Transcripts For CSPAN2 Philip 20240704

By introducing you all to phil and his two interlocutors to fill the sink and fell at aei, please assert atn. A senior felw at the r street next to the pockets of tissue. He also served ase a fellow of the House Select Committee on the modernization of congress. Back in 2019. He under undistracted thes from Princeton University and is author of two books, why and to the edge, legality, legitimacy and the responses to the 2008 financial crisis. Seated at the far end of their lives daniel lipinski. And is a distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution and pope leo the 13th fellow on social thought at the university of dallas pixieli represented the Third District of illinois in the u. S. House of representatives from 20052021. His career was quite distinguished congressman lipinski earned a doctorate in Political Science from dukena university and is the author of congressional communication, content and consequences. In the middle we have reid ribble, the inaugural practitioner residence in Political Science at the university of wisconsin green bay. He served in congress and served well. He represented the eighth district of wisconsin in the u. S. House of representatives 20112017, and after retiring from house congressman ribble served as the 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]e] 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, and some of the democratic members, not me because leadership knew they couldnt really sway me, too independent, so i c here for my democratic colleagues, i got a call from leadership that said stop trying to do this. We dont want the government essentially message we dont want the government reopened because this makes republicans look really bad. We dont want to help them get out of this problem. That is illustrative of the way things are. What happened . Republicans finally got something done, open government. They didnt look bad but that the Affordable Care act obamacare website crashed and then it all slipped to the other side but that so much of what the house especially since worked a little bit but thats what the house is about messaging and that takes away the peoples voice. That was certainly my experienc experience. How about you . In your experience did you see these diverse interests working out things amongst one another . Did they have the space to do that was a primarily kind of a redshirt versus blue shirtsc scrum . It depends on who ino the s congress your speaking of. Dan and i spoke frequently, became very good friends when i was there. There was something very i guess informed a lot of my thinking in congress that i was there forfi about four months and ive never served in any Political Office or been elected even though my good buddy here tossed that group of, there were elected in 2011 under the bus a second ago, that was me. The reality was i was sitting with scott rachel who was a car dealer. I was a roofing contractor by trade. We were both businesspeople and sit in the chamber for votes, and scott leaned over and said hey, have you met any democrats yet . We been therehr three months. And in Committee Meetings you go and get sequestered, all the republicans going there will come democrats go into a professional discussion between the two. I said no, i havent met any. He said well, why dont we go meet some . And i said i think thats a good idea. You over there, theyre all sitting over there. Just pick one and ill pick one and will go out to dinner. And thats what we did i went over and introduced myself to congressman jim cooper and scott introduced himself to congress when kurt schrader, went out to dinner. I wanted to figure out how liberals think. Just didnt understand. Internet we picked two of theal most moderate members of the chamber. It was a total fluke that that happened here but we became really good friends there congress functions and what they could friend mike another live of Congress Told me called it a pyramid of power. Everybody is working to climb up on top of the pyramid. At the very top is the speaker the house and right below theno speaker of the house of the majority leaders and majorityminority whips they are there and then directly below them are the Committee Chairman but i would even say directly below the whips and majority and minority leaders actually for staff directors of the t commite spirit into the arctic Committee Chairman. And below them are the legislative directors on your staff and then at the bottom of the pyramid is everybody else come all the members. We have no power whatsoever. Everything was driven from the top. I was in the majority felt time to speak Speaker John Boehner was the speaker basically covered the Republican Congress using gastric rule, nothing will come to the 4000 alliterative majority of the majority. That point he can move forward to it however when bright beacon speak i dont think this was delivered i think was the nature of what had happened in the members that were center it pretty much got to the point when nothing came to the floor unless we could pass it on our own. And thats where 218 republican votes we didnt want to basically anybody mad and so nothing could happen without that. What that meant then was everything was directed from the top and we even had less power in that case. Im struck by the congress unwillingness to jealously and vigorously guard their authority under article one of the constitution. They are very willing to pass that authority off to a president , and twod recent examples would be the u. S. Senate under President Trump was controlled by republicans, and they just all kind of rolled over when President Trump didnt want his father going to the process of advice and consent can position. Cult the cult made up all bunch of acting secretaries and the senate rolled over on the back like puppies and waited for trump to pat them there on the telly and they just let him do whatever he wanted. Oiand today youve got several things going on with President Biden just decided were going to issue 20 billion of credits for Student Loans that will just forget it. Congress got all the power of the purse but they just refused to hold onto it and protect and guard their power and damages the institution i think to get back to where the congress is actually represent a body g the work that the American People want, they are going to after sees that power back from the executive branch. Even when its their guy or gal in the g white house. That got to be able to say no. Nice, mr. President or madam president that you get this opinion but we will let you know when recent legislation over if you like it cited, if you dont do it and will take it from there. They are just unwilling to protect their own authority. Its a discouraging qb their watch it unfold. I should say that im old enough to remember the carter presidency. You had a democratic congress, you had a democratic president and congress would often just openly contemptuous of the white house and was contemptuous of it, and they fought amongst themselves frequently with the republican sitting on the side watching the whole spectacle. And that these days is rare. Thats why we turn to you, phil, because this Issue Congress giving up authority, the constitution says it has. James madison probably would be a bit perplexed by this. Much of his scheme to some degree involves the kind of locomotive of human beings wanting to hold and wield power as part of what keeps the separation of power system working is people want to guard the power they have by virtue of being in the branch. As we all know delegation giving away about refusal to wield powers has become regular. Why did members do that . Isnt qualified . Why would they not want to use it . Yeah, the whole admission counteracting ambition depends on sort of this individual sense of drive. And it has to be drive to do something fs take the responsibility onto yourselfrs rather 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 when the next election. Thats really the thing that dominates our current political is the sense that it really is important for my party to win the next election. The ambition is lets get our party and white of whether exercising sort of real power in the system, and we will take it from there and we will cheer them on when we have the real power and we will try to slow the other guys down when they have it. Yeah, i guess its a source of hope for me because i do think that dan and reid are not so unusual in feeling a lot of frustrations with just how useless members of congress can feel sometimes, right . Its a very widely shared sense, as a people get elected to congress are talented, ambitious people. I dont think its a matter that we have all the wrong people elected to office, and are some, something morally or in any other way defective about them. I think people do feel frustrated and wish they could be more involved in a meaningful legislative process where they are helping to find sort of strange bedfellows across the aisle and making things happen, but they are willing at the same time to sit back and listen to the leaders when the leaders tell them no, thats really not so helpful for the really important thing of winning the next election. Support at the point of this book is just a plea to the members themselves the book ends with an open letter to members of congress. Pretty much just says hey, arent you ambitious . Dont you want to get something done for this country . Isnt this trend of centralization kind of played out . Havent we had enough of the current political moment and a sense that we kind of exhausted its possibilities . Dont you want to be a part of mixing it up and solving the countrys problems in a more active way . Dont you want to be something more than a glorified telemarketer as note one of your former colleagues describe the job, and i think a lot of members really do want that and so im hopeful that they can, im hopeful that they can draw some inspiration from the history of their own institution to know that congress has a function on very different operative principles and 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 want to go back to congressman lipinski. The image of the house not being the place where interests are able to work out amongst themselves, of being very driven from the top down is that a structural issue primarily that can be fixeded by altering the kind of interval rules andt structure of the chamber . Is that a partisanship issue . What is it . It is driven by partisanship. It is driven by the divide in the country. But it is reinforced by the rules, and the committee on modernization of congress, thats one of the things i actually originally had the bill to create that, we were hoping to open things up. At the beginning of this congress some of the Freedom Caucus members, i had an oped in the Washington Post say they are talking that we need to open this process. Would like to say, more of a say in whats going on. We dont want this to be topdown and i said this is good. This is something that is interesting though, they felt that well, they want more of a say and somehow they are going to have more control. I dont, didnt quite understand that but im all for opening things up. In the Problem Solvers Caucus were always trying to do that. We had, after the 2010 election democrats got the majority in the house, and Problem Solvers Caucus had agreed on some rules changes that were going to demand whoever, whichever party had won the majority of 2010 election there would be a new speaker no matter what, paul ryan was saying he was going to step out and we said we are going to demand that there are several changes, opened it up tomorrow bipartisan, changeable, open up tomorrow bipartisan lawmaking. And, unfortunately, we didnt, we made a few small changes but its tough. Its really tough. At that time almost everyone knew nancy pelosi would eventually going to be speaker to i dont want to affect nancy to so we got some small things out. There so its partially the rules, a lot of it is look, i would assume those members that this past week that we are not going to pass a rule. Le in order to consider legislation on the floor you need to pass a rule. Generally the Majority Party vote for the rule. It says this bill will come out, how much debate time, how many amendments ifor any. Normally the majority votes for, minority to consider 11 republicans said no, we feel we did have enough input on the debt ceiling. And so they stop that from moving forward. ellipsis my point was going with that one. Can i pick it up . Go ahead. Im glad you had a look in your eye. Spirit i just want to say, this point about the Freedom Caucus folks and the kind of blowing the chamber open, i agree. I like an awful lot of the rhetoric from some of those folks back in january. But it has to be in service of Coalition Building and the operative principle has to be persuasion. You actually have to imagine reaching out to your colleagues and beating them where they stand in convincing them that they should do business with you. I think the strange part, these folks want to blow the floor open, have more of a chance to either say on the floor to offer and limits on the floor. No, for that but really for congress to sort of get its mojo back, it needs to embrace its role as the legislature that makes laws, and you make laws by assembling majorities. The question ive always had is, how do we get the moderates to feel more organized such that they were the ones making demand and assembling in the service, assembling these coalitions whether the speaker is happy about it or not . The Problem Solvers Caucus has done some very good work in that regard, but in some ways i find the group less assertive than i wish it was. That are less willing to yield their votes in s oppositin to stop something, for sure, because most of the problem solvers are more pragmatists than ideologues. And so they are just a Different Group of people. One of my favorite words in the entire u. S. Constitution is also one of the smallest ones, the word all. Its the first word of the first article, the first section of the constitution, all. Pretty inclusive word. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested or interested in thed congress of the United States which will consist of a sin and house of representatives. So all the legislative power that our founders bestowed that they graded here and in the constitution was given to this body, the congress. They had to wrestle between the states and the people, the house of representatives and the senate, to come up with some type of agreement. There never was this idea thatan the president is going to write legislation as they come because i got voted by all the people you have to do this. Its that even remotely where the founders were at intellectually or, they didnt want the country to run that way because the revolution itself was in opposition to a monarchy come to a power. In fact, john quincy adams, after he served president went back and served in the house of representatives. Can you imagine a president today lowering himself to serve in the house not . But thats where the power resided in the earliest days. And congress, they think after they have not embraced as an adult i agree with what you do just said regarding some of the rules changes, but the one rule change that they needed they isdidnt push for, and that is that 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 still has that too much power. In the way you wrest power away from Committee Chairman is by having Committee Chairman selected by the members of the committee. Because then that chairman would be beholden to the members t of the Committee Rather than the speaker who selects them. And the most significant change of the credit made standout, admin you would begin to devolve power back to the members, and that great wisdom other crap that you speak of in your book could emerge. But right now the citizens that are represented by Kevin Mccarthy in california, though thatens, the wisdom of crowd has way more say, and the wisdom of the crowd in northeast wisconsin has none. And thats where this whole idea the wisdom of the crowd breaks down. Because those members were the proxy. They are the vote, they are to say heres what northeast wisconsin but heres what illinois feels about this or that this is what the citizen say about this or that. And then they placed their cart in the machine and vote. Thats the only way that the wisdom of the crowd can emerge through this elected body and begin to be heard again. The fact its not because everything is been driven by the top. One thing, anyone whos in this room, watch as this, if theres one thing besides reading phils book that i want you to take out of this, if you dont know it, congress is article one of the constitution. Starts out all legislative power to i dont think most americans know that or understand that. They think the president is the leader of everything, the president is supposed to make policy for the country, supposed to make laws for the policy. And i mean, the wisdom of, i come back in the last couple of years and looked at the federalist papers. Just the wisdom of the man who wrote the constitution, and this idea is a vast, very diverse country, even at the time of thw founder come it was a diverse country. How do we keep people together . Welcome Everyone Needs to feel like a have a voice through the representative. And i go back to you, there are not just two ways of thinking. Theres not a red wave entranceway and a blue way. Theres a lot of diversity across the country and the idea, we need the forces come into this is adversity. I think 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 high school level. You know, schools would invite you to comere in as a member of congress to talk about how congress works. I would take this High School Class and i would say today were going to create a house te and senate and were going to vote on where we are going to lunch. And we would divide the room, i think it would have to deliberate and come toto a conclusion about where theyre going to go to lunch that day. Except as a deliberate i would want to ready and give someboda card and on the card would say im shellfish allergic. And other carbide sake i got an allergy to peanuts there and i go rent and i would basically sabotage it to try to show that the diversity, the diversity all had toti be brought into consideration to get to a conclusion here and it is the strength of that diversity actually if congress is allowed to let it emerge could actually be something extraordinarily powerfulrf today. But that got to about it. That means they must give a power themselves and give it back to you all. So i want to double back to this issue that everyone hit upon about recent speakers being so powerful. In fact, we 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 source of the power . Who would like to take that one . Who wants to start . Who wants to start on that one . Do you want i can tell you my take on it. I think members like it that way. Yo so we you observe continued dysfunction in any organization, in the business, in a Congress Come in a marriage come if you continue to observe this function you have to ask the question, whose winning as a result of this dysfunction. Figure can identify why the dysfunction exists. When you relinquish power to somebody else, when congress relinquishes it to the president , when members relinquish it to the speaker they have someone to blame when they go home. And vacancy man, i was fighting against this but i got stopped by the speaker but i was fighting for this but the president wouldnt let us. That im still going to be theie fighting for yout tomorrow. And you get somebody to blamey for they get to carry the weight of any bad decision. And 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, they are the rightful heirs of that power based on the electorate that sent them there. I dont think that what the expert the old observation ofan legislative politics is that politicians either bought to claim credit or the want to shift blame enter claim credit you at least have to engage an incredible amount of action to be able to say that you achieve something, where as you suggested blame shifting seems a lot easier. You just sit back and say well, i tried to but the forces the easiest vote in congress is that nofooter you can win the election everything to your and vote no on everything. I want to add to that because i think theres some truth to that. A lot of people say that is the primary reason why members of Congress Give up power so they cant get blamed, they can shift blame. I also think that, i may e especially because im coming from the democratic party, just the idea, reid talked about how democrats and republicans to mix to this mixture this idea that we have, our party has all the answers and members come in, first of all a lot of members who come in, new members now elected, they dont do anything different. Its been this way familiar spectator had a legislator they dont even think of the idea that im going to come in and actually be able to participate in this life is a process. They are thinking i got elected, im here for the team. And theres so much that. Im here for the team if the leader of the team says youve got to follow along, and you say okay, all right im here for, weve got to get because we need to defeat the evil other side and you are told welcome if you dont go along, the evil other side can win. We all need to Stay Together or else the evil other side could win. And thats the part of it or some of it, members dont even know what they could possibly do it 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, its like ive got to go to the king or queen here and if they will grant, if they would do something wio something that i want to get and say in go home need to go to them, i need to get them to make it happen. And, therefore, i cant cross them in any way. Identify along until i get my chance to ask for my favor from the monarch. I think thats also part of whats going on. I think both of your answers explains a lot about sort of the stickiness of the current moment. I think to some extent those forces are always at work. And i think its within the realm of possibilities for members to sort of feel like this threat is played out to at some point feel like being the good partizan team player is just not worth it anymore because your own party has gotten so twisted up in its own sort, selfdefense rather than actually solving the peoples and doing the peoples work. And so i think, you know, politics, congressional politics is kind of its gotten kind, boring, right . I mean, the debt ceiling fight, thats thats exciting in a certain kind of way. But actually, if you know how to watch, it was pretty pretty darn predictable and pretty boring and something that happens 100 of the time is likely to happen. The media does its to turn this into a good story but its its so predictable and its so sterile and it not going to its not going to solve our problem. Its not going to produce anything. If you if you really feel like its important that we up with some Novel Solutions to the problems facing the country. Congress can be an engine of that. It really is a better place be an engine of 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 and so congress, you know, think of a think an issue like immigration, which is of the chapters a sort of case study in my book, theres some such a widespread sense that our immigration system broken in so many different ways and an awful lot of common sense feeling, like we ought to be able to make a deal, we ought to be able to make a deal that does something about the border and the problem the problem with our immigration courts being so blocked up and that something for all these people stuck in this legal gray world, there are so many different aspects of it. And its its just waiting for congress to pass a law. And we all kind of know that in sometimes but weve all up on it and were hoping that somehow the president can use some covid statute to make it all work out even though no nobody really believes that thats going to work too well. Congress is engages in ways of helping them cover up for the ways hes 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 there. We just need we need some people to show some bravery, show some willingness to to realized holding on to their office is not the most important. And i mean, dan and dan, somebody who had the courage of his and suffer the consequences for it, unfortunately. But you know, that wasnt i dont think you feel all that much regret about that. No. And we need we people to think actually doing the peoples work is more important that than that being having a sense of being an obedient player. I also think that strategic cli though on immigration, republicans are basically taking posture that they will not anything on immigration until they do border security. Dont talk about any of this other stuff until. The border is secure. Then well talk about these other things. The problem with that from a tactical is theres nothing to trade with the other big comprehensive bills allow you to put in things that both sides hate. And thats really what the magic in writing legislation and in big things is. Youve got to enough that each side gives up something so that each side can get something. But when you narrow in just so one single thing they border, youre not going to get anything else. It just makes it virtually impossible to move it. They need there need to be more comprehensive in how they think. So tactically can do Something Big like immigration reform. So my question about the speaker pivot away from that, but i its very interesting that in part the you know, we know the speaker has formal powers. You know what whats going to get voted upon. Well, speaker is going to have a lot to do with that sits on the rules committee. Well speaker is going to have a lot of sway there but also a lot of the power comes from simply other legislators thinking the speaker has power or simply giving 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, and i want to start with you, dan. Then read, then fill. You should never start with on a question like that, looking for something looking for hope. I many years thinking this this has to get better this has to return to working. I came in in 2005 and i think still is second bush term were starting something still got done there were some 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 partizan. I call it a sectarian where you just its the team in just hate the other side we cant even talk to them much less compromise them. And then 2016, President Trump gets elected, go off and at that same direction our, i wondered, there was a time in 2013, 2014 where i said i keep saying things have to get better and i finally quit saying things need to get better. Im glad i said before donald trump was was. You need weve weve seen it phil talk about in the book weve seen historically there have been revolts members get tired of this and theres a revolt. The problem now that i see is more members are more concerned about losing a primary than losing the general election. So theyre in and who has the power in the primaries its the more extreme members, more extreme voters, your party. I certainly know this myself and thats where the activists are. Thats where the workers and the primary campaigns from small dollar donation earns. I tell you, try giving small dollar donations when youre not saying, oh, the world is going to end. If you dont send me five, ten, 20. Its look, donald trump raised most from dollar donors than anyone in history has. Thats a a major problem. And i would guess that these members 11 republican members republicans rule this week i would guess i dont know if true that they went home and heard from their active how did you let this happen how did you let terrible deal happen you need to do and i thought well what can we do. Oh well well now that were were not going to go along, were were were not going to were not going to play along. And this is what were going to do is vote this rule on a bill that we want we want passed, but we need to show it because our the activist the people who we are really listening to, calling for this when it change, i dont know. Very quickly, i remember in december of of 2020, all this talk about is the in voting to certify the electors in each state. I remember a called Problem Solvers Caucus and were republican members who were saying i just the phone doesnt stop ringing people are protesting outside my office. Theyre all saying you have to vote no on and i mean, they felt that and i, i usually never would ever in my 16 years suggested to member what they should do. But i said look you theres a time you have to be willing to stand up and say im willing lose my job over this because this is this is so important. And i thought maybe would you know, i, i sort of felt like to some extent i did. They were just so theyre like this is probably it. If i if i vote for the, you know, certify electors, thats it. And theyre listening to the very vocal minority. But they have a sway. And thats thats thing that how do we get away from that . How do we get. You know, human nature doesnt change how do we get members who are to say, i think this in fact, what theyre doing, its not just theyre saving themselves. They also you also buy into we have the answers and my party has the answers in all the answers. And those are things that somehow have to be broken. I dont have the answer to that. So im one of the two of you. Does. Yeah. I dont think theres a good answer. I never been more fearful for the republic than am in this time. I thought typically it was a crisis where you see congress to function, whether its a civil war, war one or two. You saw the Congress Really emerging and become very, very effective. I actually thought january six would have been a triggering event in the history of the country. The first time that we we lack a peaceful transfer of power, that that would have been an event that would have caused people to pause. But the speed at which misinformation and disinformation can move through through internet today is shocking and profoundly damaging. I, and i confess, to you and i wish it wasnt so much this that i went into congress a bit cynical. I ran because i was cynical and i Left Congress more cynical than what i went in the that we have right now is is the American People must do a better job at selecting and promoting leaders. And then and then holding their feet to the fire lead. And we need a president who is willing to to actually use moral hazard to force the congress to to the president must relinquish its own power and force the congress to moral hazard, to do their work. And i think thats i think thats ultimately what itll take thatll probably be triggered by some crisis moment in country. But if i had a solution. I will say this the committee on modernization was a really first step that only works in the house wasnt working in the senate didnt do it. But if we could just get the to function normally again, that would be helpful. I think they came up with some really good ideas and. So but ive hundreds of audiences since i left, ill frequently ask a question, how many of you would give the congress of the united an Approval Rating above 25 . In our tell you, i hardly ever see a hand go up and that tells you that people are by congress the striking disconnect however and the decent send at all the fact that they keep reelecting their own member. They hate the congress, but they love their person they love their person. They are devotionals. The three scenarios which are the most fun chapters of the book start with dispatch from future and observers in 2039, 250th birthday of Congress Looking back thinking about where the institution was and it decrepitude, rubberstamped revival. I have to admit the first two chapters were a lot easier to write than the third one. It doesnt require imagination to imagine congress hollowed out. We should emphasize congress is not a completely broken place, some good things still happen and they could get more screwed up than they are today. The revival chapter, i agree, it seems a real shock to the system to cause this willingness to shake things up because as long as is that we are familiar with, we will keep making the same choices so that is a hard reality to face but if i offer reforms on emerging, i do think devolving power to the committee is an important thing to do and i like the idea of having members elect and guaranteeing committees for the time. Part of the problem is you make yourself a diligent workforce in the committee and a policy expert and work on writing good bills with fellow Committee Members they may not go anywhere or considered by your own let alone have aal chance to become law so the more we can do to guarantee if youre willing to be a workforce in congress and put in the time, you will have a chance to get it passed into law and that would be healthy change to realize to make something of the ambition not just as performersir use their attentio. The time we have left, lets go to audience questions the microphone is coming to you. I worked in the senate ten years in the 1970s and then worked ouaround leading different organizations afterwards. I am a product of the cold war andw vietnam war. Members didnt want to harm the executive, incoming missiles or whatever is required state office of the union. I also watched particularly in thete senate, the authorizing committee giving up power and appropriators in the house became kingmakers, at least thats how i lead different organizations so i look forward to reading because i agree to your opening but we all love whoever but the vietnam war, gingrich will can you expand . Thats chapter four and five of the book. I should mention there on the table for you to take so help yourselves when we break. I will say in that era you mentioned when there was profound loss of trust in government there was a chance for the legislature the famous book i like so much written in 1980 being suspicious of the executive so looking back when you work in the senate, it was an exciting time in terms of ambition and reshaping the place, a lot of energy in the halls of congressna but they didnt succeed settling on a model taking advantage of the Institutional Capacity specifically you saw a shift from legislation to oversight in a sense that whether you pass the laws to hold the subcommittee hearing and proliferation of committees with staff, they did yes. They created by the Carter Administration a sense that congressss was a missed so that left a problem to be solved but we didnt try solve it with logic, we turned to look logic and people were frustrated with Congress Like the young new gingrichch and have this sensibility to make in politics and did not believe in living congress. New gingrich from the First Campaign in the mid 70s said congress is corrupt and terrible place, we need to clean out the stables and relentlessly campaign against thei institution. Even when we became the speaker of the house, he wasnt oriented against coalition logic and cayman in the waiting we have a mandate from the people and gave the contract with america and one the midterms and clinton only one after all those decades doing things theoc democraticaly and he did have legislative senate and is not a Coalition Builder by definition tried without much regard for what the senate would think that alone computer get to president clintons on board and arrived and everything would work out to me is thatu is known as social and republicans in the mid 90s w rollback their ambition and they failed. There agenda failed but the gingrichuc model step and if you look at idea of centralized leadership running things from the bucket, it was gingrich idea and hounded out of office in 1998 and we need to get away from this way of thinking. Part of the ambition is to say there is another way of thinking about the institution getaway on this everything is going to be decided in the election because elections cant carry that much weight. Thirtyseven committees and subcommittees in some way over healthcare, used to write rules and offer legislation on healthcare but they were in their own silence so it is no wonder this thing comes unglued so republicans were control and the rules for the 115 congress i offered a change for healthcare but that was removed with the ability with 37 other committees. He would have thought the whole world would come unglued, isxp e single biggest government had with medicare and medicaid and va benefits no angle place where experts can reside and deal with the most important issues the American People today. Good to inform you all, let me say this. For those of you braved the smoke, feel free too stick aroud afterwards. For those of you watching out there, thank you for tuning in and we could get a round of applause. [applause] Congress Returns from summer recess in september with a busy legislative for schedule ahead. House and senate are expected to take of federal spending bills funding government to next year to prevent Government Shutdown. Current government funding expires september 30. Lawmakers are facing deadlines to reauthorize pandemic preparedness programs. The senate will continue work on the judicial and executive nominations including federal reserve. Watch live coverage of the house on cspan, senate on cspan2 and a reminder you can watch all of our congressional coverage on cspan now or online at cspan. Org. Book tv celebrates 25 years of presenting nonfiction books and authors. Twentysecond year in a row, book tv is live with the library of Congress National book festival. Since 2001, book tv in partnership congress provided signature indepth uninterrupted coverage of the National Book festival featuring hundreds of nonfiction authors again. Watch saturday at book tv once again brings coverage of National Book festival. Library of congress on his book, i have something to tell you for young adults and former nfl player also, author of the yard between us. Complete National Book festival schedule online at book tv to