-span 2's book tv and sunday afternoon on american history tv on c-span 3. >> former senate majority leaders tom daschle and trent lott sat down to talk about immigration, healthcare and the use of force by police. this event was hosted by the
christian science monitor. >> 50th wedding anniversary trip. it was good. >> ok. thanks for coming everyone. i'm dave cook with the christian science monitor. our guests this morning are all affiliated with the bipartisan policy center. center co-founder tom aschle, and jason g runch met. then senate majority leader
dashle was the guest speaker at bud sperling's final breakfast as host. the senator had visited nine times before that, he's a graduate of south dakota state university, served as an intelligence officer in the air force was a senate staffer and won election to the u.s. house in 1978. and the senate in 1986. he became democratic leader in 1994. serving both as minority and majority leader. he left the senate in 2005, and is now founder and c.e.o. of the dashle group, a public policy advisory and baker-donaldson. did i get that out? >> perfect. >> all right. >> senator lott managed to avoid appearing at one of our intimate gatherings during his long and successful career. [laughter] not for a lot of crying on our part i might say, but we're glad to rectify that today. senator lott is a graduate of the university of mississippi, and of the university of mississippi law school. after practicing law, moved to washington to become a congressional aid, and was elected to the u.s. house in 1972. in time to serve on the house
judiciary committee during impeachment proceedings against richard nixon. he was elected house minority whip in 1981, and in 1988 was elected to the senate where he went on to serve four terms. he was elected senate republican whip in 1995 and majority leader in 2006. he left the senate at the end of 2007 to open up a lobbying firm. i think it's preferred strategic consulting firm -- >> yes. >> with the former senator. >> tells the truth. >> the firm was purchased by pat boggs and he is now senior council. jason earned his bachelor's degree from brown university and along the way became the 1988 national collegiate debate champion. he has a law degree from harvard, 2001, he founded a national commission on energy policy. 2007, he co-founded the bipartisan policy center. along with senate leaders baker,
daschle, dole and mitchell. he's president and author of the new book city of rivals. slight extra fee i would have eld up the book. that was the biograph cal portion of the program. now the morning's mechanics. angus c.e.o. to marty durbin at the table with his colleges helping this guy survives on the payroll. we're on the record here. please no blogging and short no filing of any kind while the breakfast is under way to give us time to actually listen to what our guest says. there's no embargo when the session ends. we hope you resist that relentless selfie urge, we will e-mail several pictures of the session to all the reporters here as soon as the breakfast ends. as regular attendees now know, if you'd like to ask a question, do the traditional thing and send me a subtle signal.
i'll happily call with all the time we have. we're going to start by offering guests the opportunities for comments and questions around the table. thank you all for doing it, we very appreciate it. >> well it's nice to be here, always good to see our friends from anga. we want to have an interaction. all i'll suggest is that the system is bone crushingly gridlocked, and it will stay that way if we just continue to play by the same rules. we think the rules are going to evolve. the frustration of those who are constructive part i sans who want to get things done are going to start to require a different approach to legislation. ongressman boehner now has a 244-member majority. that changes his latitude some. i think if you look back to last year during the shutdown when speaker boehner showed me
a leadership and said we're not defaulting on this, we're moving forward, that strengthens his hand. he did not fall through the ice, as many people had predicted. the last thing i will say is that my experience, the people who are absolutely the most frustrated with washington are members of congress. this is not what they signed up for. the vast majority came here to actually get things done. and i think that constructive frustration just like the constructive frustration of the general public is going to start to have an end point, which we can talk about more, and i tried to, in my book, which has not been held up, talk about -- what was this? talk about our pragmatic but not naive ways to start to move the country back towards a productive partisanship.
>> first of all, i'm sure this is all off the record. thank you for hosting this, and the "christian science monitor" for making it possible for us to be here with you today. soon tom and i will have an opportunity to speak for 30 minutes with extensions if we need more time to filibuster. i'm delighted to be here with my good friend, tom daschle. we do a lot of joint appearances now. that's natural because we did a lot of things jointly when we were the respected majority, minority leaders back and forth a couple of times. but when you go back and look at what we went through together, not only the impeachment time, but 9/11, the anthrax attacks that specifically afact tom's office and how we dealt with the 50-50 congress, we went through tough things, but also i'm very proud of the things we got done. i'm still an en curable optimist, belief it or not. i still feel like good things will happen, but it's going to
take strong leadership. it's going to take change of direction from the president. we're going to see the speaker really move aggressive until trying to keep his conference moving in the right direction. i've always said when newer leadership in the house and senate, you can follow your conference or lead your conference. and if you just follow them, you got trouble. i'm hoping that the speak her step up in that regard, and mitch mcconnell has achieved the goal he's work on literally since high school, now he's going to be the majority leader. there are a lot of things that need to be done. obvious well what's happening in the energy bill is having a dramatically positive effect on what's going on in our economy. but it presents opportunities and challenges that i hope the congress will step up to next year. you know, we wanted to make an opening statement. we said we'll be brief and go to your questions. >> well, i just want to thank
dave and "christian science monitor" for giving us a chance to come back. it's a good opportunity to see some of you. we haven't had the opportunities we used to have as leaders to ming and he will talk with you as frequently as we used to. we look forward to the opportunity this morning. if you haven't read the book, you ought to do so. it's a fantastic book. i would highly recommend it. trent and i have worked together in a lot of differentitier rations over the years, and it's been an enormous pleasure for notice work with him over the last several years in a lot of different con texts. over that time, i think it's fair to say we've become even closer friends. i've treasure that had friendship and appreciate the chance to be with him this morning. it's no secret that our country itself is very divided. the pu we research center and others is a individual this may
be the most divided we've been philosophically and ideological until over 100 years. the congress really reflects oftentimes the divisions within our own country. i think we're experiencing that today. there's a debate about the role of modern government in modern sofmente it's a debate between those who consider themselves rugged individualists on one side and those who believe that there is a lot to be said for collective action on the other. finding compromise between those two points of views, we consider the role of government and modern society is always a challenge, but it's become even more so. it's also been a tactical question for a lot of members who get elect these days. the tactical question is when do you stand your ground and look for common ground? there are a lot of people who believe that they were sent to washington not to find common ground, but to continue to insist on standing their ground and making a stand on principle alone. the challenge in reconciling those two points of view, first
on the role of government and secondly on the tactical way with which one governs is really presented the set of circumstances we're facing today. but as jason and trent both have said, there are ways in which to increase it. there are easier ways, there are somewhat more difficult ways, and then there are ways that are almost impossible. but if you've read the new book, in order to be successful in almost, you have to have a healthy disregard for the impossible. i think that's really what we've got to understand. we've got to have a healthy disregard for those who just say there's nothing we can do about this because it's just impossible. it isn't impossible. we can address it as a country. we've done so in the past. i hope we can continue to demonstrate our capacity to do so going forward. >> thank you for your remarkable time sensitivity which we don't always find with our guests. hank you very much for that.
let me ask you a noncongressional question or perhaps a noncongressional question. a new york grand jury yesterday declined to indict a white police officer in the death an unarmed african-american, eric garner. the recent state of high-visibility deaths of unarmed black americans at the hands of police call for bipartisan action, and if so, what? >> well, maybe i can start by saying i think without knowing the specific circumstances in that case, and i understand there's going to be an investigation so we'll better understand just what actually occurred and why, i do think that we have avoided a serious discussion about race in america now for some time.
it's critical that we continue to understand the need for that die lork the need for us to ecome much more aware of the inequities and the challenges we face as a nation, whether it's the voting rights act or voter suppression or any one of a number of challenges we face in the country. we have a lot of work to do, and these cases are certainly a eminder of that. >> either of you want to respond as well? >> just to end maybe a broader reflection because it really reflects the folks in this room. we now get to see almost everything, whether it is interacts between individuals and police that get violent, whether it's horrible, grotesque actions of isil, and that is changing the way people
understand these problems. i have no actual statistical notions that there is more violence between white police officers and african-americans today than there has ever been. i mean, my intuition is there's less, but we see more. i think that does, in a very constructive and important way, force this conversation forward , and, you know, it's hard to imagine a federal legislative response to that, but we do have a very strong federal role in civil rights enforcement, so i do believe this is going to be an ongoing conversation. >> yeah, i think it's something we have to confront, we have to come to terms with what happens in incidents like this and what could be done differently. i've always had a little bit of a problem, you talk about what legislatively could be done, some of the equipment that the federal government provides to
police departmenting around the country now, you wonder why they need that. i mean, it's heavy equipment, and, you know, sometime in small towne police departments, i think congress and dianne feinstein specifically, we've been talking about maybe doing something in that area to at least limited to smaller sidearms or weapons rather than anks, if you will. they have large anti-riots for vehicles. but also, i think that it's time that everybody ask themselves, are these things being handled properly? not only on the streets, but in the courts and in the public discourse. it's been interesting and others that take advantage of the opportunity to try to find ome solutions.
>> the last thing, speaking to the business roundtable yesterday, president obama cited tax policy, the partnership and trade, frain structure, and surprisingly, immigration as potential areas for bipartisan, legislative action. based on your considerable expertise, what would top your list of the best possibilities for bipartisan action, if any? >> i do think trade is one that they have a good opportunity to and need to work together. it can get off track. you know, if members of congress see the negotiations particularly with the asian negotiations, if they go too far in the labor environment area, republicans will react to that, or if they don't go far enough, democrats have a problem with it. so there's a delicate balance there. but to the administration's credit, they are now beginning to reach out in a bipartisan
way, both to members of congress and some former members of congress to talk about how this can be done, because, you know, we were involved in doing it with nafta. the problem is you get a debate and 60 votes are required on the authority and fast track, but the actual vote is only 51 votes. so members are going to be a little jumpy about, before they know the final product, you know, are we going to agree to give this fast track authority where you didn't define the rules and then you vote. but i'm very much an advocate of the t.p.p. and the tea tip, the one in europe. there are implications with both of them. they had some problems are japan on automobiles and agriculture products, and there will be problems in europe and the administration does not want to put some things in the table on the europeans want, but i think that -- i know that mitch mcconnell will want to be helpful and move that forward.
i think tax reform is possible. i think they tripped over things last week. they were getting close to having the big $400 billion tax extender package with making some of the extenders permanent, and then the president threatened to veto and it fell apart, and now they're moving the one-year tax extenders. some people say that might be a machiavellian move to get more pressure to get tax reform and extenders in a package next year. i don't know. i'm a little nervous, because it seemed like every time they get started in the right direction, something trips it p, and they lose the momentum. it needs to be a comprehensive package. it is about jobs and the economy, so i really hope they'll do that. i think there's a good possibility in the energy area. they're going to have to deal with some of the energy areas. we've recommended that the bipartisan policy center have some reforms that would
actually put somebody in charge of energy policy. nobody is really in charge. like 17 agencies, commissions, bureaus, the departments deal with energy. nobody has the con, as they say in the navy. obviously transportation, and i think that's a good possibility, because you got the aviation that is expiring next year. i would hope that they would get serious about dealing with the need for money, and how you do that, there are not many options on the table. bill shuster is one of the best legislators in the congress, and he's got good legislators on the senate side. we have seen barbara boxer has shown the ability to get bills through that committee, working with jim enhoff and dave bitter. barbara boxer and dave and jim can move infrastructure in the past, that's pretty impressive.
you add bill shuster on the house side, there's a great potential. i hope that they will do as mcdonnell has talked a lot about, go back to regular order. quit rung everything out of the speaker or leader's office. you got men and women that are very confident. let them do the job. have hearings and investigations and markups and votes on amendments. move it to the floor. raise hell. have a great debate. stay in late. stay in on saturday. vote on amendments and quit acting look a bunch of chickens when you got a six-year term. i'm hopeful that things will move. i am gation, they got to do that. we should have done it in 2007 as one of the most disappointing experiences i ever had as a member of the senate, the amount of cowardicy saw exhibited in 2007 on immigration bill was extremely disappointing to me. it was one of the things that contributed to my decision to move on and do something else. i hope they'll come back to it. they can do it in pieces. i pray they try to do the big
olf bill, they'll choke on it. they could move it in three pieces, but you got to do the border security, the visa situation. and then you've got to go to -- what is the appropriate way to dole with people here? the fair, reasonable way, but such a way that it can't be defined as amnesty. that's a delicate balance. >> i agree with both the president and trent. i'd add one that is somewhat counterintuitive to everyone at the table, and that's healthcare. i think that there is a list of healthcare initiatives that could enjoy pretty broad bipartisan support. i would start with the repeal and replace of s.g.r., the sustainable growth rate. it's got a 51-0 vote in the house commerce committee earlier this year, and i think it's clearly something that
everyone recognizes needs to be addressed. the children's health insurance rogram expires, and as most of you know, it has always enjoyed broad bipartisan support. telehealth, there's a lot of importance in the recognition of telehealth not only in rural reas, but urban areas as well. there's a to that, number of issues affecting diabetes. we have 29 million americans who have diabetes, 86 million who have prediabetes, at a cost of $322 billion a year. and there are a number of things that we can do on prevention, detection, and treatment for diabetes that already have enjoyed broad ipartisan support. i think the potential for bipartisanship is quite high. >> we have a program,
experimental program from the university of university of mississippi medical center to unflower county. they're monitoring people who have diet problems. they check their blood pressure. they work with them, make sure you take your medication, talk to them about what they should be eating or not eating, and they're doing it all by telemedicine, remoting done to an area 20 miles away, where there's no local doctor. there's really a lot that can happen. >> jason, you want to chime in? >> just to make the point that there are a lot of issues in the queue, and a lot of issues that actually had some bipartisan momentum over the ast few years. i think the assertion we have
to let the committee do their work is really essential, and there's a whole strat aof issues. i'll just mention a few of them. energy efficiency, it's been sitting there. senators blunt and brown have legislation on advanced manufacturing. postal reform something, that people actually would feel and ee sitting on the table with bipartisan support. we don't have to start from zero. there's a misperception that congress across the board has been incapable of collaboration. while i think that is quite true at the highest level, it's not really true within the rank-and-file. in addition to some of the big issues. the only other two things i ould mention, oil exports. the 30-year structure of energy
legislation that was based around light blue cardigan sweaters and scarcity in fear of the 1970's, we now live in an era of incredible energy abundance, export is just one way that congress has new issues, people are not dug in and entrenched. and then lastly -- >> you might also mention liquefied natural gas. we never passed a massive piece of legislation like dodd frank or the affordable care act perfectly and lock it in forever. we always have tuneups, tweaks, changes, and improvements, and i think there is a possibility both around the a.c.a. and dodd-frank to start to make some of those technical corrections, modest adjustments, but bring those bills back into the fore. >> i'm from the associated press.
>> senator lott mentioned cowardice. that's a term we often hear in the term of gridlock, that .embers of congress i'm wondering if the american voter, in your time of looking at the american politics in government, have you seen a change or are americans less illing to take some paying taxes or have a limit, that sort of thing, or is this all a reaction within congress tself? i actually think the american people can be shown that in so america, in public policy or ultimate objective, i think there is, as jason so eloquently talked about earlier, there's far more
trance pearns a today. we've always known that the legislative sausage making is never pretty. i think we now see that elevated, and people repel from that, or the lack of sausage making because of the transparency that exists. to a certain extent, there's a reluctance on the part of members to deal and to come up with compromise in part because so much is so much transparent than it's ever been in the ast. for the opportunity to move legislation forward, and that was all part of the legislative process. it wasn't pretty, but it worked. in part because of the reaction to ear marks that
understandably generated the ast several years. i do think there's a little bit too much, everybody looking to ppeal their base vote. you know, i never was once that hung around in the middle, but i also think that people yearn for somebody, for their elected leaders, their leaders, to lead. they're trying to get things done and trying to explain to them why they're doing what they're doing. i voted for the department of education, and my constituents did not agree with me. but i did -- at the same time i indicated what the vote was, i explained why i did, even though i knew that 54% of my constituents didn't agree with me. i never got any flak for that.
you know, the times are different. you know, people, social media is a part of it, and it's gone beyond 24/7. i mean, it is explosive. the media gets locked in on an issue and you can't get away from it. >> i go to the office early and just, when the phone ring, i pick it up and say hello, and they'd say, who is this? i say it's trent lott. who are you call? well, i had him at an disadvantage. but did i it to see what they would say. during that process, i actually got three death threats, one from my own state, chicago turned over to the f.b.i., one from oregon, and a third one. i mean, it was ugly. but remember, we lost that vote n 2007 on a procedural vote. the accounting i was doing, i was back in, i thought we were going to be able to win that. but over the weekend, rush
limbaugh labeled it amnesty. , and labor got ahold of democrats and said we don't want these workers coming in ith these visas. republicans were reporting no because of amnesty from rush limbaugh, and i'm in the well the senate with jon kyl and lindsey graham, but also ted kennedy, dianne feinstein, and harry reid. the six of us working the vote, and we lost. that was one of the most mind-boggling things i've ever seen. is harder now, i think, but my attitude is why would you want to come here? why would you come sneer why wouldn't you want to make a difference? when i hear the criticism about things i have done, i point out to some of it, look, when clint
was president and tom and i were leadership, we got welfare reform, and we did a balanced budget. we did tax reform. we did measured telecommunications reform, safe drinking water, portability of insurance, raise military pay. what among those is not a good thing. one among those is not conservative from some of my conservative friends. i tell some of them, just to do something is not a conservative position, to change the direction of the country, you got to get something done. it is harder to do it, and you do run the risk of getting queet, i guess, or losing your leadership position. now you say so what. at least you go down standing up, as morgan freeman said in the movie "glory." standing up and fighting for
something. you at least try to get something done in the process. i think wee lost that. people do want leadership. they want obama to reach out to mcconnell and for the speaker to reach out to the administration. talk, see where they can find some common ground. i think the american people will react positively if they would see that. >> i think the one issue just to raise is, this idea of not taking hard votes is just tragedy. it didn't work. all the people who try to protect by avoiding tough votes, virtually all of them lost. voting is not only what captures the possibility, but also what vents the anger. the body was created fundamentally to vote for this. my hope is that the last election cycle where a lot of people were harmed by saying they were in lock stop with the president will demonstrate that the political imperative is not to prevent people from going
through 98%, but actually allow members to differentiate themselves. that would be a major step forward in that sense of the political logic. >> my good friend and partner, typical of john, is talking about, ok, the republicans have got the senate and they're going to have 54 votes, but they need six more on a lot of issues. they need 60. he's looking to see if there's a -- if there's six democrats that might be willing to maneuver the way john used to, he used to give tom and me both heartburn, because sometimes he was maneuvering against me for tom and the reverse. but if that group of somewhat more moderate democrats decided we're going to be a part of trying to find the 60th vote to get some things done, they could have a lot of influence
around here. >> so much has been talked about with mcconnell. i'd like to ask about the flip side, senator daschle. reid is going into the minority now. what is his task as minority eader? >> i think toiths lead and find ways to achieve common ground. he said something last week that i thought was very encouraging. he said we're not going to get into payback. if he met that, and i assume he did, he always speaks from his heart, my guess is that there are going to be opportunities on the array of issues that we've already talked about where there could really be some common ground t. wouldn't take the six people that john is going to be looking for. you could do it with 60 or 70 votes. that's possible, depending on
how democrats look at their role. it seems to me it's in harry reid's interest to accomplish as much as we can in the final two years of the obama administration. obama has two more years of opportunity, and i find, as i look back, some of the most productive years of any >> that was certainly true with bill clinton. you can argue about other presidents. over the last two weeks. listen to be talking more and coming up with agreements frequently. it has to be shown,
how is mitch mcconnell going to govern? we do not know yet. advice onn the becoming majority leader. what is the advice you can give the future majority leader? him have not talked to since he attained the new position. of conversations and i am encouraged that one of his heroes is henry clay. and viewed as a great compromiser. i am encouraged by that. there was ample opportunity across the aisle.
there is a long history of experience and comments made by henry clay that are indicative of where his real soul lies and we hope that will be reflective of his decisions. i think it will take meaningful leadership and stepping up to the plate to do things differently. i think he has that capacity. havetalked to mitch and over the years. majority leader's do not ask for advice. they tend to think they already know it. record.s a long senate asn in the long as he has, he knows how it can be done. action.want to take
i'm confident of that. that is easier said than done. we have seen this over the last couple of years. andhave the filibuster everything falls apart. very -- you mitch know, when i was in leadership, i was the minority leader. he knows how to get it done. in washington, i think his tone has been the best. when i say that, i'm saying that others have not had the right tone. he will be an interesting study. he makes the point that the biggest deals that have been
made were between mitch mcconnell and joe biden. they call joe biden the mcconnell whisperer. they served together and they know how to make it work. it is a valuable talent that we need more of. we need to take advantage of it. >> a lot of people are wondering what will happen with the health care law. do you agree with that? how do you think it is our different? what is the future for a idea.are? >> him i've no -- >> i have no idea. 2010 and something in i look back with great says faction. bill? a perfect
absolutely not. fail tomost people understand the commonality there is and there is very little difference between the republicans and democrats on the cost problem. we spent more on health care than in the entire gdp. costs have come down parttically as a result in of the passage of the affordable care act. nonetheless, they have come down. .e have a problem we have serious quality problems. we do not rise to the top 10 in the top 20 different criteria and for -- criteria for .erformance we find little disagreement. are areas for which
there are little disagreement. our goal is to build a high performance high value marketplace. i think there is a great deal of consensus about that. i think those who oppose the affordable care act are going to be forced to say, how are we going to a dress the high-performance marketplace? very few critics have come up ath a plan that can allow us viable alternative. there are no viable alternatives to the affordable care act today on the table. over time, weeful can come to the notion that repeal is not a viable option. finding ways to improve it is.
what do you think the law will survive another five or 10 years? >> i do. i'm confident it will survive. we made history in january and americanirst time in history, if you have a pre-existing condition, you can get health insurance. woman, there are no more and new lifetime limits. little things are ones that i have not ever prepared to give up. there are people who do not have a before or did not have the quality of care that they have today. i think that, within the next couple of years, that number could be 50 million. we are on h rent towards a change with major consequence.
>> let me comment on that. everyld not have been republican voting against it. he would have found a way to make it a little bit more. i believe that congress will i thinkrepeal it and the president will veto it. they are going to come back and they want something with the mandates. the president's credit, obviously, he will not like that. there may be some areas where we need tweaks that would be
were fairly or teen. >> almost always. almost immediately, we needed corrections. it looked like we would have political warfare over making a technical fix. thatondering if you think you would have done this differently if you had been running the show. why do you think republicans should make the change to get rid of the ambiguity around federal subsidies? ati think they should work that. or theld be the leader democrat who would find a way to do some improvement without demolishing the bill. is paul ryan going to step up
and do that? howell orrin hatch and ron wyden work together? those would be an interesting to to keep an eye on. they may get out of control of leadership. be aare both known to little independent. i used to have to deal with hat ch. he would take off on his own. they are leaders. the have earned the right to be ranking members and chairman on committees in the congress. >> rick klein of abc. >> so, i think you guys would agree that, whatever the failures are in leadership, these are rational actors making rational decisions when they
decide to not bring these rings up -- bring these things up. where does the change have to generate itself? i know there are rational changes to make. i'm going to change that in the interest of this. is there some kind of a bipartisan consensus? or, do voters have a different mindset? it seems like, the less they change their mind, the more you get. >> the new members in the senate have a pretty good group across the board. they were experienced men and women and have been in the military and in the house. they -- i do not think they came the place up.
doer.ardner is a i'm encouraged by the republicans who are elected. got to engage more. he needs more people talking to i do not think all of the burden of is on him. i would pick up the phone and call him or bush. people would say, obama, he wants to talk to him. get around have to staff. i used to do that. it would get me in a lot of trouble. i think obama needs to show some movement and mitch mcconnell is determined to do that. i think john boehner would like to. he is still struggling with some of the conference members. i think that is where it begins.
i am sorry. i am encouraged by rhetoric i of wantinge campaign to make washington work better. congress has an approval rating of 13% right now and you had the lowest turnout in years. reason to want to make washington work that are and there are reasons we have not talked about. the erosion of authority and, the more they are dysfunctional, then more power is seated. a position where they have to ask themselves, are we going to become increasingly irrelevant because we are
incapable of addressing problems today? i don't think anybody wants to be guilty of that. -- i am always amazed, traveling abroad, of the intense curiosity that the people have about america in foreign lands. i get asked if washington is dysfunctional. we try to convince the developing world that democratic republics are the us to govern. how do we make the case around the world? that is something we have said earlier and the transparency is not just within our country. it is worldwide. the transparency demonstrates the function of the city and sends a powerful message to the world, giving all of those who are not allies, the reason to
look to models for governance and not the united states. >> to the point of the electorate, there is a shift of people saying they want government to achieve outcomes, even if that requires compromise. true that the country had a deeply damaging recession and brought pain to people. that creates a lot of anger that congress.en in some of it has been captured by the tea party. thankfully, the economy is starting to put forward at a more predictable pace. there are external factors that help. we are social creatures. the same group of people that we
act in dysfunctional or collaborative ways based on the external conditions. order are the least interesting words that you can explain to the american public. they scheduled an amount yesterday and it is going to move towards coordinating the house and senate for the operation at the same time. .here will be longer work weeks we will not try to run the country on wednesdays. be authorities in the idea thatand the members of congress should take trips together and this should be supported by leadership. they get to know each other. mentioned, the
rules are going to change. there was a significant step by run apublican party to quality candidates in the midterm election. that was not casual. that was incredibly aggressive and very successful. i hate the words, "republican establishment." people are tired of the dysfunction and you are going to see more aggressive response to an insurgent movement that changed the rules. it took a while for that to happen. it is not just the full sutures legislate.o want to it is the folks who do not. >> we had a ferocious primary that floored me.
there was a lengthy conversation with mitch mcconnell talking to haley barbour. he said, get down and help out cochrane. we tried it. it was tough. he is going to be chairman of the appropriations committee. some of these primaries are really tough. you have blanche lincoln of arkansas two years ago. sides, we came up with a pretty good quality member. >> you have talked on so many topics. immigration, trade, the affordable care act. i want to draw them all together .ere >> that is good. >> we used to think of it as a journal way.
>in all of these discussions, on one hand, on the other hand, both sides are equally to blame. i am skeptical about what you said because i keep coming back re,people who are in the ted cruz, to name one. theuestion is, respond to idea that was put forward by thomas mann and norman ornstein that we are at a point where the problem is more on the manylican side and too people come here to stand their ground and not find common ground. that is the basis of the primary fight. the fighters -- the voters want
people who stand their ground. i do not mean to draw this out. you were quite partisan in your time. could you address that question about whether there is one side more to blame than the other, given the way the party has acted? >> i respectfully disagree with that. i do. the economist had a map that showed how there used to be a that was a clear purple. now, it is an oval that has pulled apart and there is no center. we have ted cruz and elizabeth warren. she has friends. there is a bill that was bipartisan that cannot get moved because of merkley and warren
saying that you could not do that. i think we have a problem. clarify itself in 2016. when we come up with a viable , i hope it is a governor or former governor. >> quickly, is hard to see if the senator would shut down the government or threatened to get in their way. you would not have done that, either. frankly, it is easy to say,
word and caught hell for it -- that some of the new members should be co-opted. do not let them drift to the far right flank. they should have people specifically deputized to deal with new senators. by can solve your problem moving quickly. charge inve a calvary the primary. will come up with a chance to get elected. >> do you want to weigh in on the blame? >> i think he has a bigger ideological and tactical challenge. there are more people in his caucus who come with the believe that standing the ground is the
right thing to do. the more you can bring it in quickly, the more the stand your ground types will look at the advantages of finding common ground. mitch has a bigger challenge, and that regard. if you are looking at congress, you add the white house to the mix and i think the balance is pretty reasonable. again, the speaker and nancy pelosi can pass any piece of legislation they want. harry reid and mitch mcconnell can pass any piece of legislation they want. the question is whether the leadership has the power to build the bridges.
the result has been gridlock. logic. there is some you will not see it all the time. you will start to see collaboration with leadership that is intentionally designed to isolate. if not, we will have the same conversation. >> i extend an apology to colleagues i did not get to. i want to thank the senator for coming. i appreciate you doing this. question >> here
are some of the programs you will find on the c-span networks. live coverage of the memorial service for the former washington dc mayor. the abc news white house correspondent. hampshiresity of new on how the northeast was not the haven of racial equality and civil rights. and, at noon, a three-hour conversation with the american enterprise president. on american history tv, it is lectures of history. and the fall of the berlin wall.
let us know what you think about the program you are watching. e-mail us at c-span. join the conversation and like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. president obama's naming carter to be the next -- will bring you live coverage. -- we will bring you full coverage -- . richardg up this hour, berry with the chief of police.
the efforts to reform police departments after ferguson. discusses lockdown .ocked down you can join the conversation on facebook and host: this morning, a discussion on trust and law enforcement. we want to have that conversation with you for three hours. we will put the numbers up right away so we can hear from you. we had set aside our fourth line to hear from police officers as we