Full disclosure when our students were wise enough to go to Washington during government shutdown. >> Yeah. [LAUGH] >> We found a, a wonderful captive audience in Senator Warner and yourself. >> Yeah. >> Your chiefs of staff had already volunteered. But as I suspect that as an old Senate staffer, you guys had open schedules and were waiting for [CROSSTALK]. >> Yeah. >> But you were very generous with your time. And of the, the highlights of the students fall was to see the contrast in styles and personal temperaments and approach to things. From two very effective, respected legislators, both former governors, yourself and Senator Mark Warner, Virginia. But your views on, on bipartisanship and soliciting cosponsors from the other side of the aisle. Frankly were a throwback for me >> Mm-hm, yeah. >> Because I had worked with legislators Jack Bingham in the House >> Mm-hm. >> And, and Alan Cranston in the Senate, who believed we would never send out a dear colleague or a bill even as the party whip. >> Yeah. >> Without a member of the other party co-sponsoring or, or lending their support. But that's not how it's done in most of Washington today. And I suspect that when you first came to the Senate as a former chairman of one of the parties. It was hard for you to break the ice with some of your Republican colleagues. And get to a place where a senior party leader like John McCain would co-sponsor an initiative on War powers. >> Yeah. >> Could you talk a little bit about the feel of, one at a time. Rep, with Senators on the other side of the aisle, and earning their trust so that you can work together, and- >> Sure. >> And then the philosophy behind it. >> Well I will. You know, I did come into the Senate, I mean, having been, you know, I'm a Democrat, and I was Chairman of the Democratic Party. So people knew I had been party chair, but I really worked hard as party chair to promote the president without name calling anybody. And, you know, I kind of considered it a, a little bit of an object of pride. I ran a 19 month campaign to be a, a senator. The other side scoured through every TV appearance I ever did to see if I was, you know, ever kind of frothing at the mouth. And beating up on the other side. And they could never find a single example of me, kind of going overboard. Now they would always point out, now this guy was the chairman of the Democratic party, he's partisan. But if I had ever on a radio show or on a TV show or something, kind of gone overboard. It would have been put up in living color for Virginians to see. I didn't do the party job that way, because I didn't feel like I needed to. So I was able to come into the Senate without having burned bridges. In fact, as party chair I was often on TV shows with Republicans and I'd be the point and they'd be counterpoint. But we wouldn't be at odds in a hostile way, and after the cameras stopped rolling we were getting to know one another. So I felt like I had the good beginnings of relationships. And, and what I'm doing, Jerry, is, every bill that I introduce, I work to find a Republican co-sponsor. For two reasons. First I'm no dummy, it's easier to get them passed that way. I mean that, that's one of the reasons to do it. If I'm in a body where I've got a Democratic majority but it's not a super majority. And there's a House with a Republican majority. The only bills that I'm likely to ever get passed are bills that would attract bipartisan support in both houses. So I always look for bipartisan sponsorship. But the second reason I do it is, I firmly believe that cooperation is like a muscle. I mean, and if you exercise it, it gets stronger and if you don't, it gets weaker. So you always have to demonstrate that you are making the effort. I, when I've done codels, my first year. My first year I did two codels. In both, it was multi-member codels, and I was the only Democrat. And these are Congressional Delegations, one to the Middle East, and one to Canada. And in both I was the only Democrat on the, on the codels. I affirmatively try, whether it's in the Bible study that I do, prayer group on Wednesday mornings. Or the time I go to the gym every morning, I know who's going to be there, and it's a mixed bunch of Dems and Rs. Or my committees, or the bills I introduce. I'm always trying to build those relationships because that's what look, that's what our voters want us to do. >> Yeah. You remind me that one of the great benefits of congressional travel was getting to know the other side of the aisle. And in fact, one of our students wrote a term paper on ways to reform the Congress. And one of their suggestions was to have, a public education effort to talk about the importance of going overseas together to look at countries. Where we're sending our men and women in harm's way, and we're sending our national treasure. >> It's yeah, very important. >> That's a natural segue, I've gotta ask you, with the time we have remaining a couple more questions. One has to do with reform options. We have studied, as a, as a body, a committee of the whole, our graduate students have studied options for reforming Congress. >> Mm-hm. >> unfortunately, those of us who live near Washington, are, are, are, aware of, of, how low Congress as an institution is in the public eyes. And my question is, are there realistic areas where significant reform could occur at such a moment in our history. And I give you a few examples, gerrymandering, campaign finance, the Citizens United decision, even term limits- >> Right. >> In some cases are, are on the short list for citizen groups on the left and the right. Filibuster reform as well. Do you think any of these are feasible politically? Are these just fodder for talk shows? >> no, no. Some, some are feasible so let me talk about and maybe move up in the and these are more difficult to do. We've already begun filibuster reform in the Senate. >> Right. >> And, and I view filibuster reform as sort of two halves. There's filibusters around nominees and there's filibusters around legislature. I actually think the Democrats have been right to, to make reforms of Senate procedural rules to facilitate the advice and consent. That's constitutionally mandated for presidential appointments. And we were in a position where it was so hard to get appointments through, that people's business wasn't getting done. There ought to be a prompt, and certain way to get Presidential appointees on the floor. For an up or down vote for executive and judicial positions, and in the Senate, we've made reforms to advance that. Now, the second half is on legislation, and I actually think on legislation, the Republicans have a pretty good. The minority party now has a pretty good critique of thing that are going on in the Senate, and they say. You don't give us enough opportunities to propose amendments to legislation. Legislation gets on the floor, you know, without getting into all the arcane technical terms. Democratic leadership would kind of say, okay, well it's on the floor. We're not going to really do any amendments, it's just up or down. And the minority party says, wait a minute. The one power a minority party would have is to really put meaningful amendments on the floor, debate them, try to improve a bill. So that we might if you know, eventually be able to vote for it. And if you don't give us the ability to do amendments, you're really shutting us out. And I think that the minority party has a good point in this. So we're now engaged in a discussion around see changing Senate rule, procedure rules around the legislative process. To open up more amendments, which I think would be great. We've gotta do something on the, on campaign finance, and the rule should be at a minimum no secret money. The, now the prevalence of campaign funding is into these 501C4 super pacts that don't have to disclose their donors. A fundamental principle is American public should be able to know who's financing campaigns. And so we ought to do things and, an, and its overwhelmingly popular with the public Democrat Republican and Independent, we ought to do things. >> Right, a poll [INAUDIBLE]. >> To make it transparent. And then finally one that I think is really important is re-districting reform. Now Congress, I don't know that Congress would have the plenary power to do redistricting reform. That would affect local boards of supervisors, state legislatures. But I think Congress could have the power to pass redistricting legislation. To inform the way that the states do Congressional reapportionment. Because it's a federal position, and the states. I don't think the states should be doing Congressional reapportionment. In ways that basically maximize sort of incumbent control which is what they do now. And so I am ve, I'm very interested and I'm talking to other members as well. About the possibility for congressional action on the congressional reapportionment. Now, it will still be done by state legislatures because the states go have control of the districts. But we could put you know, guidelines and a framework. >> Yes. >> In place, just like we do with the Voting Rights Act, and say, well, look, you can do things but you can't cross these lines. You've gotta do it the right way, not the wrong way. We could set out parameters and ask states to do the same thing about Congressional reapportionment. And if we did it would be very, very good thing. >> I know, it's an important antidote to the voters' sense that sometimes elected officials, and I guess I'm speaking to you now,. >> Yes. >> As elected official, you get to pick your own voters. >> Senators don't. >> And your House seats. Senators. [LAUGH] >> Unless you move to another state. >> No, no, no. But, Pennsylvania notoriously had a majority vote for Democratic house members. And the Republicans control the delegation 13 to 5, and the Democrats did the exact same thing for decades, in Texas and Illinois. >> Yeah, you can see it. I mean, Virginia is an example, Virginia's has gone for President Obama in the last two Presidential elections. But our, our House of Delegates is two-thirds, one-third Republican. That's not really the match for a state-wide electorate that's probably more 50/50. But that's what redistricting gets you. Redistricting should be done in a way that's not about maximizing incumbent control. >> Right.
