upon which hung more than the fate of war, but rather the course of human history. >> today we remember those who fell and we honor all who fought right here in normandy. >>ch c-span's all day coverage of the 80th anniversary of d-day, thursday june 6, featuring a speech from president biden from normandy, france. >> current and former members of congress discuss problems facing the institution and possible solutions at that pen biden center in washington, d.c.. they talked about the importance of building trust and personal relationships between democratic and republican members on■ the role party affiliation plays in politics, and the tool

force a floor vote on legislative issues. ydis is just under four hours. [chatter] [laughter] >> so i am zika manual -- zeke fqemanuel cat pen -- at penn and

now the faculty director of this. the penn writing center is part of focusing on the global part. -- biden center is focusing on the global part. policy oriented work. we don't have a policy school but we have this beautiful site and we find and in the domestic sphere, of which this is a part. so that's -- we got good ideas. we all ears. would love to put our muscle intellectual firepower behind things. this really is our kickoff conference on this. frankly, in the last 3.5 years, it has sat sallow except for that beautiful view. ■the one enduring event, we have

an occasional meeting here. we have occasional students who come here but the one enduring event is a course that i teach in the fall called how washington really works where really is in allals and we bring students from george mason and from here, taking in that view and talking about studies of when washington works. and what has changed in the interim period of time.but as is to make this a more vibrant place where we can convene conferences like this and other activities. we are open have been planning is event for a number of months. there have been five

co-conspirators. it was initially steve perlstein's idea. toe, i love the idea. it fits in with our course. we in three others who i will ask to introduce themselves. it also why they were attracted to the idea of trying to think about fixing congress. we will begin with senator byron . just introduce himself and talk about why he's interested and then we will go to charlie and cooper. >> well, thank you very much. i■l appreciate being here and i appreciate this discussion with to see those with whom i served and those who have served their country. you know, this is self-government.

the united states of america is self-government. people vote and choose their own leadership and they make judgments about that and it has worked for so many decades, a couple hundred years, but there are times when things don't work quite so well and that is a dysfunct is significant and serious in the congress. and■h so at is that dysfunction? why does it exist? and what can we do about it? that is kind of the discussion we are going to have today and i want to just mention -- i could mention a number of things, unlimited amounts of money these days in congress and so many others. i nt t mention social self-government, the amen people have sent some misfit congress over the time. in most cases, those misfits have been ignored and sent to a corner and never heard from again. with social media -- with social media, it is different. those misfits who celebrate --

and soda social media -- celebrate the anger and the and their comments, they become a significant part of the congress, unfortunately, as social media describes it. i want to mention just one thing and then we will continue. we had a couple of them show up just before i left the senate and that change the senate it was like putting a drop of red dyen a glass of water and every molecule in the glass changed as a result of it. and so, i think what is happening is social mediaei is substantially changing how people see and how people in the congress look at the misfits and can get maximum national attention and the question before all0hf us is to figure

out what is that and how do we deal with it? >> i will be pretty quick. i was drawn to this whole idea, too. in my day job, i lead the congressional program so i have a great interest in making sure the congress functions and at the members find ways to better cooperate and do their jobs but as i think about this, i often think, having spent 14 years there, i think about it -- is it theeople we elect, is that the process, is it performative politics, the or partisan media, redist become, frankly, in many ways to molest diverse ideologically. they used to be more ideologilly diverse and that contributed to■u moderation and now that they are more ideologically informed -- davis talks about parliamentary voting patterns. i hope to get into these types of issuesoday to stimulate this conversation.

>> thank you. i am grateful to you for onsorings. especially grateful to my colleagues because all of us have worked inside the belly of the beast and all we want is a better beast. we are looking at the building right, now, the first branch of government. most important branch of government, but it has been broken for some time worst days in american history which were probably the age of from 18 65 to 1915, but approaching that era, and it must be fixed. hopefully, we can come up with ideas here today that will help us fix it. i'm real simple. why can't the housework work on a majority basis? it did in the ukraine and foreign a votes recently -- votes recently. why can't the senate work on maf the founders and enable the institution to work better at least in my opinion.

i look forward to the discussion. >> i'm going to take the prerogative of the host to say just a few more words. i do come from penn. our founder, benjamin franklin, i have often said american -- te brightest person ever born in north america. he succeeded in everything he did for world-class status, world-class inventor, politician, diplomat, etc. at the close of the constitutional convention, he was 81 years old and many of you know that he wrote a speech thee convention. he was not a speaker. he was a writer and he did not give the speech. but the speech begins with a think is very important opening that there are several parts of this constitution that i do nam

sure i never -- i shall never approve them for having livedngy instances of being obliged by better information or fuller consideration to change opinions evence thought right but found to be otherwise. it is therefore that the older i grow, the more apt i am to doubt my own judgment and pay more respect to the judgment of others." it is an incredibly short speech, 700 13 words. beautiful sentiment about the importance of listening to others, having an open mind to change your views and to compromise. you want. and he knew for sure that all things considered, the constitution was -- even though it was far from perfect. how do we reclaim that sentiment is a large part of what we want to do. as has already been mentioned,

lastnd was a break. the new york times on april 19 report ukraine, on the website, "democrats help bring the aid package to the floor. a breach of custom on a key vote that paved the way for its likely passage." that breach of custom, historically, rightbe ago -- i'g a breach of■@ custom. it has become a breach of custom over the last number of years and i think part of our question here is what has changed to make it a breach of custom and how do we get if not the custom back, at least a different way of operating? and with that, i am going to turn this morning's session over to steve proceeding, --

perlstein. we became friendover the affordable care act. steve was one of the three people i le he was interested in the subject and not in the headlines. for more tn 30rs, he has beena theked to. prize award for business journalism. for the pt 13 years, he has been a professor at george mason and for the past couple of years, he and course of how washington really works, together bringing students from george mason and penn together in this lovely room. and he is going to introduce the rest of the morning session. >> thank you. thank you, and welcome to of ts morningds no introduction to anyone in this room. he likes to say that he was an affirmative action hire at the

new york times back in 1985. he graduated not from harvard or yale like most of his colleagues in thoset from a large state school in the midwest, illinois state. [laughter] he began covering congress way back in 1985. and he is the chief washington correspondent for the new york insightful commentary and analysis of the institution at the other side of the window. his book is called "confirmation bias." it explores the 30 year war at the j shape ideology -- war to shape the ideology of the court system. one of the few things americans agree about is that congress has broken and has been broken for some time.

d they wrote their book, the broken 7zbranch, way back in 2006 and a decade later, norman tom came up with an updated version. in 2016, the titled -- it's even worse than it looks. norm would agree, it's only been downhill since then. you generally hear two sets of explanations for this dysfunction. the most common one that you hear from the members, at least in public, is that it's all the fight of the fault of the other party. our party wants to■g get tngs done. it's those other guys who are unreasonable and who are undermining the process. ile there is a kernel of truth to that gng putting this conference together was to get beyond the partisan posturing and finger-pointing and that is why we have gathered former members who were known to

be willing to engage in bipartisan compromises and cooperatio not a representative group. the other explanation you hear s inevitable. that it's the result of the political polarization of the country and the voters. the realignment of the parties, ideologically, demographically, geographically points out, the clustering of voters into solid red and blue states and districts and the aggressive use of■berrymandering to encourage that and of course, the retreat of the voters into partisan and ideological information bubbles. there is no doubt that these changes in the political environment are a major reason why congress can no longer resolve difficult issues. they make it unlikely if not

impossible to go back to the good old days but what is also true is that rather than trying to restrain the centripetal forces, these forces of partisanship and polarization, congress has the pitch them. and not just capitulated to them but turbocharged them. the extent of the dysfunction, in other words, was not inevitable but ratherchoices ths made. about practices, about schedules, about expectations, about the distribution of power in congress itself. it is on those factors that are inteal to congress, why the place runs the way it does, why members and leaders behave the like to focus thisnias for members, youe institution from the inside and

as former members, you also have the political freedom to talk candidly about this institution and former colleagues that you still care very much about. we want this to be a free-flowing conversation so just jump in when you have something to say. we will occasionally exerciseur our prerogatives as the moderator to make sure that we hear from everybody and to get to some of the broad themes that many of you have identified already. with that in mind, i would like to start by putting to you the question that zeke raised a moment ago. this past weekend, we saw what n happen in the house and senate. when leaders decide to act as leaders, when the speaker decides to be the speaker of the whole house, not just the leader of the majority caucuand we

saw what happens when responsible members collectively exercise their power to marginalize fringe groups in committee and then on theloor. it seemed revolutionary but for many of you sitting here, you recall decades ago when that was actually the way things pretty much work. so what is it that prevents that from being the norm today? what are the things that prevent members from doing that sort of thing? >> i will give it a shot. we could all go home after your introduction. all the. the biggest change that i have seen over theyears is that peo'. i know in kentucky last fall, we

-- somebody pulled statewide on a variety of. on every issue except one, an overwhelming peragf kentuckians agreed with the democratic position and yet we have a state legislature and a house -- 38-7. and it's because people -- it used to be you are either in kentucky or louisville fan and now you are either aaf republicn or a democrat. same jersey colors but again, to tell one quick anecdote, i was sitting at a bar, having dinner, a woman comes in and she's probably fiftyish and she sat -- she recognized me. she said, pleased to meet you. i never met you before. i wanted to let you know i am a republican. i always appreciate the way you handled your jobe went on this three or four minute speech in which, as she

republican once, i am a republican 15 times. after she was finished, i said, i appreciate all those comments. i just feel sad that you think it is important that you know that i am a republican, that that is the most important thing i should know about you and she acted like i had hit her almost. she said, i'm going to have to think about that. that is the way people think about themselves and it is reflected in the way members behave because they are going home in their bubbles adhering the same thing. >> do members now think of themselves as primarily -- first thing -- i am a republican member of the house of general -- that's how they actually think of themselves? >> i would say a significant majority thinks that. >> i think it starts with the voters. we are seeing less ticket splitting at any time in history. people used to vote for the number on the jersey and now we are seeing the color. we are seeing straight ticket

voting down the line. off what charlie■amentary behavior in a balance of power t of the reforms that are being proposed, whether it is the filibuster -- it would likely make us more parliamentary. we have got to decide, is this really what we want? are the coalitions that we have today -- are these temporary or do they devolve into something else and we move onto something else? >> when you say parliamentary, i think i know what you mean but maybe it would be helpful -- what do you mean? >> parties when. they control all of the levers of government. they move their platform forward and that is what they do. the minority basically said there and ways to become the majority. what has happened here, steve, the minority party today no longer themselves minority shareholder. they are the straight out opposition party in the house and the senate.

the filibuster was 57 votes and it was really utilized. now almost everything is filibustered. >> even things we agree on. q-■squite stressed because they. looking at some of the reforms that are proposed, it would make us more parliamentary. is this really the way we want to go? that is really kind of where it is right now. just put it this way, most of these districts -- party districts. november for most members is a constitutional formality. their primary is where they put their time and voting records because that is what makes the district -- the difference. the districts have gone from here to here. the way people receive the news has gone from factual, vented news, outta here, where everybody has their own truth and they don't tune in for information. they tune in for affirmation to

get their views validated and the money has moved from the parties which were a centering force in american politics for 200 years after the super pack -- 501(c) four's, enforcement mechanisms in primaries, and there's no cavalry for members who deviate from the party line. i think those factors together have made it very difficult for members to step across those lines and get -- get outside of their comfort zone. >> i would like to go back to what happened this past weekend because i do think it is pretty exciting that you did have this moment, people who were very principled and who had really been staying at it on the ukraine issue, israel, taiwan. but you have leaders like mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer who we know had been talking almost every day, certainly every week, about keeping this coalition together and the senate, republican and democrat leadersh, ukraine all along so that had

not fractured at all. the house was the problem, but you always had majority support. we always knew there were 300 votes for ukraine. the problem was this small group s causing the problem and because of the two vote majority for republicans that was holding it up, but you had leaders like mike, who heads up the affairs, mike rogers, armed services, who stayed committed to this and their democratic partners also stayed committed to this, who were unrelenting, and they were staying encouraging micah johnson to look at the intelligence, and then the intelligence was showing things like these freedomgreen and othy echoing russian talking points. a number of us who were recently in germany, we heard that from

bundestag members that their right wing is also echoing russian talking were very study- steady and getting the information out, working with think tanks and people in washington to get the message out and allies and i know there were all kinds of, you know, information flows going in very steadily and president biden wat attack. people were really kind back ps to make this deal work and that is kind of washington at its best, that you cou and that a wl -- this is verchaic, but the rule went through with democratic support, which never happens and it's something that, you know, that -- when the republicans on that committee that oppose it thought -- ok, no, we can stop it. the freedom caucus guys on the rope -- was committee, we are going to stop it, and then they rise to the occasion because it]

is that important. democracy is at stake, and hopefully, this is not just a moment. this is something where the majority of america who really care about this can build on this. i hope one of comes out of this is that the administration, republicans, democrats, who get the split in congress, willh bring forward more of this disinformation that moscow is we know it's going all over europe. i hope this can be, you know, in this critical year where there are elections all over the world, that we can get a lot more of the information out and we can take this moment that we have had and build on it and i hope the press will be more helpful on that front, too. because this is really unique and we need more amplification of the good■w who got this

done. >> if i could add something to that, i totally agree with what barbara just said. one of the things that i think needs to be recognized as to how this moment -- i was and part of the conversation, trying to help foster and develop the opportunity for that to ripen. really, to me, what i witnessed conversation -- is the level of trust that it needed -- that needed to occur in order for that to happen. >> that is between who about what? >> democrats and republicans and micah johnson in particular in the house because with the democrats crossing over that vote in the rules committee, and the rules committee is very critical to this conversation and this solution. they did that, recognizing -- and the republicans trusted their word that they would be there. in order to make sure that the freedom caucus did not exert its authority in a way that took that down. and on top of that, the trust

that mike has and the people that will have his back as democrats to stay in the seat was honored and committed to face-to-face, eyeball eyeball. they demonstrated your word in that building matters. and when you give that word, that allows it to function at the level that you saw it happen, in my humble opinion, last weekend. once that word is no longer good or they are not good men and women of their word in the institution, i think that is the path we are on as we go forward. that is when i really get concerned about the viability of the institution. >> we are talking about some of the structural issues that keep congress from functioning in the way that it means to and i want to build on this question of trust because i think in order to buiru build relationships, and there

are many disincentives buildinm building that then allow you to trust voi think that some of it has to do with when are the times ino knoh other, to build relationships that then on the big issues allow you to trust somebody else it's word? i think that over the last 30 years, the opportunities for that have been severely reduced. there is a limited time schedule. you only have time for, you know, your committee work or for ay the opportunities that youpes can have to build or personal relaonshso the tough stuff happens, then you are at least able to have conversations that bridge those gaps.

>> if committees actually don't meet very fact don't legislate very much, then you have even reduced those interactions which frankly was when a lot of that trust was built generally out of public view but if you're legislation just sort of shows up on the floor from the leader's office, there never those opportunities. >> i jump in a second? this is something i wanted to talk about. it's great to see so many of my confidential sources. [laughter] >> and we never got a byline. >> so he just hit on something i wanted to hit on. there's been a lot of self-congratulation about what happened this weekend and i was involved with some of that myself. zúbut there was still a leadersp driven bill.

arrighetti got behind it. but the biggest complaint that i hear from members, you know, day in and day out, is structural, like you said, but the structure is that everything written in the leadership office is that, you know, the committees are not working. there is not an opportunity for people to get involved, and it is something that leadership likes, right? who doesn't like writing the bill? >> they say they don't, but they do. >> and putting it out there. so how serious a problem is that and how do youbecause a lot of , how much time is there to do this. >> andy has been wanted to jump in. >> so, i agree with everything that barbara and tom and donna were saying. but i want to go back to the big picture and maybe be a little bit controversial, and say that

problem, all the small dhe democratic infirmary's cause us to not be parliamentary enough in the sense of actually getting things done. so the idea of a parliamentary system is that people don't vote so much for personalities. you are a social democrat, he is a communist, you are a green, whatever. some party wins or some coalition and then they run their program. en in however many years the people say i like thatre not por progra judgment, one of the big problems of democracy is that we don't get much done. we don't actually try our programs. i will speak as a democrat.

over my adult lifetime, how has it gone with fundamental labor law reform, with raising wages, ensuring functions -- pensions, getting health care for everyone? we have not really done mu■.we h accomplished across multiple -- and jimmy carter and bill clinton and barack obama and joe biden all had democratic majorities in both chambers at last 50 years.years and i think that there are many problems that calls this but actually the american people are incredibly frustrated with this place because they don't get their business done. congress has been least productive in many, many decades. some of the causes of this, money and politics run amok for sure. infirmities of our structure itself, the electoral college, the person who wins the vote

does not necessarily become the president. the gross inequities in representation in the senate, with all due respect to say, north dakota, or an in smaller state. california with its fall -- 43 million people having the same representation. and super majority rule in the senate. people have said even this if super majority rule on the senate was part ion. no, it was not. that is just not correct. someone also said this morning, they filibuster everything. this rule that was introduced by segregationists to stop black people from becoming full and equal citizens of the united $states. >> you want donald■ able to change everything? >> i do think we have to change -- here is my point. i don't think donald trump could

have any gosh- could have gotten anywhere near the white house if our system of government was functioning better and a people's business was getting done better. >> there is an interesting tension. in a sense to what you said and what tom hasl8 said, is we have the worst of both worlds. we have a parliamentary in the sense that people are voting with their party now but we have a division of power structure in the united states constitution which gives us the disadvantage of not being able to get anything done. so the disadvantage is now with the parliamentary system and the division of powe system. but you seem to be arguing the solution to is to have more party unity and disciine for the party in power, the party that is the majority, and go full bore into the parliamentary way of doing things.

where i think i hear a lot of other people seeing -- >> that is the argument we get on the right from our freedom caucus, that we have got 220 votes, we want to do everything. and i think our system is designed that you really have to do it would bipartisan coalition. and those other bills we have passed. >> let me respond. i gotr here, look, i have to jut mentionand my uncle, both of whom served way many more -- they each served 36 years, 32 of them together, and they are by far the longest-serving set of siblings in the 234 year history of the place. and i think they both did a lot of bipartisan things. were also very liberal democrats. and i got here and i wanted to -- i did not like that drug companies were abusing the public comment system of the fda. i was a freshman and democrats

don't get anywhere close to the energy comrc committee as a freshman, where this bill would go. so i found francis rooney, a very conservative republican. and i said, what you think about this? we wrote the stop games act and we did it together. i am really into bipartisanship. but as a say, if you look at the history of our country, if you are congressional historian and you say,b% well, what did we accomplish? all happened in the 1930's and the and hour, social, medicare, medicaid. >> democrat majorities. >> yeaand there was less partisp in those times in this body then there is now. in reagan's time, sometimes it went other way.

i don't think partisanship is a simple issue. >> you were the chair of the energy and commerce committee. what is your rct. when i became chair, i changed the rules of the committee. john ingle was a wonderful■ friend of mine and did remarkable things and we worked together on a good number of impacting the midwest, great lakes, etc. but i changed the rules. i said if you've gotten amendment that is bipartisan, you are going to the head of the queue. so, work together. you on my right and you on my left, you find a righty with a southpaw, and your amendment is going to be first. and in my 10 year we had a democratic president, obama all six years. we had more than 200 bills signed into law, the best legacy issue was of course 21st century cures, which we could talk about

at length but i won't. but we got things done. and that cares bill, i had to adjourn a markup because things were not coming together but at the end of the day it was 50-0 in a committee. and passed that bill throughe 92-26. and we withstood a filibuster led by elizabeth warren, and we still got 70-some votes to get it done. but what i would suggest is, you look at these too many ratios. yeah, you are right, not enough comes through the committee process. but the committee ratios are really unfair. they are not respective of the ratio. >> you mean the ratio of publicans and democrats don't reflect -- >> they don't. there also a super majority. ways and means was, what, 27-16? the margin in the house is two

or three votes. the rules committee i know has always been 9-4. it should be 5-4. that you encourage republicans and democrats to work together and get these bills through the committee. and then move them to the house floor. that i think would solve a lot of these issues. take the mayorkas's vote for his impeachment. that was a parliamentary move if you ever saw one. and the republicans lost a wonderful man, a guy i thought was on the speaker circuit down the road, gallagher. he was abused when he surprised opoting no and he said, screw you and everyone that looks like you, i am out of here. and he is. and he lhe is no longer a membef congress. >> how do you get the leadership to give up its power? that is what you are talking about. >> they always promise that they

are going to give regular order but they don't. >> i think it makes sense. but how do you get someone -- the one thing i have seen in congress is people do not give up their power easily once they get it? >> he gave up his power and look what happened to him. a lot of this arose because the minority was kind of abusing their minority rights. that is why the filibuster in the senate went from 60 to 50 nominations. you held a majority you could not get basic nominations through because everything was filibustered. that is why in the house they from open rules on closed rules and finally writing in the speaker's office because the minority was putting up a lot of poison pill amendments. it is on both sides, egged on by their allies in the media to be overly partisan. >> lance, we have not heard from you, and then senator dodd as well.

>> first of all, i want to go back to ukraine. i don't think we should be congratulating ourselves so much. i have seen much too much self-congratulation. this should have occurred several months ago. only time will tell whether our aid will be effective given the fact that it is my impression the russians are doing better than they were doing in ukraine six months ago. and so i think that that chapter of history is yet to be written. and i am critical of congress for not enacting the ukraine legislation much earlier. now, why did that occur, and wie the discharge petition with much greater frequency. and there is a fear to use the discharge petition because if

you are in the majority and if you sign a discharge petition, you are heavily criticized by your leadership and there is even a potential threat involved. and if the discharge petition had been used earlier regarding ukraine, then of course it would come to the floor and it would have passed with 300 votes. and that is a way in my judgment to lessen the influence, the over leaning influence of leadership. be it democratic or republican. number one. number two, i am opposed to parliamentary government. and it is clear we are moving in that direction and i don't like it one little bit. and number three and finally, i certainly agree with congressman leven. i am a republican who was opposed to the electoral college, at least in its current form. change the constitution.

but as we all know there is the al popular vote interstate compact signed by 17 states and the district of columbia with 209 electoral votes. and let's hope that more states will sign and that would be a way in my judgment to bring about greater democracy in the united states. >> let's go to the discharge petition. there was nothing that prevented the republican chairman of the intelligence committee in the house, republican chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the, to gather some people from this party and maybe some democrats and walk into the speaker's office and say mr. speaker, look, we got 300 votes for this. we don't want to have to do a discharge come we don't want to challenge you in public. please, put this on the floor, let the majory erbecauseg to have to do this.

why did that and -- why did that not happen? >> you sure that that not happen? >> i think it was actually that threat that got him to move. >> why did it take six months? >> because it is broken. the institution is broken. it is not like they are going to fix this overnight. >> it should have been done three months ago. >> i agree with you. if you had true leaders over there and we didn't have the misfitse, using their minority position, it would have. but that is a symptom of the disease that has taken hold over there. >> wouldn't you agree that your idea, which i support, is not fixing the system, it is a symptom of a broken system? ol to use in a broken system to keep getting things done. >> perhaps it is not a fix. but to get to the fix let's start with what we can do. >> i think it is the threat of

being able to do and succeed. you do it once or don't have to use it again because everyone knows it is an implied threat potential. >> as one of the leaders of the movement to successfully discharge a bill from committee in 2015, some of the folks in this room are part of that. there were a few of us. and the way we did that, we did it because at that time the frm emerging. they were using their power or whatever the number was, 20 to 40, to obstruct congress and doing whatever the majority wanted to do. so we decided we would use the power of 42 acly advance something we thought was good public policy. were successful is because you may remember the moment. john boehner just announced he was resigning after the pope had visited. i maybe waited two hours and i went to john and said you know,

we are working on this idea of a discharge for the export import bank. ordinarily we would not do this because it is often seen as a kick in the teeth to use a speaker but under the circumstances. he said, your head is in the right place. so he was basically supportive of whatnew we were trying to advance this program that he supported pre-that is how we got it done. we basically talketo the9sde2 will do the rest and we marched downnd 42 and in like five minutespassed the bill wit0 votes. what has happened in this congress though is thereh wing s not have the votes about ukraine, over 300 votes to ukraine but this small group one to stop it. and they used her leverage to obstruct the majority. same thing with the speaker votes.

steve scalise b jim jordan, but the people aligned with jordan prevented him successfully from becoming the speaker. so they used theire to try to affect outcomes that they cannot obtain through the democratic process. in the leaders, frankly, need to stop it and do what they did with the ukraine bill. put the bill on the floor and let congress work. >> the only charge the discharge petition worked was twice. both times the speaker had to go along with it. >> he did not publicly. campaign-finance reform. >> so how do you get this tool more in use? 9dbecause it takes some nerve courage to sign it. >> we have been talking a lot about the house. we have three former senators here who come from different worlds, so to speak.

>> it is not that someone showed up who was not chosen. they won elections. so you can make a pretty good case that the american people have chosen dysfunction. not because they went to about box d said thiist i want. but they did not know exactly what they were going to get. let me get back to this. i mentioned social media at the start of this wh impact on virty everything in our country. social media especially. it has a profound impact. let's all understand at the moment. they say one third of the american people now9d believe te last election was stolen. one third of the american people. and they say that about two thirds of the republican party. believes it was stolen. how do you get to that? there is a guy writing a book called the death of truth that comes out soon. when you talk about understand e

combination of trust and truth and what voters know when you decide how they want to choose a government? i think this issue of the social media where everyone in america is a broadcaster, it has a profound iacknow and what peoplo do with spect to their choice of send to washington, d.c. the problem. so we know what exists. change it?on then is how e i will let chris talk a little about the senate because -- but i think chris can do a better jobt has happened on the senate side as well. >> i want to thank has been ver. i thought there would be a cheer at the fact that senators have not talked. [laughter]

i have never heard anyone from the house complain about the senate being quiet. >> you are just not used to a fixed mic. >> i am sure the american public watching must be amazed you have tolerated this. had a good discussion last evening over dinner as well. but there has been this denigration of our institution of the congress. that did not happen overnight it is happening slowly. there is a new book out'm not promoting it, but it is the age of revolution. ■jexcept for some cataclysmic events, they happen slowly and invisibly. and we are in the middle of one. there is no going baccome in a sense, to the days when we were there and so forth. the underlying reason why it functioned was because people knew each other.

it was not a rule someplace. we're talking about things we could do that might enhance that. to me that would be the biggest victory. create an environment where people have to spend time with each other. if it doesn't start there i'm it is hard to explain that to new people. but it is an acquired taste in it -- and you need to be around it for a while before you understand how it functions. we have all told anecdotesther'd anywhere that requires you to tell the listen to other people or tell somethingrg for things you can do pretty -- can do. the idea of the american taxpayer pays for any -- i know it is nice to go home and obviously the founders did not

really care about it because -- today depending on where you live, you can go home four times a day. as long as it is a public purpose. having lunch with a teacher i guess qualifies. so we made it difficult. there are numbers of people who sleep in their offices and come back on a tuesday night or a monday night and leave on a thursday evening. they don't contribute to what we are talking about. first of all, it has changed. it is not going back. secondly, what can we do and how can we do this in a way that requires -- i admire what you did with your committee. i suggested a number of times we should get rid of the language embedded in people's minds, the divisions that exist. there have been suggestions of doing that in the past. but those kind of ideas i thi

need to be really discussed and considered more seriously than they have been in the past. in the absence of that, i don't know how we correct all of this. so we need to get back to that environment. >> let me ask you. suppose a group of senators went to chuck schumer, democratic senators, and said just what you said. let's change the schedule, let's change the aisle, let's do this other thing, let's let the republicans in a little bit and make them part of the process. what do you think he would say? >> i think he would probably say yes. on the immigration compromise in the senate, if you drew a bright line on age, those who are 55 and older voted for the compromise. those under 55 voted against it. it is a generational shift going on here. those of us who look around the table here of course fall into that latter category of older members. wegs done. it is a whole new world out there. i don't think we are even talking about that necessarily.

but it really comes to that, in a sense. those are the experiences we have had. shared some anecdotes about strom thurmond and d kennedy and so forth from a generation ago, where your word was your bond. if you made a commitment you followed up on it. because people would treat you in a negative way throughout your career. one event could ruin your rep. today you don't get a sense of that. people don't know each other very well at all. i don' have any quick ideas on how to fix it. but until we talk about that, the american people have such disrespect for us as an institution. what a great shame it is when you consider the contributions hope is when we talk about ideas,■ s are important. there are two words that don't show up in our founding documents anywhere. the word democracy and the word compromise. i have never seen anyone run for

public office and promised to be a hell of a compromiser. what the founders had in mind though was exactly that. democracy, creating an architecture as well that requires compromise. we have two chambers in the legislative branch not because we wanted a spare. they created an architecture that made us think. twice about things along the way. instead of things that need to be changed. that notion of democracy is totally dependent on compromise. you lose the ability to compromise, you dodemocracy. you cannot have a winner take all system. to me, that is where the emphasis needs to be. >> i will associate myself with the words from the gentleman maw paradigm. we are divid. we are divided as a country. it's not 60% and 35% in the

other. it's 50.1% to 49.9%. we're divided by where we live, we consume, what we watch. and='t think you could put the genie back in the bottle. unfortunately, your point, social media feeds that the vion. most young people get their information from tiktok. >> at the moment. >> and so, that's the reality. and so i think■ maybe we have to have a new paradigm. in the new paradigm says the middle has to exert itself. that may be the only way. ■:because i agree. if 51 controlsveet what they want, we're going to be in trouble. the founders had billions and understanding that -- had bril

in understanding that. we have two ears and one mouth, use them in that proportion. in a practical side, we've not spoken much about gerrymandering and about what it takes toet to congress today. i created in 2010 something called the american action network and congressional leadership fund. we wanted to create a political side to that because we thought that was going to happen, and it happened. 32 million the first cycle. last cycle had spent $359 million house races. the reality is in 2010, we had 100 races that we were playing in. our team got 6 something seats. today, 30 races, 25, 30. the reality for everything else is, all you have to be is the

most extreme on your side. in a publican -- republican district, if you are the toughest no compromise republican, you can live in your mother's basement and tweet something out, get some followers, and you get elected. and you don't deal with the other side. if we only have 30-something district that are in play, then breeding folks coming to the body in a way different■rom what i think our founders intended. folks work in the community, join the chamber, work in the rotary, etc., somebody says run for school board, house. but today it different. so unless we change the feeder system -- and i want to make one other comment. part of it, i'd like the universities. -- i blame the universities. when we are creating safe spaces for kids who are afraid of listening to another idea, you think you have a problem.

so i kind of want to look at how we are feeding the system and ructurally, what we can do to change it. because i think we are in a new we're not putting the genie back in t bottle. >> the jungle primary might be the solution. >> jungle primary, meaning? >> general primary is like what california has rather take the top two vote getters regardless of party. you could have two republicans or two democrats, but in essence you are running the general among the whole field. louisiana i think has that same rule, if you get 50% of the vote in a primary you don't have to run in november. it's over. >> ranked votin it is very simi. >> i wanto chris's point of little bit. the schedule is a bi deal in the senate. and this is the reason there is no time to do anything. unfortunately to me it is

getting worse. some nights it is tuesday night and you're out thursday at 2:00. i mean, and senators are waiting there and their cars are out>> . [laughter] go to do that, subsidize that in a sense, it was great politics. spend as much time as you can, spend as little time as you can hear and spend your time back at home. obviously that seemed to be a smart thing to do. on this day and age, the idea you can do that, for a lot of people, expectatioe

back. we created that expectation and now we have subsidized it, undermining the very point the founders had in mind. they required people to stay around. my father's generation, john rhodes, tip o'neill. tip o'neill would sing. [laughter] [laughter] >> this is a senate specific thing but directly related to mine for the last few months. the senate in sos become this phony body. because they have these -- because of the schulme. they stack up these amendments at the end that all have to fail. you don't really have a real debate on these amendments.

the only wayouent vote in this s to know that it's going to fail. how do you deal with that? >> there is no regular order in the senate any longer with respect to committees in the floor and amendments on the floor. the last majority leader as a democrat in the senate th days, five days was robert c burton. a very differento1 leader in may ways. he wanted people to be there. we have all been in the leader's office and heard people come in, they've got this going on wednesday night and thursday. there was one circumstance where we had a member of the senate call the cloakroom to bring about and say we have to use h'e airport and it turns out it was the philadelphia airport. [laughter]

when i came to the house in 2007 , we worked longer weeks. we were there four days a week. we did not take two weeks on, two weeks off.we would be in ses a year. now we are in session fewer days a year. the voters don't hold members accountable. they just don't. >> there is no political punishment. that is one of the things that underlines all of this. >> that's one of the things we will talk about. things we have learned. and that was one of them. the number of people who

actually follow what we are doing, the percentage of our constituents, is minuscule. >> part of is local news is news that would report to the constituents about, what, how they voted. local news is quickly leaving us. >> being replaced by social media, run by people who have advocacy and agendas. and they are telling everybody exactly what you are doing through the prism that they want it. >> i want to highlight one positive for social media, one area where members could do it in a more positive way, maybe not have three podcasts a week, as some people have. when i do some classes with young people, i always ask them, what politician do you see that you like that you think is kind of great?

d spontaneously i've had them mention jeff jackson of north carolina. a congressman from north carolina. he's now running for attorney general. they redistricted him out, so he decided to run for attorney general. he does these tiktoks, but he can easily move what he does to reels or facebook. he sits down at a table a couple times a week, maybe once als w'. he has these great explainers that he does, very common sense. he's just a nice guy who says, here's what went on this week. he will say, here's what the bill is, here's what it does. and he explains it in . -- in very common sense language. he tells you, it had to go

through the rules committee. he easily explains it in very good detail. and he does it so well. wash jeff jackson -- watch jeff jacks and you will see it. the kids love it. this is who young college students are watching. he's not hopping around, he's not doing it with a song. he is sitting there like a teacher but in a very straightforward way. if you have 435 members and 100 senators copying his master class on how to explain congress every week, you would break through a lot of the clutter. he's using social media in a very positive way. i work in that area. but heet but it gets a bad rap. 'er place for what he is doing. it cuts through. >> jim cooper, i will give you

the last word on this session. >> folks who have not served in congress don't understand, this is what congress will do in 2024. that work is a five day a week job. here, we basically work on wednesday. [laughter] you come here tuesday and thursday, fly in and fly out days. the one day that the house is in session is wednesday. that is when all the constituents come from back home. if you don't greet your constituents who traveled all the way to washington to see you and miss your hearing, miss your markups -- so we have really collapsed the schedule until one day a week. we get full-time pay for a part-time job. we are working hard campaigning back home. but that is a different job from what the founders intended. >>