Transcripts For CSPAN2 Philip 20240704

Senior fellow at the R Street Institute and the brookings institution. He also, as a fellow on the House Committee on t he also served as a fellow of the House Select Committee on the modernization of congress. Backoc in 2019. The artist doctorate in s from princeton and is the author of two books, why congress and the edge, legality legitimacy and the responses to 2008 financial crisis. Vi seated at the far it is daniel lipinski, distinguished visiting fellow at the hoover institutiol and fellow unsocial thought university of dallas. To represent the Third District if district of illinois the euros house of representatives from 2005 i for 2021. His career was quite distinguished. He earned a doctorate in Political Science from Duke University and is the author of congressional communication, content and consequences. In the middle we have reid ribble, the inaugural t practitioner and residents in Political Science at the university of wisconsin green bay. He served in congress and serven well. He represented the eighth district of wisconsin in the u. S. House of representatives from 20112017 and after retiring he served as a ceo of the National Roofing Contractors Association for five years. With that, let me step away from the lectern and bring up our guest, phil wallach. [applause] oh, i just want to start by thanking everyone who braved the smoke today and is here in person. Its its a real honor to have you all gathered together and to thank the American Enterprise institute providing really such a wonderful professional home for me where i could this book i want to start it off off by reading the epigraph, my book, which seems like a strange thing do but i really find it pretty inspirational helps give a sense of of of why im involved in this project so it comes from this book in defense of politics by Bernard Crick and goes like this boredom, established truths is a great enemy of free. So there are some in troubled times not to be clever and inventive in redefining things or to pretend to academic unconcern or scientific detachment, but simply to try to make old platitudes. Pregnant politics like in the greek myth, can remain perpetually young strong and lively. So as it can keep its feet firmly on the ground of mother earth. So crick is a great defender of as it as its thing and thats actually the very beginning of his book and not in the next paragraph. He goes on to Say Something about how we should think of politics. Politics is too often regarded as a poor relation, inherently dependent and subsidiary. It is rarely praised as something with the life and character. Its own politics is not religion, ethics, law, science, history or economics. It neither solves everything nor. Is it present everywhere . And it does not. Any one political doctrine such as conservatism, liberalism, socialism or nationalism, though it can contain elements of most of these things. Politics is politics to be valued as itself, not. It is like or really is Something Else more respectable or peculiar politics is politics. Politics is often a dirty word in contemporary usage. Its an epithet. If something is political, that means its bad. And part of my effort in writing this book is to rehabilitate the idea of politics as something that free people do and the best that we have to keep social peace in a context of profound differences between the people of country. We need to learn how to with difference and manage it and, regulate it and not hope that we can suppress it. Pretend that it doesnt exist, and so a big theme of the book is, why congress is the place where we need to deal with difference why in the american Constitutional System Congress is really the one institution that that allows the many menace of to have its say and to allow these different factions to come against each other and, hopefully in the process of, figuring out how to accommodate each other, actually produce policies and solutions for the challenges facing our country better than anything that one group would come up with. All on its own. So this is not a new idea. Has, as the epigraph said, i dont dont pretend to any inventiveness really. This goes straight back to something most of you were taught in in civics class at some from madison and federalist number. So madison and his of the federalist papers hamilton jay are very with how are we going to make this country hang together because as the constitution was in the balance they were worried that this young project the United States of america was not long for the world and they centrally concerned with the problem of how can we get this diverse republic full of people divided class interests regional interests creedal differences how can we get them also live together in relative harmony rather than falling to pieces and madison in federalist provides this very famous answer about the extended republic. He talks about having sufficient diversity of factions that they will essentially check each other and keep anyone from predominating and thereby make sure that we cannot have tyranny of the or or tyranny of of any one group. And i wont go into that in detail because youve probably all heard that a million times suffice it to say, i think that madisons arguments in various ten are really more profound than theyre given credit for. I think an awful of people in our current politics believe somehow we can suppress and that we we can deal with the fact that people disagree somehow making us all into one people who agrees on everything. I think madisons route is far more realistic and far more profound. But turning to practicalities, madison, pretty quickly found that its not simply enough to put these factions in contact with each other and mix it up and hope everything turns out all right. And madison, in the second congress, became concerned. That omits sort factional chaos, the sort of giant special interest of his day was was coming to predominate and. He worried about the bank of the United States and its allies specifically. And so madison as a member of congress wrote to his friend Thomas Jefferson and he said he worried that the stock jobbers were becoming the pretorian band of the government at once, its tool and its tyrant bribed by its largesse as and overdrawing it by clamors and combinations. However, they really had a lot of flair back then. So madison, that if theres not some kind of organization put on this factional interplay in in the congress that hes an active member of a leading member of that. Its going to just sort of open the door to predation by interest. And so madison who worried so much about faction, is sort of a little bit ironically one of the fathers of Political Parties and helps to create the republican as a counterbalance to hamiltons party. The federalists in congress. And we shouldnt pretend that just made everything work out smoothly in and of itself. The 1790s were an exceptionally nasty decade of politics in history. But thats not my subject. Im just going to sort of say we we see a situation where we we need to organize a faction in congress. But partizan organization introduces its own problems. Let me fast forward about eight decades to another observer of congress that is the political scientist, Wilson Woodrow wilson, as a as a doctoral student at Johns Hopkins university, wrote a book that became probably the bestselling work of american Political Science in history and its called congressional. Most people remember it today, a famous pronouncement that congress in committee is congress at work. Thats sort of the most famous. But wilson wasnt wasnt just writing a textbook. The book is quite polemical, and hes very concerned that the congress of his day was, again a place where special interests were predating on the american that all of deliberation was happening in committee behind closed doors. There were no open hearings at that time and that the committees would write legislation, which would promptly be signed into law after passing on the on the house and Senate Floors without much real substantive debate. And we once again, a situation where the parties which will wilson thought were rather bankrupt in terms of their principles, are sort of running on fumes from the civil war, largely. And he worried that that basically leaving american politics. And wilson articulated very powerfully an alternative vision, very much different from madisons in federalist number ten, where madison was celebrating complexity and the multiple dissatisfaction as a solution to possible tyranny. Wilson wants clean lines such that we can have accountability and he believed that what we needed was the can deal with faction in internally and then can present the American People with a clean choice. And at election time, the american will decide they will charge one of these parties which given a clear message with governing the country, and then that that that party should be given a chance to implement its agenda and Pay Attention to the to the finer details of administration. Its remarkable the extent to which wilsons prescriptions actually got followed in the decades after he wrote well before he ever emerged as a Major Political figure in his own right in the 1880s and 1890. As we move toward system of very strong partizan control of of the house under speaker reed known as czar reed and his successor in the in the first decade of the 20th century was one of the most colorful figures American History really who i wish was not such an obscurity today Joseph Gurney cannon known as boss cannon and he was somebody who was raised in the sort of wild of western indiana in the 1840s. But here he a dominant figure in the first decade of the 20th century. He always had a cigar hanging out of the corner of his mouth and he sort of played his hayseed nature as a way of dealing with the press. But he was a very shrewd political operator and became the dominant figure in washington for a time. And if i can i need a clicker. Theres a clicker somewhere. Thank you okay . Ive got im not showing you a slide show, but have this one political cartoon, which is practically my favorite part of the whole book. And this is a cartoon and the caption of it, i better get it right. The caption says. Uh, the house in session, according the minority point of view, thats whats in the script up at the top there and im not sure for those for those viewers online and on cspan in case you cant see it ill just describe picture this is Joseph Gurney presiding over the chamber of the and he says the gentleman illinois is recognized thats him. The gentleman from illinois is him and the house is full of him its full of dozens and dozens or scores and scores of carbon copies. Joseph gurney cannon such that the house in session consists of doing what mr. Cannon wants wants so we followed wilsons advice to a remarkable degree and we ended in this situation where we a dominant party with a pretty clear agenda, very clear differences between the party. After the election of 1896, right where we have William Mckinley in and William Jennings and cannon is sort of for the business orthodoxy the day and hes dominant figure but that comes with the problem of sort of stifling orthodoxy. This is the time of the second industrial revolution, very rapid social change and. We congress cant keep up when things are just Joseph Gurney cannon trying to say how things should be and eventually he faces a seminal moment in. Congress, an insurgency from progressive republicans, his party who who bolt and join forces with the democrats, overthrow his dominance. He had been presiding over the rules committee. In addition to being the speaker. And hes stripped of that power and soon enough things are blown open. Congress operates on a very different principle for many decades, a sacrosanct seniority principle where committee become the real Power Centers rather than the speaker. And thats a decentralized of congress. So the book tries to give a sense that congress is a place with a long history. Its a place where there have been vicissitudes and in trying to deal with this problem of action, trying to make sense of how we can play factions off against each other in productive ways. We sometimes end up in a in a land like this where have stifling orthodoxy. Other times we end up feeling like the place has become kind of a decentralized, chaotic mess. And we need to start to reimpose some order, perhaps through centralization. So thats all i wanted to show for my picture show. Im just going to gesture up really most of the chapters of the book, but i wanted to get that basic concepts idea out there. Im sure well have a lot of time to talk about contemporary politics in the discussion, but the the main part of the book sort of goes from. The 1970s to today and looks how weve gotten from a place that was in the 1970s became a radically decentralized chamber to today its a place dominated by very cannon like figures at least very recently maybe things today are changing and well talk about that. But its a place where centralized leadership has called the shots to remarkable degree and structured the agenda and a sense that we dont really have a very interesting interplay of factions. We have to clusters of factions who know how to yell at each other and insult each other and always know how to work together, except when they absolutely have to when to be fair then and then they do. The argument of the book is that were in a moment the stifling orthodoxies are enforced by these centralized leaders. Really give our politics a sense of not being adequate to the challenges of the moment, which are very real, and they tend to push elsewhere in our government, power abhors a vacuum. And if congress doesnt act, the executive branch largely picks up the slack and. Unfortunately, the executive branch is not a good place to represent the men of this country. We end up with profound problems when we try to have agency bureaucrats solve all our problems through creative interpretation of old statutes. We really need to continue to renew our sense of selfgovernment, take ownership for happens what the federal government does and the best way for us to do that is to feel like we trust the members that we send to congress and we believe in the process by which they mix it up with each other and work out accommodation and find solutions they wont always be pretty solutions. They wont even always be good laws. My argument is not that if we empowered congress and got it to be a more assertive branch, it would always do the right thing that would be a crazy argument make. I dont believe that, but overall, why . Because by investing in the political process, by investing in this ideal of selfgovernment, thats how we renew our commitment. Being a free people. Thats how we secure social peace better than any other way know. And thats really how our system is meant to function, how, you know, we need to make the choice for madisonian politics once again in order. I to keep our country from falling to pieces. So ill leave it at that and look forward to the discussion. Thanks. Well, thank you, phil. For start with congressman lipinski. Phil spoke of congress and i think we could say especially the house as being a place supposed be a bunch of diverse interests being piled into the same forum and then having to work things out amongst themselves, which, as phil hinted, can go two basic ways, either they cancel each other out and nothing happens, or they somehow bargain out a compromise that enough of them can live with. It can then move on to the next chamber. Was that happening when . You were in congress. Was that happening much a lot . Not much at all. What was your experience . Well, let me let me start with phil read the wrap. Let me read this from distinguish academic and public servant. What the blurb on the back of the book. Well, few would claim that the contemporary congress is uniting the nation, solving our most vexing problems. Why congress lays out a convincing case that this is exactly what the institution was designed to do, has done in the past and do once again. And let me tell you, as we all know, its not doing that right. I was so many different thoughts come to mind as as its filled with speaking. And i unfortunately way, way too many when i was thinking they wouldnt ever that we do that cartoon they sure do with nancy pelosi now that would have been that would have been absolutely perfect perfect but ive ive said the biggest change that ive seen i studied congress before. I ran for congress as a political scientist in the biggest change that think has happened over the last few decades. It used to be after every election, federal election, every two years, everyone in Washington House members, senators would look around, say, okay, who has majority the house . Who is the majority in the senate . Who controls white house . What can we do over next year and a half together . What can we work on the betterment of the country before we fight it out in the next next election . Today after the election, every two years, what happens . Everyone looks around who controls what and says, what can we do in next two years . So our party can get control of everything in shoved down the throats the other side exactly what we what this is how congress is supposed to operate. Congress is as i was coming over here, i saw a tweet representing scott perry was asked today about have they resolve impasse right now the house is stuck freedom some members freedom blocked the rule on some bill that all the republicans wanted us out there. Scott perry has that been resolved and he says it doesnt matter that much that was that was just a messaging bill and the person tweeted a steak shermans said well thats all the house is doing right now ive argued thats what the house done since 2011. The house has taken itself out of two large extent, legislating and big problem is, is phil is were really congress is supposed to take all these ideas from the diverse country and i mean this book is just really incredible. Its the book i wish i have written. Im glad phil had to put all of the work in to do it. He did a better job than i probably would have, but this is why its so important. But i think so few people understand this what the role of congress is supposed to its supposed to be representative who, come in, bring the views of their constituents to washington, the constitution set up congress to debate, deliberate come to some conciliation. And it is not doing that. Now, some may say, well, thats just because the country is so split. Thats part of the reason. But congress was meant to end. It can as phil says in this book, it could help bring the country together if we actually represent and as founders do their job of having just its either a red way or a blue and theres no choices. Individual members dont get to have too much of a say in it. Were just trying to if if were in the minority we dont want to were not trying to have a say want to shame the other side so we can win the next election. I remember ill tell one story and then ill, ill let reed give it. The two of us could go for a long time, so i shut myself up here. Best illustration of this one of the best 2013 Government Shutdown october of 2013. There is a group of that was a member of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus we were theres a group of us getting together democrats republicans throwing what can we possibly put forward that helped get us out of, you know, get the government funded again . Are are and you know, we understood that the republicans that sort of painted themselves in a corner this House Republicans said, get rid of Affordable Care act or, you know, government doesnt get funded and were trying to figure out some way through this and some of the democratic members, not me, because leadership knew they couldnt really sway as to independent back story here from my democratic. Yeah i got a call from leadership that stopped trying to do this. We dont want the government essentially message we dont want the government because this makes republicans look really bad. And we dont want to help them get of this problem. And that was just the illustrative of the way things are now. What happened . Republicans finally got something done open government. They did look bad, but then Affordable Care act, obamacare website crashed and then it all it all flipped to the other side. But thats so much of what the house, especially senate works a little bit. But thats what the house is about. Messaging that just takes away the peoples voice and thats that that my certainly my my experience. How about you read your experience, did you see these diverse interests working out things one another . Did they have the space to do that or was it primarily of a red shirt versus blue shirts scrum . It depends on who in the congress were speaking. Dan and spoke frequently, became very good friends when i was there, but i tell you, it was something very, i guess, informed a lot of my thinking in congress. I was there for four months and i had never served in Political Office before being elected, even though my good buddy here tossed group of they were elected in 2011 under the bus a second ago that was me. But the reality was i was sitting with scott rachel who was a car dealer. I was a roofing contractor by trade. We were both Business People and were sitting in the chamber for votes and. Scott leaned over me and said, hey, have you met any democrats yet . Weve been there three months and committee meetings. You go and you get sequestered all the republicans go in their room. All the democrats go in their room, and theres no discussion between the and i said. No, i havent met any. He said, well, why dont we go meet some . And i said, i think a good idea. You go over theyre all sitting over there. So just pick one and ill pick one and well go out to dinner. And thats what we did and i went over there, i introduce to congressman jim cooper and scott introduced himself, congressman Kurt Schrader went out to dinner and it was curious about the dinner. I want to figure out how liberals. Think i just didnt understand it. We turned out we picked two of the most moderate members in the chamber. You. And so it was a total fluke that that happened. But but we became we became really friends. Congress functioned in what a good friend of mine another member of Congress Told me, called it a pyramid of power. And everybody is working to climb up on top of the pyramid at the very top of that pyramid is the speaker of the house. And right below the speaker of the house are the majority leaders and in majority, minority whip. Theyre there and then directly below them are the committee chairmen. But i would i would even say directly below the whip, the majority and minority leaders. Its really the staff directors of the committees. Then below them, the committee, then below them are the legislative directors on your and then at the bottom of the pyramid is everybody else, all the members. We had no power whatsoever. Everything was driven from the top and i was in the majority the whole time. Speaker john boehner was the speaker and he he basically governed the republican using the hastert rule and the hastert rule was nothing will come to the floor of the house unless hes got the majority of the majority supporting it at that point, it can move forward. However, when brian became speaker, i dont think this was deliberate. I think it was nature of what had happened in in the members that were sent there. It pretty much got to a point where. Nothing came to the floor unless we could pass it on our so unless we had 218 republican votes, we didnt want to basically get anybody mad. And so nothing nothing could have happened without that. So what that meant then was that everything was directed from the top and we had less power in that case. And so im struck by the congress unwillingness to jealously invite, guard their authority. Article one of the constitution, they are very willing to that authority off to a president. And two recent examples would be the the us senate under President Trump controlled by republicans and. They just all kind of rolled over when when President Trump didnt want us bothered going through the process. Advise and consent for cabinet positions. So trump just made up a bunch of acting secretaries and the senate just kind of rolled over on their back like puppies and waited trump to pat him there. The tommy and they just let him do whatever he wanted. And today youve got the similar things going on with President Biden just, you know, deciding, well, were going to issue 20 billion of of credits to student. Im just going to forget it. And the congress got all the power, the purse, but they just refuse to hold on to and protect and guard their power. And it damages institution. And so i think to to get back where the congress was actually a representative body doing the work the American People want. Theyre going to have to see that power back from the from the executive branch, even when its their guy or gal in the white house, theyve got to be able to say no, its nice that nice. Nice. Mr. President or madam president , that youve got this opinion. But well let you know when we send legislation, if you like it signed, if you dont veto it and well well take it from there. But theyre just to protect their own authority. Its a its discouraging to to be there watching unfold. Yeah. I should say that, you know im old enough to remember the carter presidency. I mean you had a democratic congress, you had a democratic president. But congress would often just openly contemptuous of the white house and was contemptuous of it. And they fought amongst themselves frequently with the republicans sitting on the side, kind of watching the whole the spectacle, and that these days rare. And thats what i would turn to you felt because this issue of Congress Giving up authority, the constitution says it has James Madison probably be a bit perplexed by this. You know, much of his to some degree involves the kind of low motives of human beings wanting to hold and wield as part of what the separation of power system, you know, working is. People want to guard the power that they have by virtue of being in the branch. Yeah, thats as we all know delegation giving away a power to wield power has become allies. What why do members do that i mean, isnt power fun like why would they want to use it . Yeah, the ambition counteracting ambition depends on sort of this individual sense of drive. And it has to be drive to do something, thus take the responsibility onto yourself than just ambition to be seen. Thats where a lot of ambitions are channeled these days and it cant just be ambition to help your party win the next election. Right. Thats thats thats really the thing that dominates our our current political moment is the sense that oh, well, it really is so important for my party to win the next election. The ambition. Lets get our party in the white house where there exercise having the sort of real power in the system and well take it from there and well will cheer cheer them on they when we have the real power and well try to slow the other guys down, they have it and yeah, i guess its a source of hope for me because i think that, you know, dan and reed are not so unusual in feeling a lot of frustrations. Just how useless Members Congress can feel sometimes. Right. I think its a very widely shared sense and the who get elected to congress are talented people. I dont think its just a matter of we have all the wrong people to office and there are some something morally or in any other way defect of about them. So i think people do feel frustrate it and they wish they could be more involved in a meaningful legislate process where they are helping to find sort of strange bedfellows across aisle and making things happen. But theyre willing at the same time to sit back and listen their leaders, when their leaders tell them no thats really not so helpful for really important thing of winning the next election. And so part of the point of this book is just a plea to the members themselves. The book ends with with an open letter to members of congress and pretty much just says, hey, arent you ambitious . Dont dont you want to get something done for this country . Isnt isnt this trend of kind of played out . Havent we had enough of the current political moment and a sense that kind of exhausted its possibilities . Dont you want to be a part of mixing it up and solving the countrys problems in a more, you know, active way . You know, dont you want to be something more than a glorified telemarketer as was i know one of your former colleagues described the job and i do think a lot of members really do want that. And so im hopeful that they can you know, im hopeful that they can draw some inspiration from the history of their own institution to know that the congress has on very different operative principles has been organized in different ways to help that kind of lawmaking happen in the past and certainly could at this point as well. So i want to go back to congressman lipinski. This image of the house not being the place where interests are able to work out themselves, of being very driven from the top down is a structural issue primarily can be fixed by altering the internal rules and structure of the chamber. Is that a partizanship . What it it is driven by partizanship . Its driven by the divide in in country. But it is reinforce by the rules and the committee and modernization of congress. One of the things that id actually originally had the bill to create that were hoping to open things up at the beginning of this congress of some the Freedom Caucus members. I had an op in Washington Post saying you know theyre talking about we need to open this up. We want to say more of a say in whats going on. We dont want just this to be top down. And i said, this is good. This is something that is interesting that they felt that, well, they want more of a say and somehow theyre going to have more control. I dont think quite understand that. But im all for opening up in the Problem Solvers Caucus. We were always trying to do that. We in 20 after 2018 election, democrats got the majority in the house and Problem Solvers Caucus had agreed on some rule changes that we were going to demand. Whoever whichever party had won the majority in 2018 election, theres going to be a new no matter what paul ryan was said he was going to step down and we said were going to demand that are some rule changes. Open it up to more bipartisan to change the rules, open up to more bipartisan and lawmaking and unfortunately, our we didnt we made a few small changes but its tough its really tough at that time almost everyone knew what nancy pelosi was eventually going to be speaker. I dont want to upset nancy. So we got some small things out. So lets partially the the rules lot of it is look im sure i would assume those members that this past week said were not going to pass a rule you need in order to consider legislation on the floor you need to pass a rule generally Majority Party votes for the rule its it says know this bill will come up. This is how much debate time itself many amendments if any normally a majority vote all votes for minority vote against it. 11 republicans said were not going to vote for this. Were upset that we that we didnt have enough input on the debt ceiling. And so that they stopped that from from moving forward. So and i forgot my point where i was going, that one. Well, can i pick it up . Yeah, go ahead. Im glad you had a look in your eye. You ready . I just want to say, you know, its theres this point about, the Freedom Caucus folks, and the kind of blowing the chamber open. I agree. Liked an awful lot of of the rhetoric from some of those folks back january. But it has to be in service of Coalition Building and the principle has to be persuasion. You actually have to imagine reaching out to your colleagues and meeting them where they stand and convincing them that they wont they should do business with. You i think that the strange of these folks want to blow the floor open, have more of a chance, have their say on the floor to offer amendments on the floor. And im all for but really for congress to sort of get its mojo back, it needs to embrace its role. The legislation legislature that makes laws and you make laws by assembling majority laws. And so, you know, i think the question ive had is, you know, how do we get the moderate to feel more organized such that theyre the ones making demands and assembling in the service, assembling these coalitions . Whether the speaker is so happy about it or not. And, you know, the Problem Solvers Caucus has done some very good work in that regard. But but in some ways, i find the group less assertive than i wish it was theyre less willing to yield their votes in opposition to stop something for sure because in most of the problem solvers are more pragmatic than ideologues and so theyre just Different Group people and one of my favorite words in the the entire u. S. Constitution is also one of the smallest ones. So word all so first word of the first article, the first section of the c the first word of the first article of the first section of the constitution, pretty inclusive word all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested or trusted in congress of the United States which will consist of aat senate and housef representatives. So all the legislative power that our founders bestowed at the granite here it in the constitution, was given to this body the congress. They had to wrestle between the states and the people, the house of representatives in the senate to come up with some type of agreement. T there never was his this ide president will write legislation and say because i got voted by all the people you have to do this. Its not even remotely where the founding at intellectually or they didnt want the n that way because the revolution itself was an opposition to monarchy come to a power. In fact, John Quincy Adams after he served president went back and serve in the house of representatives. Can you imagine a president today lowering himself to serve in the house of representatives . But thats where the power resided in the earliest days. Congress has just they have not embraced this at all. I agree with what you two just said regarding some of t the rus changes. With one rule change they needed it didnt push for, and that is you needed to wrest power away from Committee Chairman. Because if they dont wrest power away from Committee Chairman and Committee Chairman are subject to the speaker, the speaker has still got too much power. In the wayha to wrest power away from Committee Chairman by having Committee Chairman selected by the members of the committee. Because within that chairman would be beholden to the members of the Committee Rather than the speaker who selects them. The most significant changes could have made is done that and then you would begin to evolve power back to the members and that great wisdom of the crowd that you speak of in your book could emerge. But right now the citizens that are represented by Kevin Mccarthy in california, those citizens, the wisdom of that crowd has way more say and the wisdom of the crowd in northeast wisconsin has none. And thats where this whole idea of the wisdom of the crowd breaks down. Because thoseth members were the proxy, the vote, to say heres what northeast wisconsin heres what illinois feels that this or that. This is what the citizens say about this or that and then the place a court machine and vote. Thats the only way the wisdom of the crowd can emerge through this elected body and begin to be heard again. But that could stop because everything is being driven by the top. One thing to say, anyone who is in this room watches this, if theres one thing besides reading this book that i want you to take out of this, if you dont know it, congress is article one of the constitution. All legislative power but i dont think most americans know that you understand that there they think the president is the leader of everything. The president is supposed to make policies for the country, supposed to make laws for the policy. I mean, the wisdom of, ive gone back in the last couple of years and look at the federalist papers, just wisdom of the men who wrote the constitution and this idea is a vast, very diverse country, even at a time of the founding, was a diverse country. How do we keep people t togethe . Welcome Everyone Needs to feel like they have a voice through the representative. And i go back to that are not just two ways of thinking theres not a red white d blue weight. Theres a lot of diversity the country. We need those i voices come in. This is a diversity. You could paint this as a diversity issue is we are not hearing all the different voices across the country, and thats the way it was meant to be. I would teach classes at the high school level. Schools would invite you to come in as a member of congress and talked about how congress works, and i would take this High School Class and i would say today were going to create a house and senate in here and were going to vote on where we are going to lunch. We would divide the room up and then they would have to deliberate and come to a conclusion about where theyre going to go to lunch that day. Except as they were deliberating i would walk around and give somebody a cart and on the card safe im shellfish allergic and medical advice that ive got an allergy to peanuts there i go around and i would basically sabotage it to try to show that the diversity, the diversity all had to bee brought into consideration to get to a conclusion. In the strength of that diversity actually let congress allow it to emerge, could beul something extraordinarily powerful today. But that got to allow it s they must give a power themselves and give ital back to you all. I want to double back to this issue that everyone hit upon about recent speakers being so powerful. In fact, weve got an audience question that came in on this very topic. A speaker is just a Single Person in the chamber of 435 how is this person so powerful . Whats the sources of the power . Who would like to take that one . Who wants to start . Who wants to start on that one . Do you want spirit i can tell you my take on it. I think members like it that way. Celine you observe continue dysfunction in any organization, and the business, any congress, and the marriage, if you continue to observe this octave have to ask the question, whose winning as a result of this dysfunction . Then you can identify why the dysfunction exists. When you relinquish power to somebody else, when congress relinquished it to the president come when members relinquish it to the speaker they have someone to blame when they go home. Bigoted man, i was fighting against this but i got stoppedpr by the speaker. I was fighting for this but the president wouldnt let us. But im still going to be there fighting for you tomorrow. You have somebody to blame vicki to carry the weight of any bad decision. I think members like that. I think they want to be protected as opposed to wanting to actually hold the power that was their rightful, the right,th they are the rightful heirs of that are based on the electorate that sent them there. I dont think they wanted that. The old observation about legislative politics is that politicians either want to claim credit for the want to shift blame to claim credit you at least have to engage in incredible amount of action to be able to say that you achieved something, whereas you suggesting blame shifting but seems a lot easier. You just sit back and say well, i tried but the forces and congress you can win the election every sunday and vote that when everything. I want to add to that because i think theres some truth to that and a lot of people lay that is the primary reason why members of Congress Give up our because they cant get blamed, they can shift blame. I also think that maybe especially because of coming out of the Democratic Party come its just the idea, that one talked about how the democrats and republicans dont mix. This idea that we have, but has all the answers and members come in. First of all a a lot of members who come in, new members now get elected, they dont know anything different there its been this way for many years there they dont know how to legislator they dont even think of the idea that im going to come in and actually be able to participate in the legislative process. They are thinking i got elected, im here for the team. And theres so much of that, im here for the team. And if the leader of the team says you got to follow along, and you say okay, im here for, you know, we got to get because we need to defeat the evil other side, and youre told, well, if you dont go along, that evil other side can win. We all need to Stay Together or else the evil other side could win. Thats the part ofha the peer se members dont even know what they could possibly do in being a legislator and some of it is speakers are given a heck of a lot of power. And when you get the idea that if i want anything done here, i need to come its like you guys, i have to go to the king or queen, and if they will grant, t if it would they wouldi want to get done i can go home and get credit for, i need to go to them. I need to get them to make it happen. And, therefore, i cant cross in any way. I better follow along until i get my chance to ask for my favor from the monarch. I think thats also part of whats going on spirit i think both of your answers explain a lot about sort of the stickiness of the current moment. Again i take some help from a longer history of the place, because i think to some extent those forces are always at work. Its still within the round of serious possibilities for members to sort of feel likela this thread is played out, to at some point feel like being the good partisan key point is just not worth it anymore because your own party has gotten so twisted up in its own sort of selfdefense rather than actually solving the peoples problems and doing the peoples work. I do think politics, congressional politics is, its gotten kind of boring, right . I mean, the debt ceiling fight,i thats exciting and a certain kind of way but actually if you know how to watch, it was pretty darn predictable and pretty boring. And something thatt happens 100 t of the time is likely to happen to give. The media does its darkest to turn this into a good story but its so predictable and its so sterile. Its not going to solve all problems peer its not going to produce anything interesting. If you really feel like its important that we come up with some Novel Solutions to the problems facing the country, congress can be an engine of that. It really is a better place to be an engine at that than the executive branch. The executive branch is not really cut out for creativity. Its cut out for executing the laws that are already on the books. So congress, think of an issue like immigration which is one of the chapters, a sort of case study in my book. Theres such a widespread sense that our immigration system is broken into many different ways at all a lot of common sense people feeling like we ought to be able to make a deal, right . We ought to be able to make a deal that the something about the border, and the problem, the problem with our immigration courts being so blocked up and theres something for all these people start in this legal gray world. There are so many different aspects of it, and its just waiting for congress to pass a law. We all kind of know that and sometimes but weve all given up on it, and were hoping somehow the president can use them over the statute to make it all work out covid statute. Nobody believes that will work too well. Congress engaged in ways cupping him to cover up for the ways he sort of fudging the statutory powers. So the need is there. The chance to break things open and come up with solutions in congress is a very. We need some people to show some bravery, to show some willingness to realize that holding onto their office is not the most important thing. D dan is somebody who had the courage of his convictions and suffered the consequences for it, unfortunately. But that wasnt, i dont think you feel all that much regret about that. No. And we need people to think actually doing the peoples work is more important than that, that having a sense of being an Immediate Team player for us also think that strategically go on immigration. Republicans are basically taking the posture that they will not do anything on immigration until they do Border Security. ellipsis any of his other stuff until the board is secured and then we will talk about these are the things that the problemtr with that from a tactical standpoint is the staffing to trade with the other side. Made comprehensive bills allow you to put in things that both sides hate, and thats really what is the magic in writing legislation is big things. You got to have an effect each side gives up something to eat so ien can get something. But when you narrow in juice so on one single thing like Border Security youre not going to do anything else, it makes it virtually impossible to move it. They need to be more comprehensive and how they think so tactically they could do Something Big like immigration reform. My question about the speaker, very interesting thatt in part we know the speaker has formal powers. Whats going to get voted upon. Welcome the speaker will have a lot to do that. Who sits on the rules committee. Speaker will have a lot of swaye their bottles a lot of the power comes from simply other legislators thinking the speaker has power or simply giving that power away. Now, my last question before we do the audience questions is to ask each of you, youve lamented about the state of congress. What can be done to fix it . I want to start with you, dan, ended reid and then fill. You should never start with the other question like that, looking for something, looking fro. I spent many years thinking this, this has to get better at this has to return i came in 2005,st and the second bush term was started there something still get done. There were things done in a bipartisan way. After 2008 election president obama gets elected, the republicans, to me at that point the republicans became much more partisan i call this sectarian partnership where its 15 partisanship. We cant even talk to them much less compromise with them. In 2016 President Trump gets elected, democrats go off on that same direction. I wondered, there was a time in 2013, 2014 where i sit i keep saying things have to get better and i finally quit saying things did you get better but im glad i said that before donald trump was elected. You need we seem, phil talked about in the book, we have seen historically there have been revolts. Members get tired of this and there is a revolt. The problem now that i see is members are more concerned about losing a primary for losing the general election so they are in who has a prior power in the primaries, its a extreme members, more extreme voters in your party. I certainly noticed myself. Thats where the activists are. Thats wherend the workers in te primary campaigns come from, although small donor donations. I tell you, try getting small dollar donations when youre not say world to an end if you dont send the five, ten, 20. Look, donald trump raised more than small dollar donors that he went has such a major problem. I would guess these members come 11 republican members against the rules the sweeter i would guess i dont know if its true that they went home and they heard from their activists, how did you let this happen . How did you let this terrible deal happen courts you need to do something. And i factor what can we do . Will show now that we are not going to go along. We are not going to play along and this is what we are going to do, on a bill we want past. But we need to show it because the activists come the people who were really listening to our calling for this. People are protesting outside my office and saying you have to vote no. And they felt that pressure and i usually never would ever in my 16 years suggested to another member what they should do. But i said, look, theres a time you have to be willing to stand up and willing to lose my job over this because this is so important. And i thought maybe i would, you know, i sort of felt like, to some extent i did that, but they were just so, you know, like this is probably it. If i vote for the, you know, certify electors, thats it and theyre listening to this very vocal minority, but they have a sway and thats the they think that how we get away from that . How do we get, you know, human nature doesnt change. How do we get members who are willing to say i think this is and its not that theyre doing its not that theyre saving themselves. You also buy into, we have the answers and my party has the answers. They have all the answers. Those are the things that somehow are broken and i dont have the answer to that so im hoping one of the two of you does. I dont think theres a good answer. Ive never been for fearful for the republic than i am in this time. I thought typically it is a crisis moment where you see congress begin to function, whether its a civil war, world war i or ii and you saw the congress emerge and become effective. I thought that january 6th would have been a triggering event in the history of the country, the first time that we lacked the peaceful transfer of power, that that would have been an event that would have caused people to pause, but the speed at which misinformation, disinformation can move through the internet today is shocking. And profoundly damaging. And i confess to you, and i wish it wasnt so much this way, that i went into congress a bit cynical. I ran because i was a cynical. And i Left Congress more cynical than when i went in. The challenge that we have right now is the American People must do a better job at selecting and promoting leaders and then holding their feet to the fire to lead. And we need a president who is willing to actually use moral hazard to force the congress to the president must relinquish its own power and force the congress through moral hazard to do their work and i think thats ultimately what it will take and that will be probably triggered by some crisis moment in the conduct, but if i had a solution, i will say this, the committee on modernization was a really good first step. It only works in the house. It wasnt working in the the senate didnt do it. If we could get the house to function normally again, that would be helpful. I think they came up with really good ideas and so, but, ive spoken to hundreds of audiences since i Left Congress and frequently asked the question, how many of you would give the congress of the United States an Approval Rating above 25 and ill tell you i hardly ever see a hand go up. And that tells you that people are dismayed by congress, the striking disconnect, however, the dissonance in it all the fact that they keep reelecting their own member. They hate the congress, but love their person. Now, phil, the professional. What do you think . Well, the book closes with three scenarios, which are, i think, some of the more fun chapters of the book. They start with dispatches from the future written by observers in 2039, the 250th birthday of Congress Looking back and thinking about where the institution has gotten to by then. And the three scenarios are called decrepitude, rummer stamp and revival. I have to admit the first three chapters of that were the first two chapters of the three were easier to right than the third one. It doesnt require too much imagination of congress hollowed even more than today. We should emphasize congress is not a completely broken place by any stretch of the imagination. Some good things happen and those things could get more screwed up than they are today. And so the revival chapter, yeah, i kind of agree, it seems like we need a real shock to the system to cause this kind of revolt, to cause this kind of willingness to shake things up because as long as as long as things sort of stay within the lines that were familiar with today, members are going to keep making the same choices, so, thats a hard reality to face, but you know, if i was going to offer some reforms on the margin, which im certainly willing to do, i do think that devolving power to the committees is an important thing to do and i like the idea that reid floated before having members elect their own chairman and i also like the idea of guaranteeing floor time. Part of the problem today is if you make yourself a diligent work horse in a committee and make yourself a policy expert and work on writing really good bills with your fellow committee members, they may not actually go anywhere, they may not be considered by your own chamber let alone have a chance to become law. The more that we could do to say, hey, if youre willing to be a work horse in congress and put in the time and write good legislation on hard subjects youre going at least have a chance to pass that into law, that would be a healthy change and incentive to get people with ambition to realize they can make something of those ambitions as legislators and not just as performers who use their purchase in congress to get attention. All right. The time we have left, lets go to audience questions. Gentleman in the front row. Thank you very much. The mic . The microphone is coming to you. Thank you very much. My name is tom dine. I worked in the senate for 10 years in the 1970s and then worked around both houses leading different organizations afterwards. Im a product of the cold war and the vietnam war and i saw things coming apart right. Front of our eyes when members didnt want to harm the executive to push the button if they had to, incoming missiles, whatever it required to stave off the soviet union. In doing so, i also watched particularly in the senate because i spent 10 years there, this the authorizing committee giving up power. And the appropriators, particularly, starting with the house, therefore became king makers afterwards, at least thats how i led different organizations, if you will, to deal with members. So i look forward to reading you, because i agreed so much to your opening, but we all love madison, we all love whoever but then again, 74, the vietnam war, gingrichs role. Can you expand . I could go on here thats chapter four and five of the book. So, crack it open. And i should mention to members here in person, books are on the table for you to take, so please help yourselves when we break. I will say that in that era that you mention, when there was such a profound loss of trust in government, there was a chance, i think, for the legislature to sort of rise in peoples estimation and so, a famous book that i liked very much was written in 1980 called the decline and resurgence of congress. So the 70s as a time of resurgence for the institution in large part because of watergate and the ways of vietnam led people to be suspicious of the executive. It was a very exciting time in terms of ambition and reshaping the place. Really a lot of energy in the halls of congress, but i say, unfortunately, they kind of they didnt succeed in sort of settling on a model that would really take advantage of congresss distinctive institutional capacities. Specifically, you sort of saw a shift from legislation to oversight in the 70s. And a sense that it wasnt always so important whether you passed the laws. You could just hold the subcommittee hearings and there were a huge proliferation of subcommittees with staff at this time and they did a lot of exactly, yeah. And so i think they they created by the carter administration, kind of a sense that congress was just a big mess and cacaphony is the word i use in my title, we didnt try to solve it with the madisonion logic. We turned to the wilsonian logic, 1980s onward and people who are frustrated with Congress Like a young newt gingrich, they brought a very wilsonian sensibility to american politics. Didnt believe in rehabilitating the congress. Newt gingrich from his First Campaign in mid 70 saying that congress is a terrible, corrupt place, we need to take the brooms and clean out the stables and when he and he relentlessly campaigned against the institution. When he was speaker of the house he wasnt against the coalition, and came in wilsonian way, we won the mid terms and president clinton only won because of ross perot, time to do what the americans wanted for decades the democratic way, and he didnt have legislative sensibilities in my argument in the book. He was not a Coalition Builder by disposition, and so, he tried to smash a lot of things through without much regard for even what the senate would think of it, let alone how he would get president clinton on board. He just sort of expected that his moment had arrived and everything would work out and you know, the puzzle to me was that model was not really that successful in, you know republicans in the mid 90s did not roll back the great society. That was their ambition and they failed. Welfare reform is a single exception where they got something important passed, but by and large their agenda just failed, but nevertheless, the gingrich model has stuck and you know, if you look at the idea of centralized house leadership sort of running things from their hip pocket, that was gingrichs idea, it was the idea of jim wright who he had relentlessly hounded out of office in 1988 and you know, i think we need to get away from this way of thinking. I think the part of the books ambition is to try to say, there is another way of thinking about this institution. We need to get away from this wilsonian everything is going to be decided in the elections mentality because frankly, elections cant carry that much weight. There were 37 when i was in congress, 37 committees that had authority in some way over health care and 37 each could write rules and offer legislation on health care, but they were all in their own silos. And so, its know he wonder that this thing all comes unglued. And so i did the radical thing, republicans were in control, i was a republican so in the rules, we were setting up the rules for the 115th congress. I offer a rule change to Credit Committee on health care, but that would remove the ability of these 37 other committees to do fund raising in the health care industry. You would have thought that the whole world was going to come unglued. Its the single biggest expense that the federal government has when you have medicare, medicaid and va benefits and everything that is health care and theres no single source, no single place where experts can reside and deal with one of the most important issues for the American People today. Well, i regret to inform you all that weve hit the 75th minute, but let me say this, for those of you who braved the smog, feel free to stick around afterwards. Everyones going to be here and were happy to chat. For those of you who are watching out there, thank you for tuning in. If we can, can we please get a round of applause for our panel. [applause] Congress Returns from its summer recess in september with a busy legislative floor schedule ahead. Both the house and senate are expect today take up federal spending bills, funding the government through next year to prevent a Government Shutdown. Current government funding expires on september 30th. Lawmakers are also facing end of the month deadlines to reauthorize f. A. A. And pandemic preparedness programs and the senate will continue work on more of President Bidens judicial and executive nominations, including for the federal reserve. Watch live coverage of the house on cspan, the senate on cspan2 and a reminder that you can watch all of our congressional coverage with our free video app cspan now or online at cspan. Org. This year, book tv celebrates 25 years of presenting nonfiction books and authors. And for the 22nd year in a row, book tv is live with the library of Congress National book festival. And since 2001, book tv in partnership with the library of congress has provided signature in depth, uninterrupted coverage of the National Book festival. Featuring hundreds of nonfiction authors and guests. Watch saturday as book tv once again brings you live, all day coverage of the National Book festival. Guests including carla haden, Cnn Supreme Court analyst, nine black robes. And chasten buttigieg, here our schedule online