Of social media and its impact on politics. Good evening. Welcome to the 30th anniversary celebration of the cspan archives. I am Robert Browning, the director of the archives. It was 30 years ago this month that we turned on the vhs machine. [laughter] robert i have to explain what those are. They made a lot of noise as they wound and rewound. It is all digital recording. Today, it is all digital recording. Our original goal was to record everything on cspan, index it and make it available for public use. It is fun 30 years later to look at how those goals have been met , which is what our panel is about. Back then, the internet as we know it today did not exist. Digital recording was unknown. The cloud was something you watched in the sky. But we had a vision, a vision of what could be if we kept this material, not knowing how it would be used and we are creating the future of american democracy, the history of american democracy. Before i turn this over to mitch daniels, were going to look at a little video. That is what we do. It is a fun look at some of our panelists tonight. [video clip] we have a resolution we put forward your forward. Roses are red. Violets are blue. If we are not home by 7 00, we are in deep. We encourage the gentleman to give us some definitive time on tuesday night. I appreciate the sentiment. How would you define your ideology . Is it more liberal, moderate, or conservative . I appreciate that. I am fiscally conservative but on social issues, i am moderate. Say is that you can what that means is, i have great reverence for the past and the sacrifices of many, but i also have a piece of liberal in me. What that means is i have a compassion and sincerity to challenge and try new ideas for the betterment of our country. We are involved in a common enterprise. If we sometimes we cannot live with each other, it is beyond argument we cannot live without each other. So much of that time that they should have been doing the peoples business, working on the government problems, water in flint, job and infrastructure projects, addressing the issues of affordability in higher education. They are not doing those things. There is a political reality. Face thes going to attack, we did not take care of their windows and notions widows and orphans. I wanted to bring it to your attention. I appreciate your doing it. The judge was going to be a nice guy. Dont think youre going to get to go. We have already been here what . It was the day the olympics decision was coming out. Chicago was electric. Grandstands, people running around with tshirts and balloons. Were going to win. Midmorning comes out, midmorning news comes out, they did not make it out of the first round of voting. Some guy was asking me and i dont know why he was asking me , what was your reaction to the olympics . I said what is this world coming to when chicago cannot fix an election . [laughter] this spot in indiana, i called it a garbage town turkey roast. In a little town in indiana, people would have voluntary contributions. They would show up on sunday morning in a garage and we would have 300 people and cook turkeys in a new garbage can, serve food to everybody and that was one of the ways we raised our money. The highest award in basketball honors the best players in college basketball. John wooden coached and taught with honor. He was a very special human being. I am janice wooden. You actually know who we are . No, i dont. Still, when some of my old friends asked if they could come along with us and later, if they could make a show, i thought it was the craziest idea i had heard. I think you know my husband . What is your last name . Daniels. [laughter] i turned it over to whats your name . [applause] before we came out, robert reminded me his tenure protects him in the matter of Academic Freedom against reprisal. [laughter] now i know why he brought it up. That was a lot of fun. A lot of memories. The two guys i am about to introduce did not get any older , i dont understand how that happened, but some of us did. Greetings, everyone. This is a special occasion in the life of Purdue University , but for citizens of this country everywhere. We celebrate tonight the 30th anniversary of the cspan archives. As we do that, were celebrating the fantastic innovation that cspan was and also the innovator who gave the nation and the world that priceless resource. He will protest that this should never be about him but in the pantheon of innovators, that is what we are known for. This is one of the great ones. He created a better mousetrap no one else said thought of, and what a valuable resource it has been. These days, there is a lot of filtration of information. Some people think it is becoming a problem for our democracy, that people find it far too easy to take in information and receive news that confirms their biases and is consistent with their view. I think they are right to worry about that. From its beginning, cspan has defined nonfiltration. Utter transparency. Sees through the unblinking eye, as somebody said, the workings of our government. What an invaluable thing that has been to citizens for all these years. And now through the genius of another great innovator, Robert Browning, who, for 30 years has made this resource available to the world at the touch of a button. Through some of the most marvelous technology. Incidentally, my vhs at home has been acting up and i thought maybe you could come over and take a look . [laughter] to celebrate this occasion, robert has arranged for two ideal guests, people who were featured as we just saw in a small slice of their careers, each a long serving member of congress, tim roemer for 12 and steve for 18, i believe, and have served our nation in other capacities, military service and ambassador to india. M thatmentioning to ti we have on this campus more Indian Students than any other campus in america. His service there did so much to strengthen ties between our countries and contributed to the success we enjoy there now. We thank them both for their service, and now to join them in the program, americas premier interviewer and most humble and modest of innovators, brian lamb. [applause] brian good evening. [all] good evening. How are you . You guys served in congress for a long time. You came in about the same time. When you look back the reason we asked you to come, is to talk about the impact of television on politics. It has changed a great deal since we all started. Almost 40 years ago. What were your experiences . Congressman, you want to go first . [laughter] im not sure i like the reference to my age. I will try to go first. I have been on campus all day today at this university and what an honor it is to be here and have the president of the university introduce the panel. The questions i got teaching a class, very insightful questions about current politics, a very impressive student body. I am very excited to be here with my friend on the other side of the aisle. We worked together and played basketball together and hopefully made Congress Work a little bit better. When Congress Worked, back then. I just want to say congratulations for making america a better place. A town hall for all of us to be able to pry the top of the capital open and look inside and see what is going on. In the committees, the house floor, the senate floor. What members are showing up in what members are showing up to committees and doing work in committees, as richard used to rite about. This transparency and this opportunity for americans to see their government, as madison insisted, is something that should not just be celebrated at this university, but everywhere in america. Congratulations to you both for the service you bring. I do want to say one more thing. Looking at those film clips when we were so much younger, when i first ran for congress, i gave a speech in south bend, indiana on the steps of the county courthouse, and i gave the talk and my dad was driving me to the next county courthouse. My dad was always very honest with me. I said, how did i do with that talk . What did you think . He looked at me and said, you will get better. [laughter] cspan has gotten better through the years. Just dont show any more of my clips. I will pay you to burn the rest of my 460 clips. [laughter] let me echo what tim shared. It is good to be back on perdue campus. I told my wife i needed to go to the bookstore. My wife wanted to buy a tshirt, not just for our daughter, who is a pharmacy graduate here. But she got one for herself. True confessions, while i was at the citadel and she went to school here, we were high school sweethearts. She was living with her sister. I would call and i would say, is jody there . She would say no, she is at the chocolate shop. I knew that she loved chocolate. [laughter] not until her last semester of senior year did i learn what the chocolate shop was. [laughter] fascinating. She has not let go of that. To your question, for me, i went to congress and i was a young man. I was 32 years old when i was elected. A couple of things i had learned early on, i had learned that even though i was young the reason i could be elected was the principles i felt had been embodied in me from my parents and my mentors were principles that were ageless. They did not belong to me. Just so long as i held those principles and could share them with other people, the age did not matter. I think that was why i was elected at such a young age. With regards to my experience, i had just come out of the first gulf war. I had been a former federal prosecutor. I had also practiced law. Lawyer, a a defense prosecutor, a Deputy Attorney general and i had worked in the attorney generals office. As a young lawyer, the thought of having a camera in the courtroom was something we would never have considered. To come out of that environment and immediately walking to congress, where everything is on television for me, it was stunning. Used to the conduct of professionals in the courtroom and all of a sudden, i am now in theater. It was, how do we decipher the difference between theater and when do we get to work on substance . I think cspan played a tremendous benefit to our society by allowing people to see the functional requirements of congress. They had never seen this before. There had been some bumps over the years. I know about the demands you placed on speakers over the years to try to get the movements of the cameras, i recall the controversy when you struck an agreement with Newt Gingrich and you started showing people around the floor and some were not paying attention, some were reading, sleeping. It caused alarm. Do you remember this . It only lasted for four or five days. It did not last very long. Brian those are not our cameras. I understand that. [laughter] roaming of the cameras ended, that was your agreement . Brian we dont have an agreement with the congress. The Congress Says here is what we have. You take what we have. Not in the hearing rooms. Our cameras. There have been a lot of bumps in the road, and it started with tip oneill when Newt Gingrich called him on some things. There were not very many people in the chamber. I think it is fascinating when you think how many things are left where you can do business with a shake of the hand. There are not many. When you think you have been able to achieve what you have done without an agreement from the house and senate all these years, it says a lot about you. Brian lets get back to [laughter] you about the other things i like about you. [laughter] brian you know everything about television in the house has not been great. Not the negative so much, but what is the downside from the standpoint of a member of congress of having television on you everywhere you go . Tim one of the challenges you face and that Congress Faces and that we face with our colleagues , and that our constituents are kind of judges on this, is certain members of congress treat the one minute and five minute special order not as an opportunity to communicate with constituents or talk about policy, but to make themselves a celebrity. Ultimately, it is the members of their constituency and state that will reelect them or send them home. You have to remember this. We had a colleague from ohio that did one minute every single day. He would end every one minute with beam me up scotty. Many Young Students will not get that reference to star trek. The rest of the 45 seconds was not much better. [laughter] tim he played to one issue and would rarely attended his Committee Assignments and do work. But that one minute defined him. On the other hand, you have people like i thought Newt Gingrich said something fascinating about cspan the other day. He said cspan was the twitter of the for him and his agenda. 1990she expertly and strategically thought through how would they use the one minute time period and the special orders to talk about policy, to talk about the strategy to get the house back to the republican majority on domestic policy, to convince People Welfare reform was going to be one of their key issues and to do it through a combination of tv and entering in what they said on the house floor into the record and distributing that through the record back to constituents and get recordings of that and distributed to people. Speaker gingrich said that know how, how they used cspan, helped them get back in the majority. That is neither a good nor bad something that is that people can use the media for their inns and means. Brian do you have any stories you can remember where you were affected by being in a Committee Hearing or on the floor and a constituent back home reacted in a certain way that impacted you . Steve no. [laughter] steve no, i cant. Brian can you remember where you might have been back in the district and you sensed people might have a better idea of what the house of representatives and congress did . Let me go back for an honesty moment. Obviously, go prosecute the president of the United States and see what happens to your life. Being named the house impeachment manager and prosecuting the president before the senate was life altering. I learned quickly i remember the judiciary committee, we were just organized and were moving into consideration for the articles of impeachment. I am walking out of the rayburn building and cameras were set up and an arm reaches out. Very seldom does anybody touch you,ere crappy or crab and this reporter says, congressman, and you get consumed. There were so many cameras. They were asking so many questions and foolishly, i answered. I left. The reaction by my constituency and across the country that was an issue that was whitehot. The views were so emotionally charged. I realized when i walked away away from that, and back at my office, telephones are going off in my chief of staff is saying, what did you say . It was an emotionally charged issue. It cost me to say, ok, if im about to operate in a prosecutorial mode, i would no longer speak with the media. And i didnt. It wasnt until the impeachment trial ended with a vote that we walked over to the hall and it was the first time i spoke and the following day, i resigned from the judiciary committee. So yes, there was a very powerful brian why did you do that . Steve because i had made a personal decision i would not serve one more day with members of that committee that had dishonored themselves. The reason i said that was we were charged to spend this time in the Ford Building through all of the evidence, and members of that committee would not even view evidence and they argued it politically and they never assumed their role and took it in a serious matter. I said, i do not want to be part of that body. Brian you were there at that same time. You have been close to the clintons if i remember. Tim that was a tough time for everybody in congress. My constituents, if they saw me, on cspan or at town hall meetings, that was one of the first times i remember throughout my six elections where people would talk to you and the veins in their neck, the pulsating of their eyeballs, the people would be so angry on both sides. Republicans that wanted you to vote to get rid of this guy because they thought he had shamed the office. And maybe, possibly met and impeachment standard. Democrats telling you this guy did something terrible and immoral but it is not an impeachment you should vote for. I voted to go forward with the investigation because i thought , as steve just said, we should look at the facts. That caused me a great deal of heartburn at the white house. The white house thought, here is reservation,f the if he is going to vote to investigate this, he might vote for impeachment. What i have always told my constituents is i will look at the facts no matter what the Party Alignment and my tells me and what might leadership tells me to do in washington, im going to do what i think is right. Whether it is a democratic or republican president. I ultimately voted against the impeachment standard. Those were tough, difficult days for everybody. One more thing i think is important for the audience and the subject we are on today. I was looking for something other than impeachment. I went to republicans to talk about censure, which i thought was the right attitude and action to take against president clinton. What happened was many republicans ultimately were against it, but initially said we agree with you but i will get a primary if i vote for censure. I have to go all the way and vote for impeachment. It started, i think one of the problems we have in america is big money in politics and gerrymandering. We have these districts across the country that are either very republican and can only be challenge any republican primary or vice versa. Very democratic and only a democrat can challenge you. There are fewer seats in the middle that represent where most americans are, somewhere in the moderate middle between the two parties. We have only about 5560 competitive elections out of 435 in the house. We do not have a great republican democracy in the house of representatives anymore. There are too few contested elections. People are playing to their primary base and not to their constituents. Brian you both left in 2011. You are both serving about the same number of years. During those times you were in congress, in each case, you were in the minority and a couple of years in the majority. What impact did television have if you are in the minority or majority . Did you use it differently . Did you think about it differently . Steve yes. You do. When youre in the majority, you have the responsibility to govern and you are moving an agenda that is constantly under attack. Youre trying to figure out how i protect that as i move it through the legislative process. The minoritys job is to be that loyal opposition. As the loyal opposition they , will do everything they can to grab attention, because they are like, i might not get the votes and i need to grab as much attention to my issue as i can, so they begin to act differently. I would say there is a difference in the decorum. When you are in the majority versus minority. Tim i would basically agree with a slight variation in the minority. I think when you are in the minority, it is not only no against some of the government proposals by the majority party, although i would often reach across the aisle and vote with these guys on certain issues. But it is also grabbing that microphone and explaining what your no vote means. What is the option . I dont think either party is doing that very well these days. I think the democrats, we cannot just be the no to trump party. Ok, we disagree with the president. Here is what we would do differently. You use that minority position to articulate the differences with not just fire the other guy, but why do you want to hire me . Witnessedt i have over the years is there is a loss of the art of debate. Members will come in with preprepared statements. I have come in with those before. But one it comes to committee work, you know, youve got to be able to think on your feet. Youve got to be able to have the dialogue to move something forward. It cant be when i think about really good legislation, it is one that gets molded by both parties. Right now, there is this division where it is my way or the highway. It shouldnt be like that. Brian how much of that is televisions fault . You know, we have been accused of being the problem. Steve i can tell you what i did when i became a full committee chairman, i realized there would be a play to the camera, especially when we recognize d that would happen on the house floor. As the migration to more committees would be covered, and you, cspan, you broaden your cameras. You own your cameras, not the ones on the floor. We left before the committee started their own video capacities. When i noticed the same little bits of theater were occurring in the Committee Room and i chaired veterans affairs. Veterans affairs is the most nonpartisan ever. I remember when you know, when you took over in 2007, and the chairman who ended up in trouble in san diego, he was so fearful about some amendments i was going to bring on his very first bill, and he was scared to death. So, what he did, and playing to the cameras in all of his speeches, and then he had one of his move his members move the previous question. Which means you shut debate. There are no opportunities for amendments. Since when would you deny veterans the ability to discuss legislation . It was just bizarre. And the republican side then, in the face of all of this theater, now in the minority, wanted to walk out. They are like, we are leaving. I had to say no i had to yell, no, you will sit here. I was the ranking republican. I said, no, we will sit here. Even though it is wrong what has happened, we will not disengage from the legislative process. So, i witnessed something very challenging, and i dont know what would have happened had the cameras not been there. The fact that they were there, it was not pretty. Tim i would say, brian, do your question specifically, there are lots of great things cspan brings to our public. You are instrumental in the disclosure and transparency. There are some challenges. The difference between a tv camera on the house floor when a vote is being, you know, passed at the end and people are making their speeches for and against is one thing. A camera in a Committee Room when you are doing an oversight hearing and youve got the secretary of state there and you are quizzing the secretary about afghanistan and our policy there and china and Cyber Security and india, that is another thing and, i think, appropriate and both sides win. However, when a tv camera is there on a committee markup, commitments market, and amendments are being offered, some members cannot help themselves. They will offer amendments, not to improve the bill, not to have a substantive conversation. The amendment process sometimes becomes a Political Campaign to get people on the record and saying something in front of the camera they can use against of against them in an election coming up, and its not the kind of productive session that we need. Now, im all for transparency, but are there should those cameras be everywhere at everything, or does that tempt, you know, the process a little too much . That is the question for you guys. Think, beingmes i transparent, allowing members to act as silly as they do upetimes, actually ends cleansing itself. When youre in a body like the United States senate, when they mention your name, you want to make sure when you are recognized to speak, all heads will turn, voices will stop, and theyre going to listen to what you have to say. When your amendment is brought, they are like, whoa, tim is bringing an amendment . I want to listen to what mr. Roemer has to say because it is substantive and thoughtful. These members who just grab the limelight, when their name is announced, you go oh, my gosh to oh my gosh, not them again. That is not what you want to happen. Tim i think the system can. Sometimes the system takes time to cleanse and i think we are in a position now in congress where there is so much gridlock and dysfunction that we are not getting anything done. You know, there are several reasons for that. It is not because of cspan cameras. I think it is because of gerrymandering and too much money in politics. Members are not getting to know and trust and respect each other like they did. I am not going to say that even i had dinner every night and we played basketball, and i would pass to tim but he was a member of my delegation. I had regular lunches and breakfasts and meetings. I would go on the house floor and sit with republican members and talk to them. They would come over and talk to me. We would go to individual districts. That did not mean steve and i were kumbaya, loveydovey. But there was respect. He got elected by his constituents. He worked hard for his district. He deserved that vote given the peoples confidence in him. Today, i dont think we see that as much. I do not think that respect level, that working relationship, that opportunity to work across the aisle is there, and it is the glue that makes Congress Work. Brian Robert Browning who started the archive and has run it for the last 30 years, likes to think that someday, looking back at this incredible 235,000 hours of history will have an impact in some way or another and i would ask you this. At the risk of getting everybodys veins popping in the room, what do you think . If you, 50 years from now, if you look back at the last two years on cspan in the archives, what do you think the reaction of people will be about what they have seen in this country in politics the last two years . Im not asking from a partisan standpoint. Do you think it will be the norm . Steve how many years . 50 years . 50 years from now, i hope we have the preservation of the republic. That we have somehow been able to solve our debt crisis. Otherwise, we may not have the republic as we know it today 50 years from now. And if in fact, we come to a crisis which could be coming financially, they will look back on those years with disdain. Brian but if they look to the day today activities, speeches being made steve i do not know where america will be 50 years from now, but how i feel today, tim and i may joke and say, wow, we are glad we are not there today, but we can say that because when we served, we had fun. Doing the peoples work is hard, but we enjoyed the relationships across the aisle. We used sports to bridge that down in the house gym. There were not that many opportunities for republicans and democrats to be together in private. You opened with how do you get along in front of cameras . We would fight to figure out our own privacy. We would fight it out on the house floor. This idea of letting the camera roam across the house floor there is a lot of work that gets done on the floor. Maybe tim and i were in committee. We were working on something. We would carry that conversation walking to the house floor. Substantive things are getting done. One of the things that i had learned from impeachment, when you see where the president of the u. S. Senate, the Vice President would sit, behind him is a room called the marble room of the senate and no one is allowed in the marble room except the senators. No staff, no press, just the senators. So, they can take those conversations when they want to get back to business, and they do not go into the cloak rooms. They go to the marble room. I told dennis has third, you have control of the speakers lobby. But members, when you gavel us back into session, we have nowhere to go. The business, the peoples business occurring on the floor ended, so i tried i went to the speaker and said i want you to throw the press out of the speakers lobby. We need someplace we can go. He did not want to take on the press to do that. We really need a place where we can do that kind of thing. The other last comment i want to swing back on, i noticed all of this action occurring in the Committee Rooms where we are doing the peoples business. I created these working sessions called roundtables, and there would be no press. It would be just the members and whatever the issues were. When i wanted to streamline the architecture of i. T. Within the v. A. And i needed to work with the top cios of the country, i do not need all of the cameras on. I need members focused on how do we best deliver the substance . We created roundtables and they still exist today. Brian we want to get questions from anyone in this group. If you have a question, put your hand up. We have a microphone. Tim back to looking back on congress. Brian what they are going to see. Tim i have just finished the book on Ulysses Grant and im getting a double dose of the civil war. My wife is worried about me. Watching the ken burns documentary on the civil war. Of course we were severely divided at that point, literally brothers shooting brothers, the war of the north and the south, the fighting, this terrible conflict in gettysburg and chancellorsville and different wars. What strikes me is people like grant, here is a guy losing soldiers to the confederacy, and he still tips his hat to confederate soldiers he passes by in battle. There is still a level of respect for the enemy even. As americans, but they are the enemy. They are killing his people. He is killing them. And he treats lee with the utmost respect at appomattox courthouse. Not as a vanquished enemy, but already stepping forward to heal the country and doing the things it will take to heal. I dont think im overstating it. We are not in a civil war today. We are not shooting each other with bullets. But im worried about the democracy, brian. We are in crisis. We have a trust level in our United States congress that is getting into the single digits. You cannot sustain that over a long period of time, when a percent, 9 , 10 of people believe that congress is a working, functional institution. And the figures go on and on that people do not believe either party is working well. They do not believe in wall street or corporate power. They believe the little guy is voiceless and overpowered these days. We have to capture our democracy. We have to do things that will give voice back to the people in this country so they feel like they are in control. I think they will look back at this time period as a trough in American History when they look at the archives. And say, this is the way it should not be done and this is what we have learned and this is how we have started to come back out of it. I am optimistic we will come out of this. I think the American People will come back. Steve one comment. I remember standing on the house floor speaking to john dingell, the longest serving member of the house tim from michigan. Steve from michigan. He came right out of world war ii, in which he had served. I remember saying to john dingell, i have envy for you. My envy for you is, if i could choose when i could serve in congress, i would choose that time. There are so many in congress who served in world war ii and korea, and they put america first, not their party. And they had these emboldened principles that came out of the crucible of a war in the new how to put the country first, and we have lost a lot of that today. Brian do we have questions . We need hands up. Tim they are not shy, brian. They will have a lot of tough questions for my buddy steve. [laughter] brian there is one here. There is one in the back. Yes, sir. Go ahead. Give us your name. Hi. Im actually a highschooler. Im actually here to get my extra credit [laughter] tim you had to come. [laughter] yes. I heard a lot about this. In todays Political Climate where theres a lack of debate and lack of discussion, where both sides demonize each other, what would be the solution to this political polarization, do you think . Steve when tim and i were leaving, we recognized erosion was beginning to happen. Numbers were heightened. These right here, these cell phones that are omnipresent, these cellphones have a huge influence. We can blame cspan, but these devices wow. When you think about you, cspan as a disruptor, right . That was a huge technological shift in 1979, 1980, 1986 with the u. S. Senate. This changed our lives. It used to be people would come up to you and say, congressman, can i get a picture with you . You say sure. Today, you cannot do that. Ladies come up and say, congressman can i get a picture with you . You cannot do it. You have no idea who they are. This could be used to set you up. They can all of a sudden get into a conversation with you like that, take the video and load it like that, it can go viral and you could be harmed. So, the ability to use this as a weapon it can be used for good, that the fact that it can be used as a weapon and how campaigns and members and senators will use that against each other, it begins to erode the very same trust. When we began to recognize that, we started to create retreats so that members could get to know each other. It is easy to attack someone you do not know. When you get to know someone on a personal level, how do you attack someone like that . You dont. What it does is, it forces you to leave the attack aside and focus on the issue in front of us. I would encourage the house and senate to get to know members better. Both parties go away and do their retreat. They ought to have a joint bipartisan retreat like they used to have. Tim they used to have that. Steve they are not doing that anymore. Great question. Tim yes. Really great question. I disagree with steve. I think the technology is fascinating. My staff used to say never take a picture with a hat because someone can make you look really goofy. I wore so many hats. I will probably never get elected again anyway. I think the technology is great. I think the problem is threefold. The way to fix it first, money. Steve and i probably spent i dont know, i cant speak for him. I spent probably 10 of my time raising money. Didnt like it. You could buy a lot of media in indiana for, you know, a hundred thousand dollars to 1 million. I love to legislate. I loved to meet with my constituents. I did not do a lot of it. Today in cycle, oftentimes, Congress Members spend 60 , 70 of the time raising money. That means they are not doing their job. They are not meeting with you. They are making phone calls to the wealthiest people in the country and not paying attention to what we want them to do on education or health care or a balanced budget. We have got to fix the influence of big money in our political system, make sure everybody has a voice. Secondly, gerrymandering. You cannot i recently took a trip to china. The chinese officials were lecturing me on democracy, saying you guys dont have a democracy anymore. Now i did not put up with that. I talked about the internet and freedom in china. They dont have freedoms. But he makes a good point. If only 60 of our races 60 out of 435 are contested you cant even turn over a quarter of the members of the house of representatives . Gerrymandering has to be addressed. Where you can draw districts for safe republicans and save democrats. Make our elections competitive. And lastly, to steves point, you know, it sounds like kind of an intuitive, common sense thing we all do. Members come into washington tuesday morning. They go to a fundraiser. They go to an office, they go to another fundraiser at lunch. They do a little work. They go to another fundraiser. Then they leave on thursday. They do not get to know one another. And that trust is not established. They dont get to know one another. So, that trust was never established and i will make the point again. Another republican, fred upton, and i, a republican still in michigan, a very good friend, we would have each other over for dinner, have each others kids over for dinner, get to know them as people. As steve made the point before, if i go up to steve and im asking steve about his kids and joni and his family, you know, how is she doing out her job . And steve, lets talk about this amendment and this bill, hes much more inclined over three or four months to respect me and have a conversation. But when there is no conversation, no effort to get to know one another, its no wonder the democrats and the republicans will not Work Together on infrastructure or tax reform or health care. They dont have mentors. They dont have respect for one another to sit in the room and do it. Brian who has another question. Just stand up if you have the mic. Go ahead, please. This is referring back to something that steve had mentioned, about the marble room for senators. Just wondering what is the difference talking behind closed doors and speaking in front of cameras . I know you mentioned people cant focus as much, but elaborating on that would be nice to hear. Steve if all of you were interested in running for political office, here is my first advice. Be yourself. Be true to yourself. Do not try to be something that you are not. You would be surprised the number of people who feel that, just because the lens of the camera gets on them, they feel like they must carry particular airs, they must put on a different perception i am bigger, smarter, faster. They do. But, youve got to recognize it is human nature. These are the same people you have to work with. There is a reality to human nature. Some of us youve just got to be comfortable in your own skin. If you are comfortable in your own skin, the same person i am talking to you right now will be the same person talking to you in a sandwich shop. Just because the tv camera is in front of me is not going to change who i am as a person. But, you know what . The public gets to see that. You saw that clip of tim roemer being funny on the house floor. They got to see it, and he has no sense of humor. [laughter] steve but youve got to give him credit for trying. Give him credit for trying. Brian questions, please. We are running out of time here. Right over here. This is directed toward tim mostly. You mentioned gerrymandering a couple of times. What is your opinion on the Supreme Courts current case regarding gerrymandering . Brian good luck. [laughter] tim is that for brian . [laughter] tim i am hopeful that the Supreme Court will decide that that is a consummate case of the state legislature drawing lines that do not represent the outcome of the voters, the constituents of wisconsin. Gerrymandering means, for those of you who do not know this concept, it is kind of a funny term in American History, it goes back to the beginning of the country. It represented a gerrymander lizardlike form that you could drop by hand for a Congressional District, and the district did not represent towns and cities and communities, but sliced through communities only for the benefit of a particular party. When steve and i would represent our communities in indiana, i would almost always have entire counties as part of my district, communities you would represent. But now these computers can draw, both democratic and republican legislatures draw these districts by computer, that slice and dice the state so that these communities are obliterated. It is the interest of gaining the most seats for that particular party in power and that is wrong. The wisconsin case is one that i think is a good one, not because it is good for democrats, although i think this one is using democrats because the vote came out advantageous overwhelmingly for democrats, and yet republicans picked up scores of seats. That is the case that went to the Supreme Court. I think Justice Kennedy will be the swing vote. The kinds of questions he asked in oral arguments indicates he is looking for a standard to apply to all these cases, not just wisconsin, so i do not know what he is going to do. I hope he votes to do something about putting independent judges in charge of our redistricting and our census every 10 years. Let independent people put it forward, not political leaders in the state legislature. Steve can i . Brian sure. Steve i can speak personally about gerrymandering. 1999 had a huge impact in my life. The january after the trial of impeachment for the u. S. Senate and that fall, the governor and i ended up doing the florida recount. You do the florida recount and prosecute the president i got all the fun ones. [laughter] steve i got a double dose of love. Let me tell you what that earns you. What that earns you, at the time indiana had a democrat governor, democrat legislature. What happened to me in gerrymandering, 97 of my Congressional District gets wiped out. They left me with 3 of my old Congressional District. They brought the Congressional District line to the Property Line of joni and my house, because they wanted me to feel the heat. They wanted me to feel the heat of politics and said, clean up your act and they strung this out in 197 miles in the opposite direction, and you know what . Its ok. You did not hear me complain. You did not hear me file a federal lawsuit. I said, you know what . Both parties have been doing this since the beginning of time. I am not going to whine about this. I said, i will take it on. I said, here is the best way i will learn my new Congressional District. I will run it. I took off from my house, i ran all the way to the south and i ran to the west and i raised money for charity by doing it and it was a great experience. So i know the personal impact of gerrymandering. Brian nobody should be able to do that to steve. He is a democrat. [laughter] brian i want to tell this group what you and the head of the Communications Department and dean reingold, the dean of the liberal arts school, have created in this new research center. Today, purdue announced the creation of the cspan archive for research and engagement. The archive will continue to do what it does, recording, indexing, distributing the content, but purdue will take a renewed interest in the research, the teaching, and getting students involved in understanding the archive and understanding washington politics. So, it is a great blend of what cspan does, which is archiving and creating the programming, and what the university is so strong at, which is research and teaching and engagement, so we will hire some interns that will go and talk to faculty and try to understand what kind of subjects they are teaching and how they can find clips for them and videos that would illustrate the concepts and processes that they teach, in say, Mass Communication or Health Communication or introductory to Political Science. It is a great effort by the university supported by the head of the school, the head of the Political Science department and the dean of our school. The college of liberal arts. And the president of the university. Brian and robert intends to be around in 50 years [laughter] brian to assess what we are watching today. One or two quick questions and we will let you off. Theres one right here. Yes, maam. I am here tonight with my class, Global Public relations seminar, and im a secondyear phd student. And its very interesting to be here tonight because in our seminar, we were addressing global Media Systems and media relations, and what im wondering is what you think the role has been of social media in the democratization of the media, and what the impact of social media has been on politics, positive perhaps. Because you did mention cell phone use as a weapon, the erosion of trust. But what are some of the positives . Steve it is two sides of the same coin. Some will see it as a positive. Some will say it is negative. Lets bring up the issue of the sit in that occurred in 2016. Heres a situation whereby the Minority Party felt they were not getting a vote on a particular amendment and they wanted that vote. John lewis decides he will stage a sit in on the house floor. There are rules with the house floor in regard to decorum and the cameras that are controlled by the house, not only the cameras by video, but the audio feeds, are controlled by the house, and when the speaker recessed and shut off the cameras, democrats who decided to join the sit in used social media then said, we will just use twitter, periscope, we will use Facebook Live to allow people to see what is happening on the house floor at a time when, according to the rules, no one can see what happens on the house floor. Now they are utilizing this social media to further a political cause in violation of house rules. To carry that out even further, cspan then, because the cameras are turned off, they cant they do not have access to the floor, but all of a sudden now you have Television Cameras out there, news outlets trying to carry what is happening on the social platforms across the country. So now you have news outlets that want to carry a feed that is coming off the house floor, going social, but is being done illegally. Now you have fruit of the poison tree, right . You have news outlets, including cspan, carrying a feed and brian is proud of that. [laughter] steve it is fruit of the poison tree. This is like, excuse me. I will let you know, i was incredibly upset by it. I was incredibly upset by it. It really depends on what side youre on. Some sides would say isnt that great . It was awesome. The authenticity of the moment is something that no one has seen before. On the other hand, if you believe in the institution and the decorum of the institution, it is something that should never have happened, and they have created a change in house rooms to fine house members for doing that. What is the fine . 500, on the second violation 2500 . Thats not much. They will do it again. But youve got to be careful. [laughter] brian we will do it again also. [laughter] steve it is all about being the disruptor, right . How does cspan survive as a disruptor . These apps today are unbelievable, access not only in a positive manner, but a negative manner. Tim again, im an optimist on this technology. I think its really exciting. Go back to my First Campaign in 1990, and we spit out computer sheets that rolled off paper, we would try to look at swing voters i could target and go to their house and knocked on their door because i went doortodoor every night for 18 months to communicate with voters. It was hard to read. It was hard to spit out. You did not collect a lot of this information on voters. It took hours to process let alone execute on. Fastforward to 2008. I am going doortodoor for barack obama. I have an ipad. The ipad, i push in the address im walking up to and i see six names. The names tell me how often they vote in president ial elections, off terms, what issues they are most interested in and i can ask for Jenny Fitzpatrick because i want to talk to her about a ride to the polls and climate issues because we pulled her and talked to her on the phone and its all on this ipad. It would take me forever to do that in 1990 and find her and talk to her about an issue she cared about, but with this technology today, it is very exciting. On facebook and twitter, we can do personal ads, not tv ads to 50,000 people and only 20 care. We can do digital ads on social media and we know that they care about those ads. On the downside of that, we have Foreign Countries that know this, that know how to use facebook and twitter and cyber issues, and they can pay for ads and they can try to advertise and campaign. The United States, this is not a political issue targeted at donald trump. This is an issue about our National Security and our great republic. How do we make sure that Foreign Countries do not try to influence the outcome, let alone divide americans on social issues, as they are trying to do . I think we are seeing studies more and more coming out of universities that the russians selected particular topics, like race, other political issues for democrats and republicans, bought ads, and tried to get democrats and republicans fighting each other. Becoming even more divisive. I am not saying they influenced the election. I am not saying they had one vote for donald trump or against hillary clinton. I am saying they tried and other countries are going to try. We have to get our hands around both the positive nature of this technology and also the negative side. Steve i think where we have to be really careful if i went into a high school today and i said to the high school students, do you have a right to the internet . I think they would all say, yeah, i have a right to that internet. What they do not realize is they are giving up rights to gain access to what they believe their right is to the internet, and as soon as they get on the internet because they have given up their privacy rights, everything they do now goes into content and that data has value. When i think about where the future is headed, i think about those who control that data have and unbelievable influence on the country. We have to be very mindful with regard to the content ann that data and now that is possibly disseminated to move people. Brian before we wrap it up, i want to acknowledge we have david here, the dean of the liberal arts school when robert went to him and said, lets start an archive. He came in with his wife alice from colorado. Thank you, sir, for coming. Dean budweiser is here, the former dean of the college of liberal arts. He also played a hand in all of this. I am sure i missed somebody. I apologize to you. Lets thank and close her down, but lets thank our two great guests tonight. [applause] brian those of you getting extra credit are free to go. [laughter] tim and thank you for those who made you come here tonight. Steve dont go to the chocolate shop. [laughter] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] the cspan a Video Library is freely available as a public service. Happened 30 years ago or 30 minutes ago, the events and the Video Library create a catalog of americas political dialogue. See for yourself at cspan. Org. Cspans washington journal is alive everyday with policy issues that impact you. Coming up, scholar and diplomat discusses social media and countering violent extremism. Cspanso watch washington journal. Join the discussion. Cspan, where history unfold daily. And in 1979, cspan was created as a public service. It is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. Firstthe nations assistant secretary of health and human services. Joined to authors about for a discussion about Mental Health at the Manhattan Institute and new york city. This is one hour and 30 minutes. Am vid morning, i