Transcripts For CSPAN2 Philip 20240704

Latest in nonfiction books and authors. Funding for cspan2 comes from these Television Companies and more. Including comcast appear quick so youre thinking this is just a Community Center . No it is way more than that of a comcast is part of 1000 committee centers to create wifi enabled so students from lowincome families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. Comcast, along with these Television Companies support cspan2 as a public service. Let me conclude by introductory title at the lectern by introducing you all to fill. Phil is a senior fellow previously worked as a senior fellow at the institute and the Brookings Institution he also served as a fellow on the House Select Committee on the modernization of congress. And his doctorate in politics is the author of two books by congress and to the edge of thee legitimacy the responses of 2008 financial crisis. Is it daniel, and 10 is a distinguished visiting fellow of the Hoover Institution and social thought at the university of dallas. Here is that represents the Third District of illinois from 2005 until 2021. His career is quite distinguished. Congressman hunt Political Science from Duke University author congressionalcose communications, contents and consequences. In that middle we have the inaugural practitioner and Political Science the eighth district and the u. S. House of representatives of 201,122,017 and after trying from house congressman served as a ceo of the National Contractor association for five years. With that let me step away from the lectern and bring up our guest. Phil wallick. [applause] is to start by thanking everyone who braved the smoke today and is here in person. It is a real honor to have you all gathered together. And to thank the American Enterprise institute for providing really such a wonderful professional home for me where i could write this book. I want to start off by reading the epigraph of my book which seems like a strange thing to do. I find it prettys inspirational and helps give a sense of why i am involved in this project. At comes from this book in defense of politics. And it goes like this. Burdened with established truths was a great enemy of free men. So theres some excuse not to be clever and inventive in redefininghi things or to preted to academic unconcern or scientific detachment. But simply to try to make old platitudes pregnant. Politics can remain perpetually young, strong and lively so long as i can keep its feet on the ground of mother earth. So the great defender of politics as its own thing. And thats the very beginning of his book. The next paragraph he goes on to Say Something about how we should think of politics too often regarded as a poor relation inherently dependent and subsidiary. It is rarelyd clear the life ad character of its own. Politics is not religion, ethics, law, history or economics. It neither solves everything nor is it presentan everywhere and s not any one political doctrine such as conservativism communism i can campaign contain elements of most of these things. Politics is politics to be valued as itself. Not because its like a really is something a more respectable or peculiar. Politics is politics. Politics is often a dirty word in contemporary usage. Something is political that means it is bad. Part of my effort in writing this book is to rehabilitates the idea of p politics is something that free people do. And the best way we have to keep social peace in the context of profound differences between people of our country. We need to learn how to cope with difference, manage it and regulated and not hope we can suppress it or pretend it does not exist. And so a big thing of the book is whitee congress is the place where we need to deal difference white and the american Constitutional System Congress is the one institution that allows the many nests of america to have a say and to allow the different factions to come up against each other. Gu and hopefully in the process of having to figure out how to accommodate each other actually produce policies for the challenges facing our country better than any one group could come up with all on its own. So this is not a new idea is epigraph said. I dont pretend any inventiveness. This goes straight back to something surely most of you were taught in civics class at some point. From james mattis in federalist number 10. Madison and his coauthors of the federalist papers hamilton are very concerned with how are we going to make this country hang together . Because as the constitution like they were worried this younger project of the United States of america was not long for the world. They were centrally concerned with the problem of how can we get this diverse republic full of people divided by class interest, regional interest, how can we get them all to live together in relative harmony rather than falling to pieces . Provides theex very famous answr about the extendedd republic. He s talks about having sufficit diversity affection that they will essentially check each other keep anyone from predominating and thereby make sure we cannot have tyranny of the majority or tyranny of any one group. I will not go into that in detail because you probably all heard that suffice it to say given more credit for. Until the fact people disagree by somehow making us all into one people who agree on everything. I think madisons route is far more realistic and far more profound. But turning to practicality medicine pretty quickly found its not simply enough to put these factions m in contact with each other mix it up and hope everything turns out all right. And madison and the Second Congress became concerned amidst chaos the giant special interest of his day was coming to predominate. He worried about the bank of the ninth eighth and l. A. A specifically. Wrote to his friend Thomas Jefferson wrote the stock shoppers are becoming the band of the government. S on spiritual intolerance and overall emanations. They had a lot of flair back then. so what madison worries that theres not some kind of organization put on this interplay and the congress that he is a active member a leading member of, it is going to sort of open the door to predation by interest. And so madison, who worried so much about faction is a little bit ironically when the fathers of Political Parties and helps to create the Republican Party as a counterbalance to hamiltons a party essentially, the federalist in congress. Everything worked out smoothly in and of a itself the 1790s were in exceptionally nasty decade of politics in American History. Therefore my subject im just going to say we see a situation or ring to organize affection and congress. But partisan organization introduces its own problems. Let me fastforward about eight decades to another famous observer of congress. That is the political scientists road will woodrow wilson. Woodrow wilson is a doctoral student at Johns Hopkins university. Wrote a book that became probably the best celtic work of american Political Science and history. It is called congressional government. Most people remember it today for a famous pronouncement that congress and committees congress at work. Thats the most famous pronouncement. But wilson was not just writing a textbook. He is very concerned the congress of his day was again a place for special interests were predating on the American People. All sorts of deliberation was happening and Committee Rooms behind closed door there were no are noopen committees at that t. Much more substantive debate. Once again we have a situation the parties which wilson thought were rather bankrupt in terms of their principles running on fumes. Leaving America Politics adrift. Freight much different wilson once clean c lines so we can hae accountability he believes what we needed the parties can deal with faction anciently they can present the American People the clean choice. They will charge one of the parties which was given a clear message to implement its agenda and Pay Attention to the finer details of administration it is remarkable to the extent which prescriptions got followed in the decades after he rode. Well before he ever emerged as a Major Political figure in his own right. In the 1880s and 1890s we move toward a system of very strong partisan control of the house under speakerak read known as ae read. His successor on the first decade of the 20th centurys is one ofan the most colorful figures in American History really who i wish was not such an obscurity today. Joseph gurney canon. He was somebody who was raised in the wilds of western indiana in the 1840s here he was a dominant figure the first decade of the 20th century. He always had a good cigar hanging out the corner of his mouth and he played up his hayseed natures way of dealing with the prospect has a very shrewd political operator became the dominant figure in washington for a time. And if i can, i need a clicker. There is a quicker summer. Im not showing you a slideshow i was one cartoon thats my favorite of the whole book. This is a cartoon the caption of the, i better get it right the caption says the houston session according to the minority point o view. That is what is in the script at the top. For those of yours online, you could describe the picture this is Joseph Gurney canon presiding over the chamber of the house. That gentleman from illinois the house is full of him scores and scores of copy such that the house consist of doing what he wants. They followed the advice to a remarkable degree and ended up in the situation marie had a dominant party with a pretty clear agenda. After the party of the election of 1896. With William Mckinley and William Jennings bryan. Canon is for the business orthodoxy of the day he is the dominantt figure. But in fact comes with the problem of the stifling orthodoxy but this time of these secondal revolution very rapid social change. Congress cant keep up on things are trying to say how things should be. And eventually he faces a moment and congress, an insurgency from progressive republicans and his party who both joined forces with the democrats overthrow his dominance. He had been presiding over the rules committee in addition to being the speaker and stripped of that power. And soon enough things are blown open. Congress operates on a very different principle for decades of sacrosanct security principal Work Committee chairman rather than the speaker thats a decentralized model of congress the book tries to give a sense of congress as a place with a long history. It is a place in trying to tilt the problem of faction. Trying to make sense of how we can play factions off against each other in productive ways. We sometimes end up in the land like this we have cycling orthodoxy. Other times we end up feeling like the place has become a decentralized chaotic mess. And when you do start to reimpose through centralization. That is all he wanted to show for my picture show. Im going to jester at most of the meat chapters of the book. I 150 basic conceptual idea out there. Im sure well have time to talk about contemporary politics in the discussion. The main part of the book goes from 1970s to today and looks at how we have gotten from a place in the 1970s became a radically decentralized chamber to today is a place dominated by very canon like figures at least until very recently. Maybe things today are changing and we will talk about that. D it is a place where centralized leadership is called the shots to a remarkable degree structured the agenda and we dont really have a very interplay of factions. We have two clusters of factions who know how to yell each other and insult each other do not always know how to Work Together except when they absolutely have too. And to be fair than they do. The argument of the book is that we are in a moment for the stifling orthodoxy centralized leaders give our politics a sense of not being adequate to the challenges of the moment which are very real. They tend to push policymaking elsewhere in our government. If congress does not act the executive branch largely picks up the slack and unfortunately the executivece branch is not a good place to represent the readiness of the country. Went up per profoundly just me problems we try to have agency bureaucrats solve all of our problems through creative interpretation of old statutes. We need to continually renew our self of selfgovernment, take ownership for what happens with the federal government does and the best way for us to do that is to feel like we trust the members that we sent to congress. And we believe in the process by which they mix it up with each other and work outmo accommodations and find solutions. It will not always be pretty solutions they will not always be good laws my argument is not that if we empower congress a better and got to be more assertive branch it would always do the right thing. That will be a crazy argument to make. I do not believe that. But overall, why congress . By investing in the political process, by investing in this idea of selfgovernment that is how we renew our commitment to being a free people. That iss how we secure social peace better than any other way we know. That is really how ourct constitutional system is meant to function. We need to make the choice once again. In order i think to keep our country from falling to pieces but i will leave it at that and look forward to the discussion. Thanks. [applause] think you phil. We will first start with congressman, spoke of congress and especially the house as being a place that is supposed to be a bunch of diverse interests being piled into the same form and then having to work things out amongstph themselves which can go to basic ways. Either they cancel each other out and nothing happens. M or they somehow bargain out a compromise that enough of them can live with thing and then move onto the next chamber. Was that happening when you are in congress . Was it happening much, a lot, not at all . What was your experience . Let me start, let me read this from a distinguished academic and public servants. The blurb on the back of the book. While few can claim contemporary congresses United Nation are solving our most vaccine problems, why congress lays out a convincing case this is exactly what the institution was designed to do, has done in the past, and can do once again. And let me tell you as we all know it is not doing that right manow. So many different thoughts come to mind wait to many. Our singing did anyone do that we do that cartoon with nancy pelosi . That wouldve been absolutely perfect. I have said the biggest change i have seen. I studied congress before iran for congress as a political scientist. The biggest change i think happened over the last few decades is it used to be after every election every two years, everyone into Washington House members, senators would look around and say okay, who has a majority in the house question or coup hasas majority in the senate customer who controls the white house . What can we do over the next year end a half work on the betterment of the country . Before we fight it out in the next election. Who controls what what can we do in the next two years . So our party can get control of everything and shoved down the throats of the other side exactly what we want. This is not how congress is supposed to operate. Congress, as i was coming over here i saw a tweet from scott perry was asked today about, have they resolve the impasse . Right now the house is stuck. Block the rule on some bill of republicans wanted. They asked scott perry has not been resolved . He said it doesnt matter that much. That was just a messaging bill. And they said thats all the house is doing right now. The house is taken itself the big problem is, as phil said is a congress is supposed to take in all these ideas this book is just incredible. Its i the book i wish i would have written. Im glad phil put the work and to do it. He did a better job than i probably would have. It is so important but so few people understandta this. But the role of congress is supposed to be. Supposed to be representative of the views of their constituents to washington. The constitution set up congress to debate, to deliberate come to some consideration. And it is not doing that. Some may say its just because the country is so split. That is part of the reason but congress was meant to fill sis in this book i could help bring the country together if we let them do their job instead of having a roadway or a blue way and there is no other choices. Individual members do not get to have too much of a say in it. We are in the minority were not trying to have a say. Were not trying to shame the other side. So we can win the next election. The two of usim can go for a log time so will shut myself up here. The best illustration 2013 Government Shutdown october of 2013 for theres a group of us i was a member of the Problem Solvers Caucus. The democrats and republicans forget what can we possibly put forward to help get us out . To get us funded again. Went understood the republicans had painted themselves in the corner. The House Republicans that get rid of the Affordable Care act. Where the government does not get funded. We are trying to figure out some way through this. Some of the democratic members, not me because leadership knew they could not sway me. I was too independent to hear from a democratic colic i got a call from leadership to stop trying to do this. We dont want the government reopened. This makes republicans look really bad so we do not want to help them get out of this problem. Thats the way things are. They got things that with open government. But the Affordable Care act at all slip to the other side. That is so much of what the house the senate works a little bit that is what the house is about messaging. That just takes away the peoples voice. That was certainly my experience. Cehow about you . In your experience did you see diverse interests working out, things amongst that they have the space to do that or was it primarily a redshirt versus blue shirt . Depends on who in the congress we are speaking of. I spoke frequently became very good friends when i was there. There is something very informed a lot of my thinking in congress. I was there for about four months and i had never served in any Political Office before being elected even though my good buddies that were elected n 2011. The reality was of sitting with scott who was a car dealer. I was a roofing contractor bye trade. Were both Business People sitting on the table for votes. Scott leaned over to me and said hey, have you met any democrats yet . We had been there three months. And in committee it means you go and get sequestered the republicans go in their room, the democrats go in the room theres no discussion betwee the two and i said no, i have not met any. He said why dont we go meet some . And they said i think thats a good idea. You go over there put their all sitting over there just pick one and i will pick one and we will go out to dinner. And that is what we did. I introduce myself to congressman jim cooper and scott introduced himself to congressman schrader and we went out for dinner. I was curious because i want to figure out how liberals think i just did not understand trends that would pick two of the most moderate members. As a total fluke that happens. [laughter] but we became really goodin friends. Congress functions and another member ofll Congress Told me called a pyramid of power. And everybody is working to climb up on top of the pyramid at the very top of that. As a speaker of the house rebel the speaker has the majority leaders on minority whips are there. Directly below them are the Committee Chairman but i would even say directly below the whips and the majority and minority leader as the staff. Below them are the Committee Chairman. Then below them are that legislative directors on your tracks 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. I was in the majority the whole time, speaker john weiner was the speaker he basically govern the Republican Caucus using that rule nothing will come to the floor the house unless it has got the majority of the majority supporting it. At that point it can move forward. However when ryan became speak i dont think it wasas delivered i think its the nature of what had happened on the members that were sent there, pretty much got to the point that nothing came to the floor unless we can pass it one our own. Lets return 18 public votes we did not want to get anybody mad and so nothing could happen. So what that meant then is everything was directed from the top. We even had less power in that case. So i am struck by congress in this unwillingness chewed jealously and vigorously guard their authority under article one of then, constitution. They are available at very willing to pass that authority up to a president to recent examples would be the u. S. Senate under President Trump was controlled by republicans. And they all kind of rolled over when President Trump did not want his father going through the cabinet positions are trump made up a bunch of acting t secretaries. The central over on their back like puppies and waited for chuck to pat them on their tummy and let him do whatever he wanted. And today got similar things going on with President Biden decided were going to issue 20 billion of credits to Student Loans and forgive it. Congress has the power of the purse but they just refuse to hold on to protect and guard their power in it damages the institution. And so i i think to get back or congress as a representative body to the work the American People once they are going to have to seize the power back from the executive branch. Even when it is their guy or gal in the white house theyve got to be able to say no. Its nice mr. President or mandan present that you have this opinion but we will let you know will be said legislation if you like it sign it if you dont veto it will take it there. They are just unwilling to protect their own authority. It is discouraging to be there and watch it unfold. Holds enough to remember the carter presidency. You had a Democratic Congress should a democratic president by congress was often openly contemptuous of the white house and it was contemptuous of it. They fought amongst themselves frequently with the republican n sitting on the side kind of watching the whole spectacle. And that these days is rare. This issue of Congress Giving up authority the constitution says it has. James mattis would be a bit perplexed by this. Degrees the low motive of human beings wanting to hold and a wielded power as part of what keeps thewo separation of power system working. People want to guard the power they have by virtue of being in theat branch. As we all note delegation giving away a power refusing to wield power to become regulators. Why do members do that . Isnt power fun . Why dont they want to use it . The whole ambition counteracting ambition depends on the individual sense of drive. And it has to be a drive to do something and thus take the responsibility onto yourself rather than ambition to be seen but that is where a lot of ambitions are challenge these days. It cannot just be ambition to help your party when the next election. Thats really the thing that dominates our current political moment is the sense that it is so important for myne party to n the next election. The ambition is lets get our party in the white house where they are exercising the real power in the system. And we will take it from there and cheer them on when we have the real power and will slow the other guys down they have it. It is akn source of hope for me because i do think dan and reader are not so unusual in feeling frustration with just how useless they can feel sometimes its a very widely shared sense that people get elected to congress are counted ambitious people. Is not just a matter we have people to the wrong office. On something morally or any other way defective. People do feel frustrated and that wish they could be more involved in a meaningful process but they are helping to find it strange bedfellows across the aisle and making things happen. But they are willing at the same time to sit back and listen to their leaders when their leaders tell themal no that is not so helpful for the really important thing of winning the next election. So the point of this book is a plea to the member themselves. The book ends with an open letter to members of congress. It pretty much just says hey, arent you ambitious . Dont you want to get something done for this country . Isnt this trend played out . Havent we had enough of the current political moment in a sense we have exhausted the possibility . Dont you want to be a part of mixing it up and solving the countrys problems in a more active way . Dontt you want to be something more than a glorified telemarketer i do think we want to members want that. I am hopeful history of their own institution to know congress has function on very different operative principles. Dit has been organized in different ways to help that kind of lawmaking happen in the past and certainly could at this point as well. Im going to go back to congressman lipinski. This image of the house not being the place where interests are able to work out amongst themselves as being driven from the top down. Is that a structural issue primarily by the internal rules and structure of theha chamber . Is that a partisanship issue . What is it . It is driven by partisanship. Driven by the divide in the country. But it is reinforced by the rules. In the committee on modernization of congress is one of the things is one of the things the bill were hoping to. At the beginning of this congress some of the freedom freedomcaucus Member Senate opd washington processing they are talking about to open this process up. We went said what is going on but we do not want this to be topdown. We said this is good. It is interesting though they felt that they want more of a say somehow they are going to have more control. I did not quite understand that. I am all for opening things up. The d Problem Solvers Caucus wee always trying to do that. After 2019 election democrats 2s got the majority in the house. They agreed on rule changes we are going to demand and we said we are going to demand there are some changes. Open it up to more bipartisan, and change the rules to open it up to more bipartisan lawmaking. And unfortunately we made a few small changes but it is really tough. Everyone knew nancy plosives eventually going to be speaker, i do not want to upset nancy. So it is partially, i would assume those members suffer not going to pass a rule. To order generally they vote for the rule. This of this deal comes up theres not much debatey time. T normally the majority votes against it. Eleven republicans that were we feel we did not have enough input on the debt ceiling. And so they stop that from moving forward. And i forgot my point were i was going with that one. Can i pick it up . What you had a look in your eye. As a point about the Freedom Caucus and i agree. I like the rhetoric some of those folks back in january. And has to be in service of Coalition Building on the operative principle has to be persuasion. You have to imagine reaching out to your colleague and meeting them where they stand and convincing them that they should do business with t you. The strange part is these folks want to blow the floor to offer amendments on the floor and i am all for that. But for congress to sort of get its mojo back at needs to embrace its role with a thelegislature that needs to mae laws. By assembling majorities. The question i have always had, how do we get that moderates to feel more organized they are the ones making demands and assembling in the service assembling these coalitions whether the speaker is so happy about it or not. The Problem Solvers Caucus hasnt very good work in that regard. E but in some ways i find the group less assertive than i wish it wasnt. Less willing to yield their votes in opposition to stop something for sure. Most problems hours are more pragmatists. They are just a Different Group of people. What are my favorite words and inthe constitution was one of te smallestll ones the first word f the first article, the first section of the constitution all, pretty inclusive word. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested or entrusted in the congress of the United States but in the house of representatives. All of the legislative power our founders both stowed they granted herein, in the constitution was given to the body of congress but they had to wrestle between the states and the people for the house of representatives and the senate to come up with some type of agreement. There is never this idea there were to write legislation and said because i got voted to all of the people you have to do this. Its not even remotely were the founders were out intellectually or they did not the country to run that way because the revolution itself wasntna opposition to monarchy. In fact John Quincy Adams after he served president went back and serve the house of representatives but can you imagine the president today lowering himself to serve the house of representatives . But that is where the power resided in the earliest days. But congress do not embrace this at all. I agree both with what you two just said regarding some of the rules change as a part of the one rule change they needed they did not push for. And that is you needed to wrest power away from Committee Chairman. Because that they do not and Committee Chairman are subject to the speaker, the speaker still has too much power. As you have Committee Chairman selected by members of the committee. Ben that sherman will beholding rather than the speaker who sent them. The most significant thing they could have done is done that then he would begin to devolve power back to the members. Their great wisdom of the crowd you speak of in your book could a marriage. But right now the citizens that are represented by Kevin Mccarthy and california, those citizens. The wisdom of that crowd has way more say. On the wisdom of the crowd in northeast wisconsin has not. And that is where this whole idea of the wisdom of the crowd breaks down. Yre the vote. Theyre to say heres what northeast wisconsin or heres what dan city, illinois feels about this or that this is what the citizens say about this or that. And then they place their card in the machine and vote. And thats the way that 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, one thing to say what anyone who is in this room watches this. If theres one thing besides reading book that i want you to take out of this, if you dont know it congress is article one of the constitution is you start out all legislative power there. I dont think most americans that or all i dont think most americans know that or understand that. The president is supposed to makese policies for the country and walls for the policy and the wisdom ive gone back the last couple of years and the wisdom of the men who wrote the constitution and this idea is a diverse country in the time of the founding how do we keep people together . Everyone needs to feel like they have a voice through their representative and i go back to their are not just two ways of thinking. Theres a lot of diversity. We need those voices to come in. I think you could paint this as a diversity issue not hearing all the different voices across the Country Schools as a member of congress to talk about how congress works. I would take this class and say today we are going to create a house incentive and 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 they are going to lunch that day. I would walk around in the court were to say im shellfish allergic and another would say i have an allergy to peanuts. I would basically sabotage it to try to show that the diversity had to be brought into consideration to get to a conclusion and its the strength of the diversity that if congress is allowed to let emerge could be something extraordinarily powerful today but theyve got to allow that means they must give the power themselves and to give the power to you all. I want to double back to this issue about recent speakers being so powerful. We have an audience question that came in on this very topic. A spanker is a single person, how is this person so powerful . What is the source of the power . Who would like to take that one i can give you my take on it. I think members like it that way. When you observe continued dysfunction in any organization in a business, congress, narrative do continue to observe dysfunction you have to ask the question who is winning as a result of this dysfunction and then you can identify why it exists. When you relinquish power to somebody else when the congress relinquishes it to the president and to the speaker they have someone to blame when they go home and say i was fighting against this but it got stopped by the speaker where i was fighting for this with the butident wouldnt let us im still going to be their fighting for you tomorrow, youve got to somebody to blame. They get to carry the weight of any bad decision and i think the members like that. They want to be protected as opposed to wanting to actually hold the power that was the rightful come the rightful heirs of the power based on the electorate that sent them there. An observation about legislative politics is that politicians either want to claim credit or shift blame and to claim credit you at least have to engage an incredible amount ofy action to say that you achieved something whereas you are suggesting blame shifting but it seems a lot easier. Well, i tried but you can win every single year and vote no on everything. I want to add to that because i think theres some truth to that and a lot of people claim that is the primary reason why members of Congress Give up power, they cant get blamed, they can shift blame. I also think that, and may be because im coming out of the democratic party, its just the idea. Weve talked about how democrats and republicans dont mix. Our party has all the answers and members come in and first of all, a lot of members who come in, new members elected, and its been this way for years, they dont know how to legislate. They dont know how to think of the idea that im going to come in and actually be able to participate in this legislative process. They are thinking i am here for the team, and theres so much of that. I am here with the team into the leader says youve got to follow along. Okay, i am here. We need to defeated the evil other side and you are told if you dont go along, the evil other side could win. We all need to Stay Together or else the evil other side could win and that, apart a bit of some of the members dont even know what they could possibly d and being a legislator and some of it is the speaker is given a heck of a lot of power and when you get the idea that if i want anything done here, i need to go to the king or queen and if they will grant, if they will do something that i want to get it done i can take credit for it, i need to go to them. I need to get them to make it happen. Therefore, i cant cross them in any way. I better follow until i get my chance to ask for a favor from the monarchy. I think that is also part of whats going on. At both of your answers explain a lot about the stickiness of the current moment, but i guess again i take some hope from the longer history because i think to some extent the forces are always at work and i think its still within the realm of serious possibilities for members to feel like this threat is played out at some point to feel being the good a partisan team player isnt worth it anymore because your own party has gotten so twisted up in its own sort of selfdefense rather than solving the peoples problem or doing the peoples work. So, i do think politics, congressional politics has gotten kind of boring. Right, the debt ceiling, thats exciting and a certain kind of way but if k you know how to watch, it is pretty darn predictable and pretty boring. And 100 of the time you would like it to happen. The media tries its darndest to turn this into a good story but its so predictable and sterile. Its not going to solve our problems. Its not going to produce anything interesting. If you feel like its important that we come up with some Novel Solutions to the problems based on the country, congress can be an engine of that. Its a better place landing on executive branch. The executive branch wasnt cut out for creativity. Its cut out for the laws that are already on the books and so congress, think of an issue like immigration which isap one of te chapters sort of a case study in the book a widespread sense that the system is brokens and so many different ways. All the people stuck in this legal world theres so manyor different aspects of it and adjust just waiting for congress to pass the law and being all kind of know that but weve given up on it and we are ropingthat somehow the presidenn use a statute to make it all work out. Nobody believes that is going to work too well. Congress engages in ways of helping them covered up with ways he is budgeting the statutory powers. So the need is there. The chance to break things open and come up with solutions and congress is there. We just need people to show some bravery and willingness to realize holding onto their office is not the most important thing. If somebody has the courage of the convictions and suffer the consequences for it unfortunately. But, you know, i dont think you feel that much regret about that. And we need people to think doing the peoples work is more important than not and that being having a sense of being an obedient team player. I also think that strategically on immigration, republicans are basically taking the posture that they will not do anything on immigration until they do Border Security. Dont talk about any of this other stuff, then we will talk about these other things. The problem with that through the tactical standpoint is theres nothing to trade on the other side. Big comprehensive bills allowpu you to put things in both sides hate and thats really what is the magic in writing the legislation. Itsyo the big things youve got to have enough each slide gives up something so each slide can get something but when young narrow it is so oneonone a single thing like Border Security and im not going to get anything else, it makes it virtually impossible. They need to be are comprehensive and how they think so tactically that they can do Something Big like immigration reform. My question about the speaker, i dont want to pivot away from that but its interesting the part we know the speaker has formal powers and whats going to get voted upon. Its going to have a lot to do s with that. Who is in front of the rules committee, the speaker will have a lot of sway and power comes from other little slaters thinking the speaker has power or simply giving the power away. Now, my last question before the audience questions as to ask each of you youve relented about the state of congress. What can be done to fix it, and i want to start with you, dan and then fill. You shouldnt start with me on a question like that. Looking for hope, ive spent many years thinking this has to get better. This has to return. I came in in 2005 and things still, the second bush term, something still got it done. There were some things done on a bipartisan way. After the 2008 election, president obama gets elected and the republicansth to me at that point the republicans became much more partisan. I collect sectarian partisanship where its the team and we hate the other side. We cant even talk to them much less compromise with them and then 2016 President Trump gets elected and democrats go off and inthat same direction. I wondered there was a time in 2013, 2014 where lies that i keep saying things have to get better and i finally quit saying things because i did that before donald trump was elected. Weve seen historically there have been revolts, members get tired of this and theres a revolt. The problem now that i see it is members are more concerned about losing e a primary and who has e power in the primary that its the more extreme members. More extreme voters in the party. Thats where the activists are and the workers in the primary campaigns come from and the small dollar donations. Small dollar donations when youre not saying the world is going to end if you dont send me five, ten, 20. Thats a major problem and i would guess the members, i dont know if its true, but they went home and they heard from their activists how did you let this happen, how did you let this terrible deal happen, you need to do something. And what can we do . We will show now that we are not going to go along. We are not going to play along and thise is what we are goingw do on a bill that we want past. But we show it because the activists, the people we are listening to our calling for this. I remember in december of 2020 the stock of voting by the electorate i remembered there was a call and there were republican members saying i just the phone doesnt stop ringing, people are protesting outside of my office saying you have to vote no and they felt that for sure. I never would ever in my 16 years suggest to another member what they should do. But i said look theres a time you have to be willing to stand up and say im willing to lose my job over this because this is so important and they were just so this is probably it if i vote for the certified electors, thats it and the listings are very vocal minority, but they had a sway and thats the thing how do we get away from that, how do we get human nature doesnt change. How do we get those that are willing to say i think that this is and its not that they are saving themselves, you also buy into we have the answers. Those arero things that are somehow broken into and i dont have the answer to that. I dont think theresar a good answer. Ive never been more fearful for the republic. Typically its a crisis moment whether its civil war, world war i or to use all the congress emerge. I thought of january 6th would have been an event in the history of the country the first time that we had the peaceful transfer of power that would be an event that would cause people to pause but the speed at which the information can move through the internet today is shocking andda profoundly damaging. I confess to you and i wish it wasnt this way i went into congress a bit cynical. I ran because i was 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 of selecting and promoting leaders and then holding their feet to the fire to lead and we need a president that is willing to actually use moral hazard to force the country to the president must relinquish its power and force the moral hazard to do their work and i think that is ultimately what it will take into that will be triggered by a crisis moment in the country. The committee on modernization was a really good first step. It only works in the house. The senate didnt do it but if we could get the house to function normally that would be helpful. I think they came up with some really good ideas, but ive spoken to hundreds of audiences and frequently asked the question how many of you would give it an Approval Rating above 25 and i will tell you i hardly ever see on hand go up and that tells you that people are dismayed by congress and the striking disconnect, however, the dissidents in at all was the fact they keep reelecting their own members. They hit the congress but love the person. Now still, professionals. The book closes with three scenarios which are some of the more fun chapters of the book. They started with from the future written by observers in 2039, the 250th birthday of congress, looking back t into thinking about where the institution has got into by then and the scenarios are called in gratitude, rubberstamp and reliable. I have to admit the first two chapters were easier to write than the third one. It doesnt require too much imagination toti imagine congres getting hollowed out even more than it is today. We should emphasize congress isnt a completely broken place by any stretch of thehe imagination. Some good things dont happen and do some things could get more screwed up then they are today. So the revival chapter, yeah i kind of agree it seems like we need a shock to the system to cause this kind of revolt, to cause this kind of willingness to shake things up because as long as things stay within the line that we are familiar with today, members are going to keep making the same choices. So that is a hard reality to face, but if i was going to offer some reforms on the margin, which im certainly willing to do, i think that devolving power to the committee is an important thing to do, and i like the idea that we floated to be born of having members select their own chairman, i also like the idea of guaranteeing the committeeshe four times. Part of the problem today is if you make yourself a diligent workforce and the committee and make your self a policy expert andd work on writing really good bills with your fellow committee members, they may not actually go anywhere. They may not even be considered by your chamber let alone have the chance to become law. So the more we could do to guarantee that if you are willing to go be a workhorse in ngcongress and willing to put in the time and write good legislation on the hard subject, you will at least have a chance to get it passed into law and that would be a good and healthy change in incentives to get people within vision to realize they can make something of those in positions as legislators and not just as performers who use their purchase and congress to get attention. S all right. The time we have left, lets go to audience questions. The gentleman in the front row. A microphone is coming to you. Thank you very much. My name is tom. I worked in the senate for ten years in the 1970s and then worked around leaving different organizations afterwards. I am a product of the cold war in the vietnam war and i saw things coming apart right in front of our allies when members didnt want to harm the executive to push the button if they wanted to. It required to stave off the soviet union in. I also watched particularly in the senate because i spent ten years there, the authorizing committees giving up power and of the appropriators starting in the house therefore became kingmakers afterwards at least thats how all he led different organizations if you will to deal with members, so i agreed so much on your opening but we all, then again 74 vietnam war, can you o expand . Chapter four and five of the book. And i should mention to the members here in person books on the table for you to take so please help yourselves when we break. I willha say that when there was such a profound loss of trust and the government it was a chance for the legislature to sort of rise in peoples estimation and so a famous book that i like very much was written in 1980 called the decline and resurgence of congress so as a time of research ands for the institution in large part because of watergate and the way that vietnam led to people to be suspicious of the executive and so looking back on that yearse that you worked in the senate, it was a very exciting time in terms of ambition and reshaping the place. A lot of energy and all of congress, but they didnt succeed settling on a model that would take advantage of the institutional capacities specifically the shift from legislation to oversight in the 70s and the sense that it wasnt always so important whether you pass the laws. You could hold the hearings and there was a huge proliferation of subcommittees with staff at the time and they did a lot off they created the sense that congress was a big mess, cacophony is the word they used in the chapter title so that left the problem to be solved but unfortunately, we didnt try to solve it with the madisonian logic. We turned to the wilson logic more and more from the 80s onward and people who were frustrated with Congress Like the young Newt Gingrich brought a sensibility to american politics. They didnt believe in rehabilitating the congress as a place of competition really. Gingrich from his very First Campaign in the mid70s was saying congress is a corrupt terrible place. We need to take the rooms, clean stables, and he campaigned against the institutionhe and even when he became the speaker of the house he was oriented against the coalition v building logic of congress and the very much came in and a wilsonian way saying we have a mandate from the people we give ate contract for americ. We won the midterms, president clinton only won because of ross perot. The timeal to do with the republicans want after all those decades of doing things the democratic way. He didnt really have a legislative sensibility is my argument in the book. He wasnt a Coalition Builder by iehis position and so he tried o smash a lot of things through without much regard withen what the senate would think about it, let alone how he would get president clinton on board. He expected his moment had arrived and Everything Else would work out. The puzzle to me is that model wasnt really that successful and republicans in the mid90s didnt rollback the greatestfa society. That was their ambition and they failed. It was an exception they got something important past, but by and large, the agenda just failed. Nevertheless, the model has stock and if you look at an idea of centralized housele leadershp running things from their hip pocket, that was gingrich and the idea of jim ride they relentlessly hounded out of office in 1988 and i think we need to get away from this way of thinking. Part of the books ambition is to try to think we need to get away from this everything will be in the elections mentality because it cant carry that much weight. T 37 committees and subcommittees had authority in some way over fire. Thirtyseven so the rules and legislation on healthcare were all in the soil and sand so its noth wonder that this thing all comes unglued and so i did the radical thing. Republicans were in control. So in the senate rules for 115 congress, i offered a change to try to commit in healthcare. But that would remove the ability ofto these 37 other committees to raise in theho healthcare industry. You would have thought that the whole thing was going to come unglued. Its the single biggest expense the federal government has when you have medicare, medicaid and all these va benefits and everything in healthcare. But there is no single sourcing single place where experts can reside r and deal with what it s most important for the American People today. I regret to inform you all that we have hit the 75th minute. So that we say this. For those of you that braved the smog, feel free to stick around afterwards. Everyones going to be here and we are happy to chat. For those of you watching out there, thank you for tuning in. And if we can, can we please get a round of applause. [applause] hundreds of nonfiction authors and guests. Watch on booktv once again bringing alive all day coverage of the National Book festival, guests and authors include librarian of Congress Carla Hayden and the book i have something to tell you for young adults and former nfl player or k russell author of the yards between us. Here the complete National Book festival schedule online on booktv. Org. The library of congress National Book festival live, saturday beginning at 9 a. M. Eastern on cspan2. Healthy democracy doesnt just look like this. It looks like this. Where americans can see democracy at work. Citizens are truly informed