important and thorough contemporaneous record of a presidency that's ever existed. >> among other things, it does give the lie to the notion reagan was either lazy or undisciplined because he clearly , was the opposite of both. >> he was the most disciplined person i ever knew, he really was. he would show up every morning at 9:00 on the button in the oval office. when i was chief of staff, i used to be with him at 9:00. we would have a meeting that lasted no more than 30 minutes. he would start each meeting with a funny little story. and it was a meeting or two before i realized when he finished, he expected me to have a funny little story. that was his stock and trade. i treasured that. dole also had that same talent. he can put things in perspective, with humor, more effectively than most philosophers can do it with a serious dissertation and i admire that. >> do you think that's a real weapon in making the senate work. >> a tool, not a weapon, but a tool. it's extraordinarily valuable. and sometimes dole may be criticized as an rapier-like wit. i don't think of it like that but a quick mind that was able to put things in perspective. not everybody appreciated it. if you think back on it, most of the "rapier thrusts" require right on the mark. he still has that sense of humor. >> i always sensed, it sounds like a cliche. i think it's true of dole more than most people, he really never forgot where he came from. he is still at heart, he's still russell, kansas. >> that's right. >> there's an element of the populist in dole, there's a real disdain for pomposity and stuffed shirts bipartisan, the guchi and loafers and the lobbyists. the relationship with reagan, i would be interested to know, you were thinking about running in 1988 yourself. >> that's right. >> obviously, you put those plans on the shelf to become chief of staff. then you had this very unusual situation where the vice president is clearly running and your senate leader is running. how did the president handle that somewhat awkward thing? >> my recollection, richard, is that he didn't handle it at all. [laughter] he just let the chips fall where they would. he showed no preference. he showed no priority between them. i admired that. it was a delicate situation and unusual one. i don't think he ever did anything about it. certainly never talked to me about it. >> your sense is he had a very good relationship with dole? >> oh, yeah, had a great relationship with dole. i do remember the first time dole came to a leadership meeting. before it started, i went down a little early, he invited no do he asked about dole, he did. i don't remember what i said except it was favorable. he was curious about dole. as i recall, he's the only one he asked about. >> really? that's doubly interesting because the story in 1976, was that one of the reasons dole wound up being on the ticket was the people around florida, at least, had been led to believe he had reagan's -- whether that was in fact true or not. >> i have an old friend in tennessee, who has a philosophical statement that i've come to admire. he called me the other day and said, howard, we've reached the age, where most of the things we remember never happened. [laughter] it is more often true than not. >> it's been said -- i've heard it said that in some ways it's more fun to be minority leader than majority leader? >> don't you believe it. i've been both. majority is better. minority leader is interesting it's challenging. it may have fit dole's personality better than majority leader. >> how so? >> well, it did, because he was able to crystalize an issue and formulate a position that would go right to the heart of the issue. as majority leader, he had to take a lot of different opinions of different people and try to set aside the point of view. i must tell you, majority leader is the second best job in washington. i said that to ronald reagan once. he said, no, howard, it's the second best in washington. i said, mr. president, i'm sure that's so in terms of historical standing, but look around. i got a nice office, i have a big staff, i have a car, i have access to an airplane and i don't have secret service and i still have a life of my own. he thought for a minute, says, well, maybe so. [laughter] >> the -- i want to get back into the first reagan term. which was a revolutionary period in this country. almost a u-turn in a lot of ways policy, in the whole relationship of government and economy and an individual. dole was a good soldier. apparently a very effective soldier but he couldn't have , agreed with everything he was being asked to implement, did he? i mean, balanced budgets are almost spiritual things. i assume that's the result of where he came from and what he went through? >> right, right. that's right. no, i'm sure that's true, but the first thing you said that dole was a good soldier is the most important part of the conversation because he was. i cannot tell you that's where he acted against his own native instinct, but i'm sure there were. i can tell you, i never went -- when i was leader, i never went to bob dole and asked him something i felt he didn't want to do and he would respond in the affirmative. he had a heavy understanding of the importance of his role as a senator. he had a clear understanding of the relationship between the senate and the president. he did not confuse the two. he knew of the separation of powers and special responsibilities each had. it's as if he had studied at length and perhaps he had, how these relationships existed in the past, imperfect as they were. he was determined to create a new relationship that would best serve the country. i think he did that in large measure. i think he served as a model for all of us. i know he served as a model for me. >> how so? >> in establishing a willingness to talk to the white house but without feeling it's -- you were in a subordinate role. dole was never in a subordinate role. dole was dole, and nobody doubted that. >> the implication is that the >> the implication is that the dole operating in 1982, 1981 1983 is different from the freshman senator of 1969, 1968 1970? >> it was absolutely different. but that difference is something that happens to all, i think conscientious members of the senate. different after a month or a year, or your first term. as you begin to understand the relationships and responsibilities. and when you're no longer overwhelmed by your own importance. i remember a senator from new hampshire, it may have been my first day in the senate, i was going -- did go into the senate chamber and he was there to greet me, as were others, and he said, howard, can you smell the marble? >> i said, senator, i don't think so, i don't think marble has a smell. he said, yes, it does. once you smell it, you'll be ruined for life. i thought about that a lot. i don't think i ever smelled marble and certainly bob dole never smelled marble. >> conservatives don't like to hear the word "grow" because you know, he grew in office, that means he moved left. can you explain what real growth is and why it does tend to terrify the right? >> no, i cannot. it varies from time-to-time. it's that old saying, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. i don't think you necessarily grow to the right. in my own case, forgive me for bringing up my own experience, in my own case, i think i grew to the left. not by design, but by force of circumstance. the panama canal was a good example in my life career. i started out in the mainstream, republican opposition to the panama canal treaty. the more i thought about it and studied it, the more i was convinced i was wrong and i should support it, and i did. for those who care to see, i'll show them the scars and bruises about my head and shoulders. there's some who say -- some in tennessee think i'm a bolshevik. i'm someone who grew to -- >> that's what i mean, growth is almost assumed to be kind of a coopting by the left. >> that's right. dole is certainly regard eded certainly regarded that way by some in the party. what does that say about where the party is going in the last 25 years? >> yeah. well, i don't know. but i think the party is permanent. i think it is not about to collapse. i think its center of gravity will shift and change. i think it's an essential part of our governing mechanism and must endure. >> for example, you both came into this position, dole strikes me, like gerald ford, as a kind of midwest conservative, whose conservativism in many ways is grounded in economics, who had a kind of healthy, you know, healthy skepticism about what government could do particularly overnight, particularly to bring about the millennium. at the same time, a healthy, leave me alone, not a libertarian but basically, , government should probably stay out of the classroom, out of the board room and out of the bedroom. that's not for the public discourse. yet clearly, in your political career, that line has been crossed and conservativism was redefined. how uncomfortable, if at all was that process of having the social issues increasingly come to define conservetism. >> it certainly was important to me and bob dole. the party and country has moved. we owe a responsibility to understand that and respond to it. not necessarily agree to it but to understand that. >> you mention how it has moved. my dad was at the house for many years, and he was adamantly opposed to any sort of federal aid to education either directly or implication. now, it's an article of faith, if you're in the house or senate, you better get our share. it's a big share anymore. it's changed. change, once again, is one of the hallmarks of a vibrant economy and democracy. it will continue to change. i don't know how it will change, it may go forward or backward or sideways. change is not a bad word. and it is inevitable in my view. in terms of parties themselves you hear republicans or are conservative and democrats are liberal. they're neither in my view. their center of gravity will vary from time-to-time, new -- and be conservatives and moderates in one party or the other. those things will change. but the great center still runs america. i don't think it's a mathematical center. i think bob dole understood this more than anybody, it's not a mathematical center, but rather a consensus view that certain things are at the center of our political system. that's what should drive our determination of other more complex issues. >> i remember dole telling me about you and jesse helms. it was a vote -- literally jesse's was the vote, i don't know whether -- but what of those post 1981 tax -- >> i remember. i guess in 'february of '81, the i guess in february of 1981, the first serious challenge i had as the new majority leader, the first republican leader since bill noland of california, the first challenge i had was when we had to vote on a debt limit increase. i assumed that would all go ok i began to count heads, i think howard green came to me and said, i don't believe you will win this. i got a bunch of freshmen senators in the office around my conference table and we talked and carried on. it was clear i hadn't convinced anybody and we were going to lose that thing. as i went out i saw jesse helms. i said jesse, i have a big problem. i don't think i am going to get these new freshmen senators to vote for the debt limit increase. after we voted. he said howard can i talk to them. i said of course. so he came back in, jesse did. jesse helms. they were all gathered there. and he said, gentlemen. i understand you are not going to vote for this debt limit increase the and they said i understand that many of you ran against it. i want you to know i never voted for a debt limit increase. beforehand, ronald reagan is my president and i am going to do it and so are you. and i got all but one. [laughter] but that was strom thurmond did the same thing. your earlier question -- what affected senior service have on the new members. in that case, the one with experience had a profound effect on the outcome of that vote. and without success at that vote, i don't know what our leadership would have been like. >> i remember asking george mitchell if he could describe what it is, whatever quality or qualities, dole had that made him succeed. in the leadership position. he said it was a combination of things but almost a sixth sense about what combination of personalities and legislation change. what mix would work. it's not something you can quantify. it is not something you can learn in a textbook. >> not only that it is not really an intellectual exercise. it is more a personality arrangement. you sort of sense these things rather than hear them or understand them. you sort of guess. but if you guess right, you usually win. >> psychological gift. in some ways. >> not based on a check. it's based on how you evaluate the person's basic views, beliefs, prejudice and his oppositions. but that is the quality of leadership. i think dole had it in spades. >> but that suggests that you get to know all of your colleagues? inside-out? >> you got to know them. it is more than that. it's hard for me to tell you what i think about this. i don't think it is just knowing them. in some strange way you have got to understand. you have got to be able to anticipate what they're going to say on a particular issue. maybe that's too ethereal for this circumstance, but that's what i think. >> that's not something you can teach in a classroom? >> no, it is not something you can emulate. either you have got it and do it or you don't. >> do you sense he was impatient? >> dole? >> dole. >> oh, yeah. he was impatient. ambitious, and sometimes criticized for being over ambitious. i never thought that. >> dan rostenkowski told his story, that oh, gosh, before the budget talks, before the government shutdown. >> the first government shutdown. >> yeah. bill clinton called him. and he said, ok, tell me something about dole. he said, give me a leg up. you know, what are we negotiating. he went on about what a great guy dole was. he is the most impatient man on the planet. he said there will come a time when he -- when he will be so desperate to get out of the room he will just give you whatever you want. that may be an exaggeration. and yet, that's the fascinating thing. that impatience that i saw and yet what you are talking about and what senator mitchell talked about requires an extraordinary amount of patience. to know people. to wait all night. if that's what it takes to bring these things together. >> impatience is a tool. dole was not arbitrary or capricious in his opposition. is grounded in deep conviction on a variety of issues. he is a man who will listen, that is what i would have said. he was a tough adversary. i was surprised that he was elected as my successor. >> when did you decide you were going to run? >> about a year and a half before i -- >> why? >> always felt that being in congress was not a lifetime job. my wife had terminal cancer then. i had to take care of her. so i left. i had no regrets about that. i will always be grateful for the 18 years i served in the senate. but i had no difficulty in leaving. but the question of my successor came to be very interesting. i thought, i think most people felt that ted stevens would succeed. some thought no it will be pete diminicci. others thought this, that, and the other. i don't felt that most anybody felt that bob dole was going to be elected majority leader. >> and why? >> no. i don't know why. that's what i think. and i also remember, you know, i didn't vote. i was not going to be back, but i was there. my role as sitting majority leader. i remember the chairman of the policy committee and thus responsible for the election. i remember when they announced the vote. i think, one vote, two votes. they elected. and he leaned over john green and he said burn the ballots so nobody would ask for a recount. bob dole was a fortunate choice. i congratulated him then. and i congratulate him now. he served with distinction. >> a couple of quick things. is the key job of the majority leader persuasion? >> it is a combination of things. certainly persuasion is part of it, but not the only part of it. it is too complex to define in this brief time, but it is not just persuasion. >> that has great power. the younger members want to get on the agenda or get a particular point across, the majority leader has almost unchallenged authority to deal with that. i cannot remember a single time when i was majority leader that i set a schedule and anybody successfully challenged it. that is a powerful thing. and that may be persuasion, may be intimidation. it is powerful and more than just persuasion. but i would say, yeah, the majority leader is ill-defined not constitutional or statutory, but the second best job in washington. >> when dole was running for president, 1988, and in 1996 decided wrenchingly to leave the senate. it was harder for him to go than you to go? >> i think so, probably. yeah. >> did he ask for advice? >> did he ask me for advice? >> yes. >> >> no. nor would i have volunteered advice. everybody has to make that decision. that is a very personal decision. nobody advised me. i would not have advised dole if he asked. >> how do you think, say, ten, 20 years from now. a generation that for whom bob dole is a name in a history book, how do you think dole should be remembered? what is his -- >> that is a very good question, richard. i have given a little thought to that not because i want to write the history book just because it is a natural thing to think about. i think dole will be remembered first as emblematic of world war ii. and that he shed credit on those who survived the war and those who then went on to be of service in the country. that's no small achievement that is something to be remembered for. as i drive by the new world war ii memorial, i thought about that the other day. he will be remembered not just for the stones and pillars which were originally richly deserved but , he will be remembered as a legacy of that tradition. that's what he will be remembered for. and that the generation that fought world war ii came back and continued their service to the country in a variety of ways including in the senate. and bob dole is -- a good example of that. >> on c-span, former members of congress who died this year. next, a speech by jim jeffords when he changed party affiliations in 2001. then congressman james traficant addresses congress. later, an interview with bill frenzel. then an interview with former committee chair jim oberstar. >> on the next washington journal, we look ahead to the 114th congress and the new republican majority, the largest majority since 19 28th. more about the new congress with the daily beast, discussing the liberal and progressive general. plus, your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets. washington journal, alive at 11 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> new year's day on the c-span network, here are some of our featured programs. 10:00 a.m. eastern energy conservation with david crane tigre pickens, worn brown, and dean kamen. at 4:00 p.m. eastern, the historical society holds a conversation on race. 8:00 p.m. eastern, from the explorers club apollo seven astronaut on the first manned spaceflight. new year's day on c-span2, just before noon eastern, hector towbar on the 33 man -- men buried in chilean mine. richard norton smith on the life of nelson rockefeller. 8:00 p.m. eastern, former investigative correspondent for cbs news cheryl attkisson under expenses reporting on the obama administration. new year's day on american history tv on c-span3, at 10:00 a.m. eastern, why need a abernathy on her experiences in the role of women in the civil rights movement. at 4 p.m., brooklyn college professor on the link between alcohol and politics in pre-lever lucian or new york city. at 8:00 p.m., patrick a draws 10 presidential characters as historian david mccullough discusses the presidents and their memorable qualities. new year's day on the c-span networks. for a complete schedule, go to c-span.org. >> we continue with from on senator jim jeffords, who died in august. senator jeffords upset the balance of power in senate by switching from republican to independent. the change gave the democrats as the majority. senator jeffords spoke to the media about his decision during a news conference in burlington. this is 15 minutes. >>[applause] >> it has really grown since i've been away. [laughter] good morning. anyone that knows me, knows that i love vermont. vermont has always been known for its independence and social conscience. it was the first state to outlaw slavery. it elected matthew lyon to the congress, notwithstanding his fighting of the sedition act. the higher share of his sons in the civil war than perhaps any other state in the union. i recall vermont senator ralph flanders statement 50 years ago, helping to bring to a close on the mccarthy hearings, a sordid chapter in our history. today's chapter is a much smaller consequence. i think it is appropriate that i share my thoughts with my fellow vermonters. for the past several weeks, i have been struggling with a very difficult decision. it is difficult on a personal level, but even more difficult because of the larger impact in the senate. and also the nation. i have been talking with my family and a few close advisers about whether or not i should remain republican. i do not approach this question lightly. i has been a lifetime in the republican party. i have served 12 years in what i believe is the longest continuous republican seat in history. i ran for reelection as a republican justice past fall. i had no thoughts whatsoever then of changing parties. the party i grew up in was the party of george aikins, ernest gibson, l sanders, bob stafford. these names may not mean much they outside vermont, but each served vermont as republican senator in the 20th century. i became a republican, not because i was born into the party, but because of the kind of fundamental principles that these and many republicans stood for, moderation, tolerance fiscal responsibility. their party, our party, was the party of lincoln. to be sure, we had our differences in the vermont republican party, but even are more conservative leaders were in many ways progressive. our former governor championed act 250 which preserved our environmental heritage. in vermont, calvin coolidge, our nation's 30th president, good point with pride to his state and the willingness to sacrifice in the service of others. aiken, gibson, flanders, stafford -- they were all republicans, but they were vermonters first. they spoke their minds, often to the dismay of their party leaders, and they did their best to guide the party in the direction of those fundamental principles they believed in. for 26 years in washington, first in the house of representatives, now in the senate, i have tried to do the same. i can no longer do so as a republican. increasingly, i find myself in disagreement with my party. i understand that many people are more conservative than i am, and they form the republican party. given the changing nature of the national party, it has become a struggle for our leaders to do with me and for me to do with them. indeed, the party's electoral success has underscored the dilemma that i face within the party. the past, the various wings of the republic and party in congress have had some freedom to argue and influence, and ultimately to shape the party's agenda. the election of president bush change that dramatically. it is only natural to expect that people like myself, who have been honored with positions of leadership, were largely support the president's agenda. and yet, more and more, i find i cannot. those who do not know me may thought i took pleasure in resisting the president's budget. or that i enjoy the limelight. nothing could be further from the truth. i had serious substantive reservations about that budgets as you all know. the decision set in place for the future. looking ahead, i can see more and more instances where i would disagree with the president on very fundamental issues, the issues of choice, the direction of the judiciary, taxes, spending, missile defense, energy, and the environment. and a host of other issues, large and small. the largest for me is education. i come from the state of a u.s. senator from vermont who gave america this land-grant college system. his republican party stood for opportunity for all, for opening the doors of public school education to every american child. now, when success seems to be measured why the number students. in order to best represent my state of vermont, my own conscience and printable sites to for my whole life, i will be the republican party and become an independent. control of the senate -- [applause] sorry for that. control of the senate will be changed by my decision. [applause] i am sorry for that interruption, but i understand it. i will make this change and will caucus with the democrats for organizational purposes. once the conference report on the tax bill is it to the president, i gave my word to the president that i would not try to intervene in the signing of that bill. my colleagues, many of them my friends for years, may find it difficult in their hearts to be friends with me any longer. many of my supporters will be disappointed. some of my staffers will see the lives of ended. i regret this for a much. having made my decision, the weight has been lifted from my shoulders, but now hangs heavy on my heart. i was not elected to this office to be something i am not. this comes as no surprise to vermonters because independence is the vermont way. [applause] my friends back home have supported and encouraged my independence. i appreciate the support they have shown when have agreed with me, and their patients when they have not. i will ask for their support and patience again, which i understand will be very difficult for a number of my close friends. i have informed president bush, vice president cheney, of my decision. they are good people with whom i disagree. they have been fair and decent to me. i have informed the senator my decision. three of these four men disagree with my decision to. but i hope each understood my reason. it is entirely possible the fourth one may have second thoughts down the road. that's the way it is. i have changed my party label but i have not changed my beliefs. indeed, my decision is about affirming the principles that have shaped my career. i hope that the people of vermont will understand it. i hope that in time my colleagues will as well. i am confident that it is the right decision. yes? >> what do you say to the people who -- [applause] [indiscernible] >> i understand. i'm sorry ahead no expectation of this. >> [indiscernible] >> i was not the campaign chairman, but that is a small point. i believe that the time and had hoped the time that those of us -- not just myself, and i speak for many moderates in the party who had high hopes when the president spoke of education and when he gave his dedication to education. i had hoped that we would be able to follow him. i praised the president or his education package. it will alert this nation, every student, every school, every state will know exactly how bad they are. that is the probably have with it. there are terrible problems out there that will have to be solved, and that is why in the budget process i stood up and said no, we can't give all his money back. we have too many high priorities, education number one. we have got to provide the resources for the president's plan. if the resources are not there it will be measuring the school systems. i told the president personally. i could not after that sustained the direction of the budgetary process. you know i stood up and we succeeded in getting $300 billion extra to spend. >> do you feel the president has not lived up to his campaign promise? >> i don't remember a promise to fund. he gives a promise for a new direction in education. a promise without funding is not a useful direction at all. >> has their personal treatment had anything to do with this? >> nothing. it is laughable at times. you get upset with it, but that had nothing to do with it. >> when did you make your decision? >> i made my decision yesterday on the way down. i'll tell you why. i met with the moderates yesterday. it was the most emotional time of ever had in my life, with my closest friends urging me not to do what i plan to do. it affected their lives substantially. i know for instance that the chairman of the finance committee had dreamed all his life of chairman, now he's chairman for a couple weeks, and he will no longer be the chairman. all the way down the line, i could see the anguish and the disappointment as i talked. i told him i would not make my final decision until i had time on the way to vermont. i did leave it open. i cannot justify not going forward. >> last question. last question. >> [indiscernible] >> i have communicated with them . i've had conversations with them on the phone to make sure they understood what i was doing and why was doing it. >> thank you very much. thank you very much. [applause] >> wednesday net on c-span, remember the celebrity's who died in 2014, starting with robin williams. here's a look. >> the bottom line is we are here tonight because of the shrub. you know who i'm talking about. george w. bush junior. the w stands for, where the hell is it. you rely some men are born great,'s some achieve greatness and some get it as a graduation gift. [applause] i just one ask the secret service, it is his secret service name gilligan? gilligan's on the move, little buddy, keep going. i hate to see him keep asking if he can use his lifeline. no. can't do it. can't tell you. not going to do it. yes. not the brightest bulb on the tree. so frightening. i don't want to see him in charge of the economy. it's like giving oj a benihana. no. no. >> we remember celebrities who died in 2014, including robin williams, maya angelou, ruby dee. that is it a :00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. book tv and primetime continues wednesday night on c-span2 starting at a pm eastern with walter isaacson on his book, the innovators how a group of hackers created the digital revolution. at 915 eastern igods. after that, dragnet nation, a request for privacy, security, and freedom in the world of relentless surveillance. finally, adam tanner, the world of personal data, lifeblood of big business, and the end of privacy as we know it. book tv and prime time, each night this week on c-span two. >> our in memoriam program continues with james traficant. he represented the 17th district of ohio and was one on for outspoken speeches on the house floor. he died in september at the age of 73. in 2002, congress voted to expel him after he was convicted on 10 bribery accounts. -- 10 felony counts, including bribery. >> you heard on the news, the first national news story that i was involved in a scheme by contract. it made national headlines news. the one was a friend of mine. she was so distraught, she called me by phone. i did know what she was talking about. she called and recanted after they put her in protective custody for it weeks, paid her a hundred dollars, and when she said she committed no crime then they demeaned her. through the process, they told her to ensure her safety to go public. now, if you are a juror -- if that is not poisoning, what is? the next one was a $150,000 addition. i'm an old chair. finally a man with a conscience gems of and says i want to apologize. they were going to indict me, takeaway my business, ruin my life, my attorney said why do you have to spend $500,000. tell them what they want to hear. i did. i felt like a coward. immediately, went back to my office for an affidavit. the next day, he called the girlfriend and admitted what he said. now, on the get right to the point. i want you to imagine that there is a small army of patriots and they are facing a gigantic army armed to the teeth. the captain, trying to show strength, tells his assistant to go to the tents and get my bright red vest. he puts the red vest on says come to show the power encourage of our people, without a side arm i'm going to carry the sword. the blood will not be seen because of my bright red vest and you'll be encouraged to fight for our homeland. he ran out into battle and was destroyed. his assistant came up and called his attendant. he say go to the tent and give it is dark brown pants. think about it. tonight i have dark pants on. in my skid to death? no. -- am i scared to death? no. i will go to jail before resigning the to something i did not do. i will go case-by-case. the judge's husband is a senior partner in a law firm that represented one of the key witnesses in my case and that is not part of legal action. in addition, i'm not going to mention names, that person admitted to giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to politicians. he said he gave me $50,000 bribe because we're at a public meeting. he said we waited until everyone left, walked out together, sat in his car, and gave me his money. one of my attorneys is a bright young attorney -- the chief judge of the northern district of ohio and he said, what do you want me to do. i came to that event when you're trying to put sales-tax together to leverage funds i walk you out in sight you get in the rain truck. another witness said he would pick me up in the green truck. i would to get my truck and went to put the hood up. they accepted the false testimony, even though he admitted to lying in a previous rico trial. that is one count. he is a patriot. i did not subpoena him because his attorney said don't subpoena him, subpoena me. i did it. i felt sorry for him. before i was indicted, i have a tape where he says everything on that tape that he told the ethics committee. he said, i think i'm living in red china. now let's look at a few affidavits. dealing with david sugar. just yesterday, caught up with. they might pull me into jail for being out of my district. with one of my staffers close by, he admitted that he told harry that after the second fbi visited, because he backdated some invoices, that he did not lie. he would not only be divided -- and i did, his wife, his daughter also. now, in addition to that amendment of joe stable told another constituent three days ago i feel so bad for jim david sugar told me the same thing. he said to me, i would love to help you. now he sang in the paper, i never said that. his attorney said, he admits to meeting traficant, but did nothing illegal. now let's talk about tony. his agreement, brother and coupon of fugitive warrant here's what he said $12,000 worth of work on the traficant farm and he owned me. not all of you know me. if you think someone on me, you throw me to hell out of here. witnesses testify that i asked him for jackhammers because we had a farm. i never had a farm. i asked him to let me use the jackhammer, and he said it was an insurance problem. the he said, i don't want you to do that. you get to close the barn and drop it in. and that's what happened folks. and that whole arm fell down. he came out and help me to prop it up. it cause my dad $15,000. guess what? he said yesterday that his building happen to be firebombed last week. now all the records are missing. sinclair, now look, your prosecutors, mr. callahan made a hell of a point. i want the prosecutor think, you really want jim traficant. didn't allow me to testify. all my tapes -- even on those who took the fifth amendment. he lied through his teeth. his sister told me that there were three brothers and he was my friend. she said he was sick. they took into florida where he had his leg amputated, brought him back and are children did not even attend the funeral. she submitted an affidavit and testified. god almighty here. now -- the prosecutor said traficant is too intelligent to be taped. why didn't a fake body injuries? i have a divisive i could take you right now, your conversation in the midst of all of this and you would not know you're being taped. the number one target in the united states, the number was not cap. they did not when he get an admission. they did not want to get traficant saying go to that grand jury and do this. everybody that testified against me would have gone to jail and lost a law license and ruined their lives. a brother-in-law testifies. he said his brother-in-law told him that he was taped by someone that he had bribed a county engineer hundreds of millions of dollars. he told his brother-in-law that he'd go to jail for 10 years and was $15 million and all they wanted was traficant. he told his brother that he added up all the campaign contributions. you know was amazing? it not allow the brother-in-law who is subject to jeopardy being sentenced in another case to testify. guess what i did? said i did this in a barn. i said what on was a question mark he could not identify the barn. or was i doing in a barn? he were cleaning the horses -- he said you were cleaning the horses holds -- cold is. anybody else in the barn? the juried into that one out. i have an affidavit on every one of these counts. sandy testified. over a period of years, money that i borrowed from. when the irs nailed me, they took me to civil court and i made $2400 a month. that just ran out and now they are going to put me in jail for 12 years, take everything my wife and i owned. i'll go to jail, but i'll be dammed if i'll be pressured by a government that pressured these witnesses to death, to get a conviction on their number one target in the country. jim, an fbi special agent said if you get us anything like traficant, we will build a monument to you. i got an affidavit from a guy from canada that i helped in a case where 11 chinese were arrested. he said, i want to thank jim traficant publicly. they said, stay away from traficant. i had an fbi agent who compromised one of my constituents. she said, i don't want my 87-year-old mother-in-law bothered. i'll be dammed if somebody's going to -- [inaudible] one of my constituents. >> the gentleman will avoid profanity or indecent language. >> how much time do i have left? >> 3.5 minutes remaining. the gentleman is recognized. >> i have an affidavit of a scott brodie, sat through the whole trial -- i'd like your attention. i got this affidavit today about an hour before i came here. he was released today's before the trial -- two days before the trial. his aunt died. when he came back, he was dismissed. scott brodie, he said he knew the prosecutor would help him out. he said, i knew jim drop against was innocent. he said, i can see how he impeached the witnesses. mr. berman said there was a recant. this is today's newspaper. mr. glaser said he didn't recant. on the evidence, he couldn't see himself convicting jim traficant. mr. brodie told the woman next to him -- i tried to get an avid ffidavit from her. her attorney informed us that she was afraid to get involved. [inaudible] look here. [indiscernible] that technology is already used on our submarines and our naval aircraft carriers. bring those jobs, bring those headquarters from manassas. i've helped everybody in my district. i didn't even like some of them. when they have 150 employees -- [indiscernible] did i write letters to secretary of state? yes. did i write letters to secretary of commerce? yes. department of transportation? yes. but here is where i'm at tonight. i have been pressured for 20 years. in 1996, read this, dear sheriff, after listening to -- [indiscernible] i decided to come forward. i would not lie. i'm proud now that i did not lie. enclosed is my truthful affidavit. here is what they wanted him to say. he was outside the door and heard a bribery deal. he didn't mention the $10,000. [indiscernible] he owed me money, never gave me the titles. flying members of congress around, getting senators' girlfriends gifts, but you get out of jail free by getting the man right here. you must take america back. don't be surprised if i don't win behind bars. the american people are afraid of their government. why are we afraid of our government? i want you to listen to this. [indiscernible] they brought a 30-year veteran from philadelphia. seven trips in 40 days, a quarter million dollars, and all he did was add up the numbers the prosecutor gave him. he said he did no investigation. when he left, he was so confused that he walked into the edge of the jury. listen carefully. when it comes to fingerprints, the judge smiled like a fox. she dismissed the jury. the prosecutor says, your honor -- [inaudible] 1000 documents. listen to this. he said, the one time i gave him an envelope and he took it immediately to the fbi. i'm an old sheriff. look, you tell traficant -- [indiscernible] what i'm trying to tell you is, there is no physical evidence. when you talk about $2500 -- [inaudible] after i left my employment for 22 months, $2500 didn't go. an employee said he earned $50,000 from me and $50,000 from the government. he spent $60,000 on advertising. folks, they went back 15 years on a horse transaction. they couldn't find -- [inaudible] if you drink five gallons of gatorade, you are going to expend five gallons of gatorade somewhere in one of these restrooms. you know what you have before you? we are getting to the point where a case can be brought for conspiring to buy kellogg's cereal. i'm prepared to lose everything. i'm prepared to go to jail. i'm going to tell you what -- [indiscernible] you know what jim traficant said about janet reno? the administration wants them out. i said this on radio. i called janet reno a traitor. i believe in my heart, she is. i believe monica and henry were not that important, but i think that red army chinese general -- i'm going to tell it like it is. [indiscernible] the democrats didn't want clinton and the party hurt, you let it slide. janet reno if i don't go to jail, i'll be in orlando. you aren't going to be elected to any damn thing. how much time do i have left? >> the gentleman has 22 minutes left. i would caution the gentleman to please avoid profanity, indecent language. the gentleman should address the chair and not other members by their first names. the gentleman may proceed. >> it is tough to comply with some of those rules. it was brought up, why don't you go to speaker hastert? hastert owes you. i didn't go to speaker. you go ahead and expelled me. you made the irs, the fbi, the justice department so strong. i want to thank bill archer and the republican party. 12 years, i tried to change the burden of proof to protect the american peoples' homes from being seized. those details are relevant to my case and the irs hates me for it. the law was passed in 1998. 95% of the american public wanted the traficant bill. the republican chairman called me and said, we are going to put your burden of proof in and put your language on seizure in the conference, and wrote me a letter giving me the credit. let me give you the statistics that i'm proud of and i want to share. this may be the last time i'm employed, and i expect it. the year before compared to the year after the law -- [indiscernible] thank you, mr. archer. property liens dropped to 161,000. seizures of individual family-own homes dropped to 57 in 50 states. congratulations. i want to fight these people. i want to fight them like a junkyard dog. they tied my hands behind my back and that first vote was 7-5. i'm not going to get into the personal dynamics. there were some people that were predisposed to vote against me and that upset him. by the way, one of the jurors said, it is unfortunate, but most of those members of congress are crooks anyway. i don't think we are crooks. i never ripped off -- [indiscernible] i have a lot of hispanics. yes, i voted for mr. dornan. i got legal precedent by allowing legal immigrants to vote in the election. i'm sorry, but that's the way it is. since then i think you have been an excellent member. if you've been offended by that i'm sorry. i will say this -- [indiscernible] i think anybody who jumps the fence shouldn't be made a citizen. they should be thrown out. i'm saddened to my heart i can't vote on it. i don't know how much time i have left. show me one piece of physical evidence. mr. d tour spent $600,000 and is now without an attorney. his last attorney, he paid $239,000 to, went to the judge and said, i don't know anything and ask to be withdrawn from the case. he had already given $239,000. one thing rang true. every one of the witnesses that testified -- they had some witnesses scared to death. a few witnesses had already gone to jail. you know what i don't blame anyone of you. i think if they had something on -- i'm going to say this, that is violating the sanctity of this house. he said, i will not lie. if they indict me, go ahead and indict me. he talked about $1000. why did you pay so much? i rented a corvette because i wanted a car to drive and speak at one of the events. i had the car for three weeks. it got picked up on 395. i ended up paying $6,000. i paid for it and got the records. everything i paid was by check or a credit card. no cash in 20 years. my god, if you don't give me a right to appeal a judge -- [indiscernible] who is our last bastion of appeal? speaker, i voted for you. i thought you were better for this country. i thought this program was better. i apologize for my comments. it was in the heat of the moment. i apologize for those words. with that, i retain the balance of my time. >> wednesday night, we remember celebrities who died in 2014 including robin williams, maya angelou, and an actor and civil rights activist. q&a is 10 years old. to mark a decade of conversations, we are featuring interviews from each year. wednesday, nancy gibbs and michael duffy discuss their book , "the presidents club." that is at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. in memoriam continues with minnesota republican congressman bill frenzel, who died this year at the age of 88. he was best known for his work as ranking member. congressman frenzel discussed the budget deal which established rules for federal spending that still exist today. when president bush signed the bill, he was accused by many of breaking his so-called no new taxes pledge. this is 10 minutes. >> congressman frenzel, you are the ranking republican on the house budget committee with chairman panetta. he gave me a comment that you were in the minority. but you did vote for the final package. i don't recall if you voted for the first package. welcome, and thank you for your willingness to share your memories of that agreement. >> i'm honored to be sitting in a nice senator's seat with all these luminaries who worked so hard on that venture. first, i think i ought to say, i subscribe to the sununu theory of what happened. i think he outlined it pretty much according to my recollection. when he got done, i said it was pretty good except he was too easy on newt. it is my warmth and charm. [laughter] i have some comments, but we all look at the thing differently depending on where we sat. because i set at the lowest rung on the ladder, my perceptions of what happened are probably undoubtedly, going to be less valuable than most of the other people who sat there. i look at the differences between now and 1990. we have the divided government. we had it then. 1990 was easier, because as bill hoagland often points out, we didn't have a debt ratio weighing on us. we had a significant deficit, of course, but the long-term looked possible if we could solve the short-term problems. that was different and easier. also, in 1990, the parties were competitive, but they were not polarized as they are today. in those days, the bad guys were the opposition. today, they are the enemy. there is a world of difference between those two words. yes, we had some distrust. also, we had some ability to work with each other and believe each other. it made life easier at that time. there were other divisions in the congress. the party polarization today tends to make it republicans versus democrats all the way. there were other factions in those days, the budgeteers versus appropriators etc., that cut across some of those party lines. the most important difference, in my judgment, is that there was less outside pressure on the negotiators from radio and tv extremists lobbyists, core constituencies, users of social media, etc. mostly, the negotiators went under political anonymity. they went in the press, but they didn't get 500 e-mails every minute and they didn't have people featuring them on tv and crucifying them with regularity. i don't want to stay on this too long, but for me there are some lessons in both of these. one is that in budget matters never rely on regular order. it doesn't work. agreement -- when everybody has a veto, nothing gets done. the agreement such as was forged in 1990 takes both leadership and followership. we credited all the leaders and we know who they were. you also have to give credit to those who followed. johnson knew new pointed out -- john sununu pointed out there were those who did not follow. you need to appoint a few people to do the negotiating and let them be the leaders, and hope that others follow. as a minority house negotiator, i believe that my single most important contribution to that agreement in 1990 was that i did not get in the way of anybody doing important things. the final negotiations have to be done at the top, and they have to have some support, as john pointed out. republican support fell apart in the house. as an interesting aside, i would mention that there is suspicion that that may be afoot again this year. house negotiators may not have the full support on the republican side, as we didn't have in 1990. i think john was right about the opposition bubbling up pretty much at the end of the process. i'm really not a very perceptive fellow, but it didn't occur to me until the week before the first vote came up that we were getting into trouble and that we had a lot of falling off. another rule for me is that headlines are crucial. without them, negotiations never end. i thought six months was much too long in 1990. we are in our fourth year now and getting nowhere. i suppose one advantage this year is the fiscal cliff is a deadline. something is going to have to be done, whether it is the right thing, i don't know. on another rule for me is, ignore the outsiders. don't give the core constituencies or the lobbyists much time. they are going to always be mad at you. get the job done as quickly as you can under the rules before the extremists turn up the pressure. i guess another rule for me is if you turn down a responsible deal, you will get a worse one. that is exactly what happened to john and me in 1990. the republicans in the house knew that they were going to sentence themselves to a worse deal. they apparently were perfectly willing to let that happen. turned out to be a better deal for david. congratulations. and a worse one for us. another thought that i learned from david a long time ago is that no deal is perfect. even the deal that we republicans thought was less good in 1990 did help lead to those clinton surpluses a few years later. any kind of a good deal is going to be disliked by everybody as two speakers have already pointed out. those who vote for it are likely to lose their jobs. i would urge them to do so anyway. even in a recession, there's probably better work out there than congress anyway. thank you. >> on the next "washington journal," william kristol looks ahead to the new congress. then, more about the new congress as michael tom askey discusses the liberal and progressive agenda. plus, your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets, all on "washington journal." >> wednesday night, we remember celebrities who died in 2014, including robin williams, maya angelou, and actor and civil rights activist ruby dee. our in memoriam programming concludes with minnesota congressman jim oberstar. he was best known for his work as transportation committee chairman. mr. oberstar minnesota's longest-serving congressman died in may at the age of 79. in 2010 he conducted an interview with c-span just before retiring. this is 30 minutes. >> chairman oberstar, i want to start with partisanship, if we could. first of all, let's stay with the home state. help me understand a state that can support the dfl and the tea party? >> i think this was a unique year of a national wave of reaction against a number of national issues. they did converge in minnesota. they did next door and wisconsin. that could virgin's of anger -- that convergence of anger, lack of understanding perception that the country was off course just came together. we lost the minnesota state senate for the first time since 1972. not only lost the majority lost a 2/3 majority. similarly in the minnesota state house. in my own district, a fringe area around the suburbs, there was a swing. all the state legislators lost in that area. yet, we elected a democrat to the governors office. that was a curious outcome. but it affirms the independence of minnesota voters. >> did you see this coming? >> i knew from the very beginning of the year after the obama inaugural that we were in for a very difficult year. this is a transition election. it was a transformational time. presidents proposed very challenging options for the congress and the american people. we had a huge debt override. we had massive unemployment. and the troubled assets relief program to manage, to deal with. i knew in january we were not going to get these problems solved by the time of the next election. i had prepared by campaign staff that we would have to work very hard and a lot of outreach and take on these issues. but not shrink from the tough looks. health care, i knew, was going to be the toughest. for me, this is something very visceral. in 1948, the steelworkers union, which my father was a founder. in fact, he had card number one in 1937. in 1948, they were negotiating contracts with mixed steel and propose coverage of health insurance and retirement in their contract. the steel company's appeal to the regulations board that said that retirement and health insurance are not subject of contract negotiations. harry truman won the election. he had come to the iron range, he had spoken at a big rally there. he replaced the chairman of the national labor relations board. the steelworkers union appealed the previous decision. the board ruled that health insurance and retirement are extensions of pay. three years later, 1952, the steel workers went on strike for 150 days. i brought lunch buckets out to my father and other men who were on strike. i remember it well. they won. they prevailed. over time, they improved their inclusion of health insurance and retirement pay in their contract negotiations. i wish my father lived long enough to see the day we passed a national health insurance program. it isn't universal coverage, it isn't single-payer, but it is a vast improvement. >> we had in a series of these interviews with members who are not coming back about the fact that over the course of the last 25 or 30 years, it has been a time of growth in the united states. it has always been building in growth for the most part. we are in $14 trillion worth of debt right now. the current congress will find ways to trim government. the question that comes to mind, is it more fun being a congressman when you were there or for the current crop? >> i served on the budget committee for six years during the reagan era. we spent hours and hours of finding ways to trim the spending cut that program, and meet the goals of deficit reduction. it is not a pleasant task. it is one that requires cooperation of the executive branch and the legislative branch. i understand how difficult it is to balance that. in that first reagan budget, it eliminated the grant program for waste-water treatment construction. to clean up our household municipal waste and converting that to a loan program. then the loan program was restricted further. those are the purposes for which i sought service in the congress and i want to expand the support of government for those public purposes that have broad social benefits such as clean water. we are not creating more water in this world. all the water that ever is will be with us today. we need to protect it and handed on to the next generation. i have also served congress long enough to have voted for the clinton deficit reduction package, the bill that set us on course to a balanced budget in 2001. $236 billion budget surplus. in 1993, we voted to cut programs for 400 federal agencies. we reduced the number of subcommittees in the house. we cut our own budget. there was a structural change in the function of government. we also recaptured some of the high-end tax revenue from those high earners that reagan had cut taxes for. the result was $236 billion budget surplus. that was held up $5.70 trillion in january 2001. we were on track to have zero debt held by public in 10 years. then president bush pushed through huge tax cuts for the richest 2% of americans, locked us into two wars and it was not offset by a share of sacrifice by all americans. that put us on course to high unemployment. together with the financial meltdown the change in the glass spiegel act allowed non-banks to function as banks but the we had this market. we had this huge collapse of the home mortgage market, the domestic and international financial market. the need for a rescue package somehow, that becomes the democrats' problem and not the republicans' problem. whether we did not express a properly, we did address it. while the tarp was a bush air a initiative to deal with this worldwide financial meltdown, the restrictions we put on, accountability, secretary of treasury paulson wanted $750 billion. we held them accountable. we put restraints on it. now, all but $20 billion will be paid back. the message got lost in this last election. coming back to your original question yes, i knew we had all these difficult issues to deal with. i knew we had health care to deal with. i did not anticipate health care taking so long. i thought it is something we would see through to enactment in 2009. but that didn't happen because of delays and filibusters. there are 412 house-passed bills , many by the committee on transportation infrastructure that have not been acted upon. the democrats have the white house, the senate, and the house and they cannot pass the bills. somehow, in the telling of the story, the other part wasn't told, about the republicans in the senate that dictated the agenda. senator mcconnell -- give him credit for that. he is very skillful at maneuvering filibusters on the right time and making it difficult for us to move our agenda. much of it was pending in the senate. that included the future of aviation. >> let me ask about partisanship in congress. i've heard a theme repeated throughout interviews about lamenting the partisanship, or lack of bipartisan cooperation in congress. do you share that lament, and if so, can you trace its roots? >> in our committee, we have had the best bipartisanship of any committee in the house and the senate. in 2007, we passed a law to expand the locks on the mississippi and improve navigation and protect against floods and rebuild the wetlands. and other such work for the corps of engineers who are vital to the well-being of this nation. president bush vetoed that bill. he overrode the veto. that is bipartisanship. that is a 2/3 vote. in the history of the congress, there have been 1170 vetoes. i established a partnership with the ranking member of florida. not just when i took the chairmanship, but prior to that, when i was chair of the aviation subcommittee. in his first term of congress, he served on that committee. i established an inclusiveness with the republicans. during the years later got we served in the minority, when mr. schuster was chairman, we travelled the country for the transportation bill that was later known as the t-21. in atlanta, at the end of a news conference, the last question was a reporter who said "why are you a democrat siding with mr. schuster the republican?" i said because i never saw a democratic road or republican bridge. we will build all american road and all-american bridges. the reporter turned to mr. shuster in said "where your -- said "why are you, a republican, traveling with jim oberstar?" he said that we were joined at the hip and we reached a common ground for the better of the country. not everyone has the best the ideas. if you find common ground, you reach good ideas, good policy that is workable for the country. throughout 20007 and 2008 we passed significant legislation reauthorizing amtrak for example. mr. mica came from one perceptive. i came from another. he had an idea of engaging the private sector. i didn't think that would be workable. but as we talked, as we looked each other in the eye, there was a trust between us. he is not setting a trap for me and i am not setting a trap for him. we were being open and honest to see what we could do for the greater public good. we achieved authorization for amtrak that eventually, the following year, 2008, president bush signed into law. i can say that for the state loan fund, the faa authorization bill we passed in 2007, and then again in 2009. a host of other measures putting the posfirst photovoltaic system in the department of energy. republican leadership took more control of committee initiatives and set a harder and more difficult edge. example, their position on earmarks. we've never considered the works of the corps of engineers earmarks. congress has always authorized the corps of engineers. you start with a survey of revolutions. authorize a study to determine whether a levy is the right approach or some other initiative is the right approach. what are some potential cost and benefit? that goes back to the congress. we review it and authorize the next step, then a third step, until it goes all the way through and has a signature of the chief of engineers. republican leadership took the position that this is the category of an earmark and told their members they cannot recommend projects to the core of engineers. that created a point of friction. members knew that constituents wanted these projects. we require members to sign a statement that each member submitting a request has no personal or family interest in the project. secondly, there is a request from a local unit of government that says, we request the project and we have the nonfederal funds to match the federal dollars to carry this to completion. steps like that disrupted the bipartisanship. in this committee room, i said, we need to move this bill. when we get to the point of bringing it to the house floor if there is a change of heart you are welcome to bring your projects back to the authorization level. that could have been done very differently and made highly partisan. i said, that's not the right way to conduct the public's business. >> let us take it to a different subject. between your 18 terms as a member and your time as a staffer on capitol hill, you have seen a lot of presidents. i am wondering which of those he felt was the best at promoting his own legislative agenda. who worked with the congress most effectively? >> lyndon b. johnson, no doubt about it. kennedy was an idea person who inspire people and aroused their best passion, their best instincts, and appealed to the greater good of each individual. lyndon johnson knew how to get it done. he spent a lot of time on the phone. depending on the nature of the problem, if it was a big problem, i need your help. he worked every issue personally in addition to having a very able staff that worked the hill on both sides of the house and the senate. i have never seen someone so effective as johnson. in one instance, i had worked with my predecessor on the public works economic development act. i did a great deal of the staff work, writing the language, the committee report, conference report. i was invited to the white house along with other authors for the signing. lyndon johnson grabbed me by the lapel and said "i want you to tell john that i want that." i went right across the room to john and said, -- he looked at me laughing and said, "i know what you are here for and i will do it." i've never seen a president operate that way. if he had not had vietnam on his shoulder, he would have been on the books as the greatest president. >> we only have eight or nine minutes left. i'd like to look across the arc of time you've served here and ask if you can tell me what your most memorable vote was. >> i can tell you my most memorable bill, and i've had many. my first term, second year in congress, the house and senate have passed a cost-of-living adjustment for retired federal employees. shortly afterward, i received a letter from a constituent saying , i noticed that congress passed this cost-of-living adjustment for retirees. i'm a federal employee. i'm a white house retiree. i did not get an adjustment. why? fair question. it turns out they had their own separate retirement program. it should have been included in a separate provision of that cost of living adjustment. they were not because people did not notice. i introduced legislation. there were 174 retirees. we had just passed this bill. it was a footnote to history. the office of personnel services objected. i said, no, this is the right thing to do. the committee, house, senate passed it, and gerald ford signed it into law. i signed it, sent it to my constituents and said the congress has acted to correct the problem you brought to my attention. a few days later -- quite a few days later, i received a letter his wife saying, my husband received your note. he was so thrilled to know that this had passed. he died the next day. he died knowing that government could work for even one person. >> the moral is, if you have something write your congressman. >> the constitution provides every citizen the right to petition the government. that person petitioned the government and the grievance was redressed. although his widow received the benefit, he didn't receive the benefit, he knew that government could work together for one person. >> you have spent a lot of time in this room. what are you going to miss most? >> i'm going to miss the hearing process, the give-and-take. the seeking of the right answer the seeking of truth. that has been my quest in all my service of congress. i'm going to miss problem solving. i find the most rewarding, most challenging, as with the retiree , or with the problem of a need for a light rail service in the city of minneapolis, where that is a $480 million issue, it is finding a way to make it work, to get it done. that i find the most rewarding part of the public service. >> i was reading a story about you clearing out your office after all these years. lots of history in that space that you've accumulated over these decades. what are you going to do with your papers? have you decided? >> the minnesota historical society director came up to review the files and help me understand what they find useful for history and which things to discard, as did the library of congress. we have separated the documents. committee work has gone largely to the library of congress. my papers, 120 boxes, are going to the minnesota historical society and probably eight or 10 boxes of material that i will find useful in whatever i pursue next are staying with me. >> have you decided what you want to do next? >> i would like to teach at a graduate level and to help shape the thought of the next generation of transportation professionals. i want to continue to be engaged in those aspects of transportation that i have found the most exciting and rewarding, the livability issues, safe routes to school, which i initiated in 2000 and is now a program across the country. changing the habits of an entire generation of children and moving them from inactivity to an active lifestyle and reducing the possibility of growth in obesity. i want to be engaged with the complete streets and the safety issues in transportation. that is quite an agenda. it is much of what has propelled me in the committee work that i've done. >> you leave this institution with an obvious amount of fondness and respect for what can be accomplished. the public view of congress is at one of its all-time lows. what is it going to take to turn that around? >> i think there is the problem with the economy. there is a perception that it just didn't turn around fast enough. in this age of instant communication, where the blackberry sends you a message people get used to that. it didn't turn around overnight. the portion that we did, our committee, i held hearings every 30 days. we can account for 1,300,000 jobs. we should have had twice as much -- 8% of the stimulus accounted for half the jobs created. we should have had three times as much funding in highways and waste-water treatment and taxiways and transit buses. we would have had 3 million people working. it is going to take that turnaround of job creation and some fiscal discipline to bring down the annual deficit and the long-term debt of thefederal government, and that will help to restore the public trust. >> last question, and it is a short one. if you can put a single word to your emotion as you leave this place, what would that be? >> nostalgia. >> and now i need to say, why? >> because i love what i have worked for and accomplished, seeing people go back to work in my district, with a steel or iron ore processing plant that was shut down because of a lack. engaging a steel mill in china to commit and be a