Manhattan of the Initiative Thanks for joining us today as a former house and Senate Staffer thanks to those Congressional Staffers to are with us the recess period is a rare opportunity to be caught a pioneer backlogs schedule get home from work at a reasonable hour am prep from when we are in session next week. We are grateful for you to take the time to be here with us. The article one initiative is committed to important work we went alanon partisan opportunity now more than ever we must focus on the founders intended design of the legislative branch. Our aim is to pursue ideas to restore congress to write full responsibilities that are essential for the Constitutional Order and protection of civil liberties. Today we are happy to be hosting this discussion of the book dc confidential from all 39 David Schoenbrod. It features ford from governor howard dean and senator mike lee. Now our panel is all very distinguished in this is the shortened version. Professor David Schoenbrod is from the York Law School frequently contributing to the editorial pages of the wall street journal the New York Times with an undergraduate degree in mathematics from yale in economics from oxford and yale law school. Also atom white was a Research Fellow with the ad john professor from the law School Published in many places the received his undergraduate at the diversity viola and also from harvard law school. Rounding up the panel congressman frost the Vice President the u. S. Association of former members of congress serving in the house 26 Years Holding many leadership positions from the dallasfort worth area with the partisan divide the undergraduate degree in journalism and history and a law degree from georgetown university. I just want to note following the remarks to of ample time for question and answer some now before it is yours. Thanks to the Federalist Society also representative ross m prof right to participate in this family of four word to the discussion with all of you. When i was a little boy my mother taught me to recite the gettysburg address that they should not have died in vain engine of a new birth of freedom and the government of the people by the people for the people shall not perish from the europe. For those who died in the civil war my grandfather honored another soldier who lay wounded in france. Linkage could claim america already had by the people because most people could not vote because of the qualification of course, at that time africanamerican women could not afford to vote in United States but calling for freedom that ultimately missile that and then having the vote. I was proud to play a small part in the peoples government early in the 1960s and that that time the polls show that 76 percent of the voters trusted the government to do the right thing to delaware it is 19 a fall from the government and in washington or other reasons that began in the 60s. So with the consequences of key decisions. With the benefits of those decisions to align with the interest of legislators and their constituents. In the late 60s legislators of both parties began to legislate in new ways to shift the blame away from them to undermine the government by and of and for the people by the mid 60s we saw the government as working wonders when it ruled for two World War Two with the interstate highway system was built not the strongest economy in the world by far. But things like clean up the environment. We want the government to do so. So members of Congress Wanted to join in that is what they set out to do so congress promised that without a heavy burden to convince themselves of technology forcing with the idea that congress has a definite deadline to produce clean air to invent Affordable Technology to deliver healthy air without costing too much suggests the Previous Year america landed a man on the mound and specifically said if they could land a man on the moon then that is what people believed that both parties signed on overwhelmingly but technology forcing did not work as helped to produce healthier in Southern California but that would not happen so members of congress tumbles sides of the aisle to private lobby the epa not to do that and by and large complied in congress has the tenacity to publicly blame the epa to not clean up the air on time sound familiar . So once congress began there was no going back because to shift blame for consequences to make less than rosy promises. And then to put into the Clean Air Act with a separate commands to the epa administrator and they also wrote those commands to obscure their ability for consequences to of a fabulously complicated system for regulating air pollution they have 17 or 20 rules and to have to be a nurse scientist that is the Clean Air Act today. Beyond that to update or simplified and all planes had shifted and then has not then amended since 1990 there are much better and smarter ways and so we went u. S. Situation if that interest are in conflict to say i m begins the pollution with regulation killing jobs and never got the cases and as a result approximately 50,000 of my clients died and going through that experience fear the Environmental Advocacy to figure out what the heck is going on. And what i discovered comes down to members of congress to use five key tricks now voters know how is it that Congress Gets away with it . It is for the same reason that magician can pull a rabbit out of their hats. A slight of hand my book is about the slight davidian with the trick even though there is no trick going on. So enacting laws and spending programs that is the basic thesis of the book. To explain and then the show how they work. Previously regulation with themselves to be credited for the benefits of regulation that gives a credit in the blame to the agency to take blame for the benefits so to save i gave you this. To the agencys take on the burdens. Said then that by shifting the blame to the agency. So that is some money trick. So in the later sixties previously congress raise the revenue needed to pay for the things said promised like the tax cuts or social programs occasionally there were big deficits like the Great Depression but in the 60s congress began on a course to run deficits and into the sky. And this effectively does allow congress to shift the blame for those burdens with the successors and office. With a slight of and with those benefits are very tangible and concrete with the Social Security what about the cost . The previously biggest they honor the Constitutional Rights to meet those conditions and that makes sense. To raise the money to give the grants to the state. With the governors and mayors. But what events of popping to invite the states out to dinner to pay for the bill. So congress got the credit for the clean air but to impose the burdens with the clean up. As the federal eta dictates to give up the highway grant sea might ask yourself aggression with suicide for members of congress to vote for that provision within the sleight of and is this congress doesnt vote on that. Dozens and dozens of votes on the Clean Air Act not one was on punishing the states. So congress washes his hands. So put the private debt with the fdic and with those deposits up at 2,500. To know that the money was at risk to put your money in the bank to do risky lending. That would tend to keep bin it safe. Congress implicitly began to guarantee all of the debt that left the banks to borrow money on the cheap. Even though with the risky lending operations to borrow more and more money and this exploded upwards of those profits but in bad times led to the financial crisis from misery in 2008. And then they lost their jobs. So they got angry about that. So that continues underdog frank. What is the slight of hand . Congress pretends that they do not guarantee the debt but the interestrate with the bond market and you know, perfectly well they do. So as it comes to war over the 160 years whenever went to war without Congress Taking responsibility to approve by statute but then president truman said it was the one approved peace action. Then we have vietnams and cambodia. But the public got very angry that forced the congress to pass the war powers resolution except there is a loophole and for those to avoid putting on the troops to be in in combat if it is controversial. Members of Congress Said get rid of that but dont make us vote on that. So bien up in wars that we havent looked into in in the as congress pretends to be responsible this means if it is popular members of congress could march in the victory parade but then to have that army and then to take credit and shift blame to say that is the trickster in chief im talking about the president of both parties. Might keep vice dont hate the players but hate the game those individual legislators and then they risk losing to the other side. So to change the rules of the game that welcome to return the people to power so congress and the president could commit themselves of palo this could happen think about the truth then lending act. It makes it a crime for the lender like a bank to lend money exactly how much youll pay every month so lets apply the savings to congress. Under the honest deal at. And then tuesday to make the ends meet in the long run this is how much bin average family has to pay for the tax increase or spending cuts. By the way this is a much of an increase toward decreased if we dont put the expense of the public know this is hell with wouldbe down the road that there will be a terrible future for their children and a questionable retirement with medicare and Social Security. That will shift the blame back not to be upon members of congress and then what we keep demanding. I dont have prescriptions on how they respond close those who could no longer keep their constituents and this says the analogous way is and all of this is laid out in my book dc confidential but the bay there is some online games that will explain exactly how this works but better yet to buy the book. [laughter] so with that optimistic moment a statute not a constitutional amendment. But then keep saying is that to in all honesty members of congress you know deep down in their heart is what Honorable Service for their constituents and what we are talking about today so go back to your office to talk to the numbers and why they should be for the honest deal. And thank you for your attention. [applause] and to enjoy the conversation. And with the substance of the talk but also the videogames so let me start with the movie and this lounge singer comes again is a Frank Sinatra knockoff the producers treat them properly and then jumps above his seat to grab them by the caller and says you cannot like damian. Amy and. But the momentum in the house representatives said go to raise but to file a lawsuit to the president. Davids work remind me of him very much. In his book democracy and distrust he focused on the problem of delegation and how it cut against our democratic values, values of accountability. In a litter book called law and honest and the preface, the professor offered some remarks which i quote a lot. I cant quote them today but ill paraphrase them. We onthink of the shift in power from the legislative branch to the executive branch is a usurpation, but its a distortion. What we see more than anything else is Congress Giving away its power to the executive branch, and he said, the reason i would congress did it is because of accountability. Accountability is very frightening. I admire the prefer for pointing these out and now professor shown bron schoenbrod for doing it here today. The institutional collapse of congress, and chris demuth, himself a former oi must be something the water that get people criticizing congress. They diagnosis the congress has shifted from being the first branch to being a little more than an ombudsman for the Administrative State. This is a crisis. Its a crisis. Not just because of the state were in, but that its hard to see a way out. We have reached a pound where the existence of the Administrative State deforms our politics the fact there are agencies with immense power that can solve or try to solve these problems in lieu of congress, instead of the president has much less incentive to war began with conversation because the know the epa and the tellsry department can save them or the other side of the table, people in the opposite party think why shy bother going through negotiations and fight for this when we know the president s and walk away from the table. This reinforces the problems. We lack a theory of what congress and is should be doing. Theres no shortage of scholarship on the presidency and the courts but i think it is im a big fan of the federal society one project, and senator lees and others on capitol hill who are on the article one project. Its good were having the debates, especially the budget process. This solution has to be the solution of James Madison identified in federalist. Were counting on ambition to counteract ambition and we knee the of b0 a man, whether congressman or president or judge to be attached to the rights of the place. The question becomes how to make congressmen more ambitious as congressman. Not as members of the president s party but a as congressmen if dont have an answer for that. Thats my first question for david. I think his book parts of the book focus on how to Shame Congress to do the right thing. How do we speak to ambition of congressmen as congressmen is the real challenge and thats the solution. Two other brief questions i just leave you with. David identified the turning point being the 1960s. That is when Congress Really did start to shift. Thats an important point. Up to that point so muchm that congress did was either congress encroaching upon the courts or building on he legacy. The congress created the big agencies, interstate commerce commission, congress was trying to push the courts of what they had been doing, common law ratemaking and taking power and investing it in one of their own creatures, an independent commission. They built on that but it shifted and now as Congress Handing a lot of legislative power into the independent commissions and executive agencies and i wonder what it was, either politically or culturally, was the tectonic force underlining that shift. What was it about the 60s and 50s. And i note the end of your remarks you said this is legislative, not constitutional. What about constitutional change . Do you think if the honest doa act doesnt succeed will we need constitutional change and what bile . Those are just questions. I quite like the book just as i quite like dr. Schoenbrods previous book, so thank you very much. [applause] im going to make some fairly brief remarks and give you all a have to turn this fairly brief remarks and give you a chance to ask questions. Wrote a book, almost a parallel book, david to yours, coauthored with tom davis, former Republican Congressman, and i was don was chairman of the Republican Campaign committee for four years and i was chairman of the democratic Campaign Committee for four years, we didnt chair. The the same time so we remained friends. We have traveled around the country, spoken at seven president ial libraries and universities, talking about the some of the problems wet sunny congress right now, and the basic premise is correct is that congress should be the first branch. That was the intention of the Founding Fathers but congress, for a variety of reasons, doesnt function that way most of the time. One thing in the book is the partisan divide cries and we set out a number reasons things happened in the last 20 years or so that have lessened Congress Role in federal government, and one of the chapters we talked about was the big punt, and that was how congress has, by not acting in certain areas, has punted those issues to the president and the president then has stepped in to fill the vacuum. You saw that with obama and now with trump right now, and the lawsuit one lawsuit that adam mentioned involved Immigration Reform and congress positively resolved not to act. That was an earlier expression i think that the professor used in describing one of the president s. Congress decided for its own reasons not to change the immigration law, and so obama sat around and stayed, if these guys arent going to act ill do something by executive order, and that involved the dreamers and thats what we have just seen on tv in the last two day or two with one of the young young people brought to United States by parents and grew up in the United States and now be subject to deportation, obama stayed that. The courts have said, no, that wasnt exactly correct. What he did. And it was a lawsuit brought challenging what the president was doing, but if congress had acted during the six or seven years preceding that, on Immigration Reform, the president would never have had the opportunity to issue that particular order and thats not the only instance in where this occurred. Somehow congress has got to have the courage and the desire to actually exercise its power and some of the things we pointed out in our book, the reason you have this deadlock in congress these days, this paralysis, a variety of ropes. One is that 80 of the congressional districts are drawn to be safe districts for one party of the other, whichever party is in control, the legislature will jerry jerrymander the districts. Members of congress in theory are more vulnerable in the primary of their own party than they are in the general election. Now very few members of congress are defeated in the Party Primary, but in fact many members of congress of both parties live in mortal fear theyll have someone to their extreme run against them in their own primary, a primary that is relatively low turnout wavelet of outside money being spent and they could be defeated in a primary. So members are reluctant to be seep in public with the other side, reluctant to enter into bipartisan sponsorship of legislation because theyll be fun issued by their primary voters if they do. Now, one thing we suggested is to have independent commissions draw congressional districts. Its done in five states right now. New york is just decided to do it with the information round offeree district and maybe wouldnt have districts to crazy looking and didnt punish bipartisanship chills what safe districts do, and that could be done by initiative in referendum in states that have that. Many do. Or legislatures could do thatful also david this wasnt the purpose of the book but the role of money in politics is so significant these days. In terms of being a deterrent for any type of action by congress, because members of congress, again, fear a lot of money being dropped on their heads a few days before an election by an outside group where theres no reporting. C4s depth have to report their contributors and members of congress are risk aexpresser they know the outside money could head their way in a primary or general election and dont take changes. They dont try exert their authority as an institution or a member of congress and there are other ropes. The problem is the Supreme Court said money equals speech and its a First Amendment issue and it goes to you question in terms of there are any constitutional amendments that could be considered . One would be to say that congress has the authority to regulate the amount of money cement a race for congress or for the senate and to require that all contributors be contributions be disclosed. Will congress do that . Unlikely. Thats try whether you have a democratic or republican majority. Members of Congress Like the system under which they were elected. They understand that. It makes them feel better so its very hard to bring about insuspensional change in this institutional change in this country. Often speak to High School Students and point out, well, we were founded in a revolution. The revolutionaries institute a very conservative form of government structurally. Its hard to pass a law. Its hard to amend the constitution. And it is hard to affect change in this country. No matter who you are unless you have a super majority in both houses of congress and a president of your own party, and i spoke to the federalist put on a program in january, talking about kind of ticking off the idea of a studying the role of congress and i point ode it got a lot of puzzled looks just because the republicans have the president and both houses of congress does not necessarily mean that theyll be able to do everything they want. In fact we have seen that early on there have been divisions in the majority party. You could and its not impossible that congress could become a more powerful institution by reverting to a degree of bipartisanship, and the best example of this in my lifetime, not in the lifetime of many of you in this room, was the passaging of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Johnson became president after the kennedy assassination and identified civil rights is a his number one priority him had been a congressional leader. That helped. He knew how congress operated. And he also knew that there the fill buster in the senate would have prevent the filibuster in the senate would have prevented consideration of the legislation. You had a lot of conservative democrats from the south in the senate who were anticivil rights. Theyre no longer around these days. And johnson went to everett dirkson, the republic republic leader from illinois and said, youre from illinois. You need to be for civil rights. Youre from the land of lincoln, and dirkson thought about it far while and he decided johnson was right and he provided the republican votes in the United States senate to break the anticivil rights filibuster. The question is, could that happen town . If johnson will still alive could he maneuver Something Like that . The answer is, probably. No we have such a poisoned partisan atmosphere in this country that is very difficult to form coalitions and particularly difficult because of the role of out money and the role of one Party Districts making people fearful of being involved in taking actions that would strengthen the role of congress. Congress should be a strong institution, and i just want to mention one thing, because this was discussed in your five points. The war powers act is difficult and let me explain itch dont know if you know how the war powers act worked. Pass in the 7 sod as a reaction to our involvement in vietnam, and under the water war powers act the president can commit troops in an acknowledge for up to 60 days and then has to come back and get a vote of congress to continue having the troops in the field. President spresident s of both pam contracted and republicans have taken the position that the war powers act is up constitutional. They say the president is the commander in chief and says why the congress has the right to declare war, the president is commanderinchief and can do whatever he wants to. Interestingly enough, even though democratic and republican president s have both taken this view, that its unconstitutional two republican president s voluntarily agreed to comply with the war powers act. That was george h. W. Bush and george w. Bush, before committing troops against american saddam hussein, they voluntarily asked congress to pass a resolution authorize thing use of troops and congress did on a bipartisan basis. A number of dissenting votes but congress did that. Now subsequent president s have been reluctant to put it mildly to come back to congress and say, all right, well stipulate the fact that we have a difference of opinion about whether the war powers act is constitutional, but were going to comply with it. And there should be a vote before we have the american troops in field for an extended period of time. Happen to think that the people who are arguing in favor of that right now are correct, that there should be a vote in congress. If were going engage in this continuing war against isis, which i support, if i were a member of congress there ought to be a vote by congress. Shouldnt just happen. Because of the desires of a particular president. So, this is an interesting time and i think the federal society is doing the right thing about raising questions but there are a lot of complications that prevent congress from exercising its proper role as the first afternoon theyll have to be some institutional changes, i believe, if congress is going to be able to do that. Let me respond to some of your comments. Can you you have to push the little thing down there. Ah. Thank you. Okay. First of all, to adams comments, think about what both of your thoughtful observations. Let me respond. How to make congress more ambitious . I think what my parents did to make me more ambitious when i was a soso high school student. They pointed out if i continued to be a soso student i would suffer the consequences. In order to make congress more ambitious is to make them more responsible their the consequences of what they do. Second point that adam makes or asks, what about the 60s in well, i pointed out general things leak the war and depression, but if you look at individual tricks you can see things that hundred to trigger the tricks. Like the debt guarantee trick. Was proud of the profession, we avoided any kind of great financial tumult since 1929. We gasol this. We can do it. Think about mandates. Well in in the 60s the states were in bad order. The Southern States were rebelling against the Supreme Court and requirements of the 14th amendment. There was riots in the northern state. Police cal skype tis point out this made congress more willing to come down on the states. Regulation, thisy offed having enforceable rights at the federal level that would be imposed throwing the country, that was up thinkable before you had the xerox machine. A lot of other changes in how science worked that made it thinkable for congress to legislate the rights. Adam asks about the constitutional change do i think constitutional change might be part of the answer . I made a tactical decision not to talk about constitutional change because i think constitutional amendments are an excuse to keep the tricks going. Like take the perennial balanced budget amendment. Well, it aint going to pass. But it does give members of congress, who have constituencies that care about fiscal responsibility, a way to say, i care about fiscal responsibility, while not doing a darn thing about spending your taxes. Its a distraction. I would talk more about constitutional change if i thought it was plausible, we could have meaningful change, and besided that we can stop the tricks for the first 1 170 years or so with the current constitution. Representative frost makes a number of interesting and useful points. Gerrymandering, i agree, terrible problem. I thought about talking about it in the book but i couldnt figure out a good solution so i shut up. As to the role of money, ai agree its terrible but i would say about that is the tricks let the money talk louder because the tricks give away give members of congress a way of satisfying the people who give them money but avoiding blame for the adverse consequences on their constituents. Bipartisanship, well, think that the tricks help to cause the partisan divide. If youre regulating air pollution in terms of what percentage to cut pollution, theres a middle ground. Must be a middle ground. Your dont want to cut at zero percent or 100 . Cooperate grow beaned without have something air pollution. But what the tricks do is allow members of congress from either party to take polarizing positions. Im against pollution. Im against losing jobsful takes a. The middle ground where people have to give way to common sense. War powers act. Yes, i know that many people think in its current form its unconstitutional. I suggest reformulating it in a way that even those who say the war powers act is unconstitutional, agree would work. This war powers act now basically gives a command to president , you must bring the troops home. That is inconsistent with the commander in chief clause but my version would be cutting off funding. Beyond that i point out that i think its a misinterpretation of the war powers act thats now on the book to say the president doesnt have to go to congress if he pulls the troops our within 60 days. No. The action expressly requires the president to come to congress immediately upon the beginning of hostilities and i think president obama was to be faulted for saying, well, since i got out in 60 days never had to ask congress. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Anyway, thank you for your useful comments and i look forward to continuing discussion. [applause] could i make suggestion. When people ask questionsdont go into great detail where they work, if they work in the house or senate or a reporter or an interested citizen. Please identify yourself and speak up. I will repeat the question from the podium after you ask it. Please go ahead, sir. My name is devin what watkins. Im from the cato institute. You talked about the war powers exception elm the exception for 60 days only applies to attacks on the United States, territories or my question is what has Congress Done to delegate the power . I know the president has gone to congress but has Congress Done anything and how would you fix this problem beyond the war powers october . What congress has done, of course, is congressional leaders have gone to various president s and shade youre about to commit troops, lets have a vet. That happened with george w. Bush and george w. Bush, the leadership went to president and said youre better off if welcome demonstrate the country is behind you. Short of that im not sure what could be done. I wore formulate the act to make absolutely career the president needs to go to congress simultaneously or ate least within days of the beginning of hostilities. Thats what i would do. Other questions . Yes, sir. Go ahead. Your solution seems to be providing more information about the consequence of congressional inaction. That presupposes action by citizens who hold policymakers accountable. Can you discussion the role of the citizen and their currently citizenry is not in a place to take on more information. Its information overload. What would you suggest doing to engam the citizens to embrace theyre constitutional role to hold congress more accountable. Just to reaped the question hospital. To encourage citizens to be mow involved in the problems. Well, theres a number of books that talk about our citizenry and the extent to which its informed. Some say, well, the citizens just arent informed. Dont note what the acronyms mean and blah, blah, blah. A prefer the school of law who says such political scientists do a disservice because they basically excuse what is fraud on the part of legislators. Theres another group of political scientists, page and shapiro, who publish for the university of Chicago Press who say we have lived through 50 years of polls and its amazing the extent to which ordinary voterred have nuanced position about policy questions. The problem is theyre being misled. So my answer to the question is, lets give people straightforward information for a change. [inaudible] its interesting because, again, we have a lot of young people in the room. Anyone know what year the internet went ononline . Anyone hazard a guess . 89. But a lot of udont realize, people dont realize, the internet is a relatively recent thing and theres so much more Information Available today, and the question is, because you dont have editors in many cases, you dont have anyone reviewing whats posted, what do we do about senate how do we make sure that information that people can easily access is Accurate Information . And you may have seen Mark Zuckerberg on tv in the last day trying to explain about facebook and what why did they let this scene of a murder be posted for a couple of hours on facebook . It is a extraordinarily interesting question about should government in any way intervene in what is available to the public . I used to be a journalist. Undergraduate degree from journal. You in missouri and worked at a newspaper and magazine and Television Reporter before i went to law school and got in politicked. Im not for prior restraint or censorship but as a society we have to deal with the fact there is so much inAccurate Information now available readily to anyone in the public, and i dont have an ant for that but it is enormous problem for us right now. Okay. Next question. Go ahead, sir. My name is joe, im third year law student at george town one. One reason that congress can get a. With these tricks is the Administrative State is [inaudible] to internalize the functions again, they would have to act, otherwise things wouldnt get done. And the legislative filibuster is a huge obstacle to bills going forward. Do you think the division of Congress Making these decision that would require something reform of the legislative filibuster. The question is about the legislative fill buster and is it realistic to ask congress to take back these duties from the Administrative State which seemed to be an auto pilot, as characterized it. Right. Think theres a lot of ways that congress is less functional than it is. Used to be a larger proportion of the staff and money in the budget of congress was devoted to legislation and now much more is devoted to constituency service. We didnt used to have nearly as many district offices as we have now. Members spent more time here, and i think that what that reflects is the fact that with Congress Less responsible for the consequences of legislation, that they dont have to gear themselves up to produce good legislation. Think that ending the tricks would in and of itself be helpful on the filibuster front because i think it would help to by making congress have to deal with tradeoffs it would help to depolarize and give incentive tuesday but more money into legislative work. Talked a senate staff director dish explained my proposals for he said they would have to start paying attention. It would require a filibuster . I dont know. Id start with ending the tricks and seeing what the animal will do on its own and then see. Madam, different i have couple thoughts on this. In congressman frosts remarks he used a word that it think is very important here, revving to the legislative vacuum. Nature abhors a vacuum. I appreciate the internal changes and balances within congress and the legislative process and serve very important purposes. One cost that goes along with the benefit tuesday there benefits this is this vacuum and will be filled by the president , the agencies or the courted. Policy space will be filled by some and its time tore think the legislative filibuster. Just think it needs to be rae thought. Recognizing what one of the costs one of its costs are. Second thing is again, comes from a very good impulse, in 1990s the Republican Congress name and wanted to cut costs in congress, and they cut back on their own staff. Understand why but the cost is that the Congress Just isnt as well equipped to keep up with what is happening in the Administrative State. Maybe it is time rae think to think about bulking up congress own institutional capability . Maybe we need Something Like the Congressional Budget Office but for reagan places. Finally for regulations. Congress muscle has atrophied. One being that raines act. It was cycle and not even my favorite Regulatory Reform bill right now. One thing about the raines act it would force congress and the agencies to return to some sort of conversation. Agencies would know they would need congressional buyin before implementing or imposing the costliest of regulations. Think that would be a good way to whatever metaphor you want to. Get the wheels working, get the muscles working again, but return congress institutional interest to speak language again of legislation. An important step. I teach im aned a adjunct professor and every course i teach i have one class dealing with the use of social media in Congressional Offices because that has made such a big difference in terms of the way your bosses, assuming you are Congressional Staff members communicate with the public and its interesting when i was first elect net 1978, we had to deal with the flanking commission and had to submit whenever we did any mass mailing, submit it to the bipartisan franking commission, had to be review. Unless something has happened the last youre oar two i dont think there are any restrictions or limits on what type things can be communicated by social media but a Congressional Office, and a lot of the congressmens staff time now is devoted to social media. Some of you yall may actually be involved in that in the Congressional Office and that makes a big difference these days, and a congressman or congresswoman views theyre role differently than they did when i first was elected to congress because what i do is i have young Staff Members from a relatively new member of Congress Come in and explain what theyll do on behalf of their boss and it fascinating but it also is not really about legislating of its not really about changing law. Its all about look what my boss is doing, how do we talk to each other . And not very substantive. Be curious what the people in the room think. Can i just please go ahead. Im reluctant to quibble with you you have lived this and seen it first hand. Im in the ivory tower. Who has an irery tower . So often Political Parties are blamed for detaching the interests of the congressmen from congress itself, right . Suddenly because of Political Parties and the strengthening of parties congressmen see themselves as members of the party, either aligned with or against the party. Parties organize and route fund topping candidates. Seems to me that a flourishing internet of speech is one thing that could decrease the parties power of organization and over information distribution, and like wise in terms of funding, i know super pacs theyve their problem and thereto be said about reforming Campaign Finance laws in either direction, burt one thing about super pacs theres a source of funding outside of the established Party Structures and if used the right way, too help infuse individual congress men and other officials witch ties and roots thatdetached from the party and sees summer pac ands the internet are a solution what i was talking about, two types of super pacs, one are candidatespecific super pacs which have to recommending stiff with the fec and disclose contributors. The others are c4 which dont have to register with anybody but the irs and dont have to disclose contributors. Thats the probe. When mcgain feingold war presented and we both spoke out against mccain feingold. Because we took the position that parties were centralizing force in american politics and what mccainfeingold did was to take money away from parties, large contributions by individual, by labor unions and corporations which that time head to be annual report by the campaign committime had to file a report every the months disclosing the contributions and i sat down with one of the prime sponsors of the bill and i said, dont you understand, when, youre going to weak then role over party and the money will go somewhere. Its not going disappear. Of you take it away from Political Parties its going to groups on the fringes. Didnt appreciate the size of the amount of going to these Fringe Groups would be and what it would be and what a big role they would play, and i said to the opponent of the bill, dont you understand that this money will be spent in an unregulated way under your legislation . And he response was we fixed that. Said what do you mean . Said we have a provision in the bill that outside groups cannot the c4s werent party specific or candidatespecific super pay canned. The decree 4s could not spend money within 60 days of a general election or within 30 days of primary, and my response was, what happens if that is not constitutional . He said our lawyers toll us it was okay. Its not okay. Citizens united said it was not okay and now you have enormous amount of money, unreported money, flowing to the extremes in a way that i dont think the reformers fully appreciated or understood when the put this piece of legislation together and you cant change that. Get emails and you get emails from people saying send us money and well do away with citizen united. Well, Citizens United was based on a constitutional provision on free speech, the right to spend and raise money in the political arena, and the only way you can change that to prevent these outside groups they dont ha have to report their money, from doing that, would be to amend the constitution. Now, congress could in theory require these outside groups to report contributors but congress is unlikely to do that. Whoever is in charge of congress aft any moment like this system they were elected under so its very Unlikely Congress will pass legislation requiring that c4s report to the fec who their contributors are but thats an enormous problem and only going to get greater as the groups getmer power and make maybes of congress tim schmidt fearful theyll lose and i have to think that democrats and republicans run for office for the right reason to make this a better country. I may disagree with the things that see as making its better country but they run for the right lions. Once they get here and see what could be money to them in a Party Primary with secret money, they become very tim met and not very creative. Want to agree with the point about the disempowerment of parties and i particularly want to tell you about a book by john than roush of booking Brookings Institute about how the disempowerment of parties has unminded the ability of congress to legislate. I also want to pick up on the rains act which adam white mentioned. This is a statute that would require congress to vote on major regulations from agencies, and it seems to me the basic concept of Congress Voting on regulations answers the request that began this, the question about the vacuum. If congress had to vote on the major regulations, the vacuum is filled and it creates a dialogue between the agency and congress. If Congress Sees a way that the regulatory protection that people want could be delivered more cheaply but the statute gets in the way then the agency is going tell and it then congress is going to feel that it wants to change the old statute that is 25 or 30 or 40 years old in order to allow Better Outcomes because that means more credit for them and less blame for them. The raines act gets its name from the regulations from the executive in need of scrutiny. That maked out that the problem is one of agencies gone wild, whereas often the problem is 940 commands of come members of dong regulate. So might think of the legislator inside need of revision. The raines act is actually another trick. The basic idea was one that comes from democrats, going back to the new deal, that congress shouldnt want to take responsibility for major regulatory changes and i actually helped to draft a statute in the 60s, in the 1990s. Called the congressional responsibility act, and that did get bipartisan buy, in, but then it got shifted along the way to from a name that is pro responsibility to antiregulatory, which many poison pills in it that would cause democrats never to sponsor it. So you have a statute that passes the house in january of this year, that will never pass the senate because youll never have 60 votes because its not for the legislative responsibility. Its for antiregulation. So sponsors of reins could be say that full responsibility but never have to show responsibility because the bill will never pass. In my book i have some ways of changing reins rins to make it pro responsibility. Should apply not just to the major rupees that increase legislative burden regulatory burdens. It should apply to rules that decrease regulatory protection. Thats accountability. Raines is not about accountability, its about staking out about assuming a poise, a posture. Very good, any other questions from the audience . Its been an interesting conversation and people in both parties share the view that Congress Needs to assert itself. This is not a the view of one party. And in fact you can suggest that strong president s in both parties happen decreased the role of congress. So its something that it as democrat want to see congress more assertive and men of you republicans want the same thing. See what happens. Yes go ahead. [inaudible question] to avoid i also know coming from the Good Environment and kind of the hire level of education higher level of education in middle school and high school, always viewed the president as this omnipotent point and i dont know if that it my current generation but buw do you see in order to avoid accountability and in the culture today the congress and president are giving News Conference at the same time, theyll shut their attention to the president and what the president has to say development you think that shift is occurring because of article one [inaudible] and throughout the course of education do you see that as a result of over Time Congress shifting its powers or do you see that as a kind of perpetual problem occurring today and dont need to go back and reevaluate how were passing down the constitution to our children and future generations. The question is, is the shift of n power from congress and some of their roles and responsibilities the relegation of that to the executive, is that occurring intentionally by congress over time or the gentleman is asking, is that more of a culture trend were seeing, were failing to educate give proper civic lessons to children coming up and culturally we just prefer a strong executive and its occurring naturally rather than congress intentionally shifting those roles and responsibilities. Well, i agree. I think theres too little civics being taught, and i hope we get more civics on the books. In the meantime i hope that High School Kids and scandal students look at my games because i think its kind of a physics lesson. Part of the problem is that the president could present himself or herself in a very coherent way. Its a single voice, on a single stage. Whereas congress is by its very nature incoherent and theres many voices. Thats a bigger problem in the age of television because you didnt see the president before the age of television. So the new means of communicationening brings out the fact that congress is hob eled by the fact that hobbled bit the fact its speaking for many voices itch think tricks part of it, too. Congressmen look ludicrous. Not that theyre ludicrous people. I a with represent different frost that most people who run for Congress Want to do an honorable job but a the dont look good because theyre playing the tricks. We know it. We just cant figure out how the tricks work but we know it. Want to give an anecdote that recent fors the issue of the television age. When reagan was president , some of us on then democratic side, whenever he gave a state of the union or joint speech to the joint sessions of congress, would step off the floor for a while, go back in the cloakroom democratic cloakroom to watch him on television because he actually was better on television than he was in person, and because we wanted to know what the public was seeing, what what we were hearing in the room in the chamber. So, a magnetic person, whether he is john kennedy or ronald reagan, magnetic Television Personality makes a big difference in terms of how the public sees the power of the institutions. I would say i think its important that professor shown broad says the president best his nature is more energyityic, and its important to keep in mind while technology has accent waited the president s powers its inherent the presidency that he be the strongest and most energetic branch. Hamilton has theres energy the executive but elsewhere in this write examination debates that the he said president has the first advantage. The president can take action swiftly and change the terrain on which the legislature acts. One of the original tricks was putting the legislative branch in article 1, not article 2, even though the founders recognized the real power of the executive branch, and thats why i wonder if ultimately constitutional reform is necessary . I think inmaintainer our system, even setting aside the techologial era we live in, the president just has immense power in his office that Congress Just cant compete with. The early part of our history, though, the legislative b. Was much more asir it and the executive branch was nose as powerful as it has been in recent years. It ebbed and knowed. Any other questions . I think we have had a wonderful discussion today. Professor schoenbrod, i thought we could conclude with you offer something thoughts bet the mentors you dedicated the book to. Oh, yes. That would be lovely. Not to put you on the spot. Well, i dedicate this back to three people. One, neil peterson, my boss on the staff of hubert humphrey. He grew up poor in rural minnesota and second is judge robinson for whom i clerked. He was one of the lawyers for the naacp in the brown vs. Board of education litigation. He along with Thurgood Marshall and others argued the case in the Supreme Court. And the third was john dore who hassed a of civil rights under Robert Kennedy and walked up to the governor of i guess it was mississippi, asked him who he was, he was shepherding an africa africanamerican student into a previously segregated state school. He answered the question, im the law. I worked for him on the restoration project in brooklyn, and they were they modeled for me professionalism and courage. Obviously judge robinson is an africanamerican man from georgia, going to small takens in virginiadidnt know anything about School Segregation had a lot of guts and show did neil and john because he was in danger of being shot at many times. So for me, writing this book because it was ambitious because it took on so many different issues and took so much longer to write than hi previous books, three times longer. It took some courage on my part to take on something so big. So, they were of some comfort to me in this process, and thats why i dedicated the back to them. Very good. Can we give the web site, again . Its dc dcact. Org. Its available on amazon. They may be the easiest way. Its 15dollar so only three dollar per trick. We have an address, on behalf of the fellow society i want to thank our great panelists; thank you all for joining us. [applause] black block. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] every weekend booktv offers programming focused on nonfiction authors and books. Ep
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.