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. >> we will be back here in 10

minutes. slightly after 11:15. you. [indistinct chatter] >> ok. ■>everyone, check your phones oe

last time. rpwelcome back. welcome back to our viewers on c-span. >> wrapping up, talking about social media, i wanted to talk about regular media, such as it is, which i am a part of. when i started covering washington, we would write one story at the end of the day, maybe a couple of week. now, the stories are being written all day. there is such a variety of stories and reporters are chasing members around constantly, posting,■j putting w stories up.

mammy, philadelphia -- miami, philadelphia, charlotte, places like that had big presence. some have too much media, some a lack of media. how much do you think the constant churnand twitter all d- that's got to be having effect . mainly negatively. >> there were six of us, three of us in a room, a bipartisan group that went to germany for the week earlier this month. we spoke to thousands of people. we lectured at colleges, high schools, bundestag,

american chamber and others. i was personally amazed at how literate -- how the students knew about america and our politi. they knew about mtg. theythe people. i don't know that you would have that same reaconi did a school k when i was in congress until covid. the local news coverage --the chicago tribune used to have 80, 100 people here. now you look at your local papers, and there's nothing there. in michigan, we don't get the times or the post. we got the wall street journal. their coverage is phenomenal. but that's not the normal person this going to get it. you look at two kids in

30's, they don't follow the news. but i was amad, germany, they really knew the issues. they asked wonderful questions. >> is that a good thing? that can be a good or bad thing. >> if you are a member and voters are not paying attention, you could argue, i have freedom to do what i want to do, on the other >> i would bet the two people that took my seat, most people have no idea that they both voted no on ukine last weekend. >> the students were very interested in ukraine, democracy issues. issues like russia infiltrating their intelligence systems. they were very aware of those kinds of issues. itof students and business leaders. >> well -- well, so, is the

disappearance of so-called local news have a bad effect on the voters, on the members? which way does it go? it could be liberating not to have to worry about people like me. tell me about that. what do you think, tom? >> it works both ways. if it affects the voters, it will affect the members. if the voters don't pick this up -- they tune into their trusted news source. theirs is probably different than mine. that is their bubble. different understandings of how congress works, the world works. it adds to the polarization. >> i will make two observations i made during the last year.

during the big speaks figh at the beginning of this session, i looked downmoment inf the members were on their phones either reading or typing. these are members of congress. they were not talking to each other. they were on the p.at tells me t where their attention is. >> their twitter mentions. [laughter] when i ran a house office, and we■d had one press person in both -- one■b fr both washington and the district. today, in the standard house office, you have a communicationsy communications director and the press secrar two. two things i will say about it, it's very difficult to get a

phone call returned from any of those three. they are very busy. and what they are very busy doing is monitoring social media and doing sociafeeds. they don't do press releases anymore, just social media outgoing things. most house offices, the number of communications people exceeds the number of legislative assistants by at least one or two, the house office. i don't know how it goes in the senate. what does that tell you about how they are spending their time and their priority? >> i will build on that. i try to always mentor new members coming in. appalled me -- is the end of my career that some of the members who were very popular were advising there from the freshman members coming in, you don't need a policy team, all you need is a co team --l[ com team. they don't have policy stuff.

they don't have them. they are built for coms operations. their golden motivation is to get the clicks, the five minutes of fame. it leads to huge amount of fundraising opportunities, five dollars click. that is what they teach each other that you are supposed to do as a member of congress. that is a real problem. the media issue -- i can't tell you how many times even seasoned members when i was there, i was in a majority maker seat. i got attacked all the time. both sides. left and right. i would get daily reports for my team. what is coming and? you get data sheets -- what is coming in? you get dataould see, who was responding? 3000 calls a day.ast it was not unusual. but i would have some numbers.

if republicans got 100 calls, they would be crying to me, we have to stop this. do you know how upset my people e? how many people called you? 100. [laughter] ;it was amazing to me the lack of confidence and leadership they had. they could not stand up to to hundred people bothering them by just sending an e-mail in. i would get 2000 and. >> and police protection -- 2000 a day. >>tion. >> at the end of the day, you have>> it is scary what youd big loss of policy expertise on the hill. who was supposed to be doing this stuff? >> charlie rangel said it best. when we were complaining that newt gingrich starxsd this process of giving the power out of the speaker's office.

charlie says, yeah, newt started it but nancy perfected it. they don't have power to do their jobs as legislatives. that's what i learned. there is very limited power outside the speaker. until you give members opportunity they came to washington to do, you this cancr growth. >> a lot of them don't even want to pass bills. what is the point of saying, we will give you more power? they don't want to do anything, besides th them more powerful? >> i want to express there may be a difference here, a partisan difference. i don't know of any democrat, however far left, w doesn't have the staff. >> would you say aoc has that? >> i have a text from a young guy, a student at princeton, a

professor, a claimant activist from my district who asked me for a recommendation for her office, and i had to tell them, you never actually worked for me, love ya, but you were not a student of mine, i don't give recommendations to wonderful young people that i don't know about their work. that would be inappropriate. he texan and -- he texted me back, no problem, i've already got the job. what i would counter is that a lot of the younger new members on the democratic side are communications geniuses. they are not just checking. they may be putting out a tweet or doing something. they're very fast i'll add it -- i don't think the democrats --

i don't think it's a case we don't want to legislate. -- the case that we don't want to legislate. people may not like the green new deal or medicare for all. but those people actually turn it into law. even if they may want things we don't all agree with. but they really want to legislate. >> i want to go back to this point i wanted to raise earlier. i want to give a shout out .gfor party identity. i don't think there's anything wrong with identifying with your party and its values. the challenge is when you allow that identity to get in the wa'd tremendously over thlayears is d democrats who had a basic belief in government, they may have disagreed about how much government or where government

would work best or not but they did have a fundamental belief government was ok. the difference today is you have a set of people who re want to crash and burn, they don't believe inovernment at all. as a result, why do you need policy people around? why do you need to participate in a committee? you don't. because you want to see it crash and burn. we do have to figure out a way where we got to a point where people have some basic belief system and governmentndte proposals that either make government work better or figure out ways to compromise. i think that is the real problem. i don't really have a problem with identifying as a democrat. for me it's about a value system. but i do actually believe in government. >> that's what i am a proud

republican who wants to push back on government because i think we both agree that freedom , that is why from a republican perspective, our success is not necessarily about getting legislation passed, it's abouet getting solid legislation passed within the confines of a limited government and finding the compromised position takes a lot of work of listening to your idea and what side of government you are willing to expand to and accept and i'm willing to put a restriction on. andy and i talked many times, he is very left. i am a proud conservative republican. but i'm willing to stay in the room to agree, there ■are limits and that's why the fodi put this mission in under the constitution. >> you can have that debate when you both believe it should exist at all. that's a debate you can have. if you have one set of people who don't believe in it at all,

it's tough to have the debate about what the limits are. >> we haven't talked about the dynamic in which both parties don't want to see the other party get legislative victories. >> good point. >> we saw that very clearly with the immigration bill that came over from the -- that the senate passed. trump■, said, we can't give year.a victory in i was on the ways and means, while doing the affordable care act, we had a meeting with members of the committee, not one staff member, unheard of. the chair asked the republicans, is there a way we can write a health care reform bill that anyone of you can support? and i forgot who the ranking member was -- he said, his responseno, a floa. -- flat out no.

we have taken that position on some things ourselves. when you have that kind of ■0mentality, the biggest problem is there really isn't a washington. there is an electoral mentality. regardless of the issue, it is, how do i get an electoral advantage against the other side? not the advantage for the country. i don't know how you get away from that. part of it is our own frustration as members, we did the rescue plan, over the last couple years, hav, but are fruration we were not able to do much of any consequence and therefore the focus has to be on preserving the majority are not worrying on policy as much. >> we will talk solutions thisir -- to

acknowledge leadership depends on followership. we have some rank-and-file famous leaders here. but you have more independence and freedom than some want to realize. they can't do much to you. exactly what tom was saying with charlie wrangle, ne newt gingrich started the strong speakership, nancy pelosi perfected it. if the individual members realize they are contractors, they are not employees, they raise their own money, they have their own district, thr own base and popularity, there's very little the national party can do to them. but people are afraid to exercise that democracy. it's easier to go along and not get the hassle to go get it.

it is a balance between leadership and followership. we need a healthy independence. not freakish antigovernment --i love your term , exotics. [laughter] you have to believe in the enterprise. people who betray it almost from day one really should not be here. it is supposed to mean something. >>rescribed a berkey and model there. there are very few left in congress. members worry about their primaries. it's not just the leadership. it is the primary voters. ke one or two joe crowleys to get everybody back into that safe space. >> with the advantage of incumbency, if you do a minimal job, you should be able to quell much opposition in the primary. joe crowley is an excellent mbhe did not campaign. he took it for granted. he was still on the ballot.

he could have still run but he lost. members choose to leave my from worry is the best members are the first to leave. we have seen some examples of that. why do the less members stay the longest? [laughter] >> looks like we are all here. >> i think we have identifiedña a very important question. i would love to hear from more people on this. joe crowley, a senior member of congress, gets beaten aoc, eric cantor, the majority leader the republican in the house gets defeated by david b. everyone, to see these stories, they infer from it that we are all in danger now.

what matters is the primary vote. jim makes the opposite point, if you are halfway decent politician and anncumbent, you should be able to deal with situations like that. which is right? are members drawing the wrong lessons from these high visibility events and saying that we are all going to be in the same situation unless we toe the party the party line? or are there better politicians than that and they should have confidence in their ability as a politician? >> the fact is they do have to worry about primaries. they do. that is a reality. >> losing primaries. >> yeah, because if the base is further to the right, further to the left, that is who shows up in primaries. the real question used to be, do you change what you are doing because of that?

the job worth it? ? you can't be who you are. i think that's the question people have to answer. >> i think it is worth it. every day that i looked up, literally said thank you god for giving me the opportunity to do what i'm doing today. but you've got to decide that is a question. one of my great friends was tom, who voted his conscience. i said, you know something? ■,i'm not going to worry about the next election anymore. tom'st attitude. he is doing it the right way. do you have to worry? yes. you have to worry even in se districts. if you have a motivated, and energized opposition, hether -- whether it is maga or far left, you have to make a personal decision of how much you are willing to give up in order to keep doing what you are

doing. >> can we infer from the results that a lot of members have given up a lot? [laughter] >> through. -- true. >> iran in a against an eight tm incumbent and beat him in that primary from the left. people assumed when i came into congress that i was going to be a renegade, right? recruiting other people to run against other democrats. would have quickly realized about the institutio valued the is that it required talking to your neighbor. iteq required working both withn your caucus and also on a couple of committees across the aisle. it is a reason i think one barbara comstock came in, we figuredon issues important to te region. it is not always the case that

justk$ because you run in a primary and win that it necessarily means that you have to perform like a renegade. and so there is something about the people we're encouraging, or who are empowered and enabled to run to have changed over some period of time. that they think their job is to come in and just be disruptors rather than contributing. >> first ofies are a more aggressive lot of voters, on the republican side in the democrat side. so when you ask that question, there is a difference. these days especially with respect to the primaries, and the danger to those who are incumbents. let me just make another point. we're talking about this function, and we are talking about a lot of reasons

dysfunction exists. and there has been no discussion at all of donald trump. for good reason. but the fact is, the emergence of donald trump as a significant political force in the entire country has consequences, i think, as well with respect to the house and the senate. it particularly had consequences with respect to the immigration piece is probably would have come to the house and been voted into this fully, but i am just saying we have had a long discussion in the most significant issue out there with respect to politics overlaying the congress is donald trump. and what that means. so i am just interested in how others see this as well. >> i think many of the problems that often are attributed to trump sometimes predated him. i've often felt he was a consequence more than a cause.

there was a simmering fire. he is just to be gasoline on the fire who makes it worse. but he did not necessarily cause these problems. i'll give you an example about the primaries. it was october of 2013, the government shut down because of obamacare. i get into john boehner's office because i was running my mouth on television because how stupid this was. and apologetic about why we are here. he there are guys here ■fwho will govern ando a news to be done. i have at least 40 guys who just want to burn the place down every day, then another 110 guys in between who can be pulled another direction, and they have to■f wry about their primaries. i say, i don't give a damn about their prie their primaries more important than mine? they have to go up and get out from under the table, and tha

is how you deal with your primary opponent, fear. but that was my concern. these members in these very safe states kind of forgot they had a responsibility to govern. i came out of the state legislature, we had small majorities. we had to vote for things. if anybody got a pass on a bill it was someone in a really unsaeat. in a general election this said ok, you can take the past. the rest of us in the safe seats, we will man up and do what we have to do. i cannot tell you, i voted for tarp and how many people came up and said i'm really glad you voted for it. i wish i could have, but i'm glad you did. [laughter] >> vote no, hope yes. >> i thank you for that vote. well, we're -- >> i'

the afternoon but want to ask donna something, because you are the person here who actually beat an incumbent. did you beat al win because he had grown ideological with the ? t him more because he just kind of got comfortable, and even know his district was literally just a couple miles from the capitol, he did not work hard? because charlie'jim's point is,o home and defend it, and you will probably win nine times out of 10. so, do you think he did not win because he just lost touch and didn't care and got sort of soft, or was it purely an ideological thing? >> no, i think there were some very specific votes that he took that were really far afield from where the district was.

people did not know about it and what i think our campaign did was point that out. war. those things that were really out of touch with the district. i think one of the things that happen in a media environment where the washington post is your paper of record, but cove o issues and local members really just does not happen very much. there is that metric, i suppose. but it means that there are a few opportunities where people can actually know what the members are doing. i think we were just very successful at pointing out where he was disengaged ideologically where the district was. and it was effective. now, i don't think that same argument could have worked in some other district.

but when we are in the super majority, democratic district, i think arguments like that could work where they would not work somewhere else. >> i think this is getting to something that is part of the primary and something that i pay attention to. congress does not vote. so there is a reluctance to take tough votes. harry reid and mitch mcconnell really kind of shut down the senate in some ways because they did not want their members to take any votes. to me, that was always like, well, shouldn't you vote more and then every vote doesn't carry the same weight? so how big of a problem is this, and he was defeateanagainst him is he never got an amendment voted on in six years in the senate. >> that would apply to every senator now. [laughter]

>> many house members as well. >> on behalf of virginia,dy i tt leader in congress and unfortunately he went out as i was coming in, eric counter -- eric cantor. it was tragic that he lost. that was a very unique set of circumstances. he was cutting deals. >> immigration. >> he also had talk radio ganging up on he had antisemitism going on in the rural area of his district. head a weird set of circumstances. laura ingraham decided she loved dave brat, who ended up doing nothing in four y a and thoughte was the ticket for everything and he got washed out in 2018. so yes, it was bad. everyone thought that because he

didn't win that year that maga was the answer to everything but the maga guy who won that year went out in 2018 weveryone else. i wanted to point that out. >> what about this question of tough votes? because the leadership is fixated on avoiding making members take tough votes. >> that is why they control the amendment process through the leadership offices and that is why you do not get a motion to recommit anymore. >> what is that about? are leaders being overprotective of the members unnecessarily, or, if i was a member i would say ok, it is nice that you don't let me take tough votes but if the trade-off is i never get to offer an amendment, i don't know whether as a politician i would take that deal. why do they ta what is a tough ? voting to fund the government

from october 1 two -- it's not a hard vote. it's become a gut wrenching experience. to keep the government from defaulting. i do not think it is a tough vote. or to fund ukraine. >> immigration is a tough vote. nancy pelosi did not want to bring up a bill having to do with hh-rs and antitrust because she did not want the members from california to have to take a tough vote. >> it is also of interest to a degree. >> it seems to me if you are going to be a member of congress and you don't want to take tough votes, it is like wanting to be an electrician but i'm scared of electricity. happening. what has evolved on the house side. when i was there, the leadership kept tough votes to protect vulnerable members in general elections. what emerged over time as they kept their people whot primarieh

votes. it is like you are protecting guys in districts. but at the same time you don't take up anything. >> right, but theationale is 80% of the conference. they dominated the conference, they dominedeadership posts. wouldn't you agree? >> absolutely. it is all about protecting these guys in the safe seats. s in marginal districts putting up all the tough governing votes all the time, and those guys on the fringes take a pass whenever the hell they want. i don't think that is the operating principle on the democratic side. >> we should mention the rule. ■>> how does it work? >> the hastert rule is not a rule, but it s leadership and caucus which is when the republicans were in charge, they would not put something on the floor, whether it be an

amendment or a bill, that did not have the support of at least half of the republican congress, hence the majority of the majority. >> that makes a lot of sense because you're not going to be speaker long if you're putting up votes in the majority of your caucus opposes. >> so it became not just the hastert rule, it became the has to and pelosi rule. >> even with this recent ukraine vote, i have not gone back and checked, but immediately after the vote a lot of those 112 who voted against it, a lot of them did not even post anything about it. they wanted to vote for it but they kept wanting to avoid the primary. they figured they were the vote no, ops. they knew it was going to go through. so they are not even talking about their votes. i think there were a bunch of them. even though we had the hastert rule, these were people who were

fined to see it go through. they did not vote for it, but they are not really opposed for it. >> and they were glad it was on aople were not paying attention. >> 30 years ago, did the leader of the senate ever worry about making members take a tough vote? >> of course they do. they are in the job because they got elected to the job. we certainly try and be mindful. you brought up the tarp vote and bonnie frank i handling all those bills. 40 days before a national election in 2008. in the senate side, i knew about what everybody was. we were going toeasily. ted kennedy was sick and not voting that day. i went around to republicans and democrats were up in 40 days and said listen, i have the votes to carry this. if you want no, these were members who were going to vote yes, then you can feel free to do so.

if i thought i needed your vote, i would te you. in some cases they were ■,a democratic colleague who already voted no. very unpopular to vote no in those days. not a single person i offered that to ticket. -- that to took it. one public and carly got a great answer. i said, what is the problem? i have toace a constituent in the mormon. who the hell are you going to face in the morning? he said the mirror. [laughter] he said, i think it is the right thing to do. lost his seat, as many did. but it is worthwhile occasionallyere with talk of how how bad things are. sometimes people rally to the moment. not every vote is like what we are talking about.

yes, it is aleadership expects e some cover for members in tough situations. they do it all the time? no. but from time to time? absolutely. >> it just seems like it has become -- >> i am talking 12 years ago now, but nonetheless. history. but it was a time when people could have easily, particularly that close to the national election. as a result of no politically the people did vote yes for it, so many lost their seats because of that single vote. >> we both voted yes, he lost in aoff, my race was decided not month later by 312 votes. ■8i would have gotten six or 7% conservatives, i got maybeit ha. but i would cast the same vote. >> i traveled -- >> we do not it

sound like every vote they are running for the hills. >> i want to support what norm was saying, at some point you just have to decide. this is not just about leadership. it has always been the case that if you get elected to go represent cstituents, whether a whole state or a district in washington, you are going to have to decide some mix of representing your constituents and advocating their interests. and they sent you there because they think you will be what is right in your mind. and when i wrote the two-state solution act, and after the last little war, which unfortunately is nothing compared to now, i had so many of my democratic colleagues come up to me and first of all, if anybody ever says they read your bill, that makes my day. wow, fantastic. they said that is fantastic, really smart policy, and of course i am not supporting it. and they did not even have to say why, because aipac would

come after them if they supported this bill to try to push the israelis in the palestinians to figure out how to make peace with each other so we could stop this endless cycle of violence. and they came after me with millions of dollars of dark money in the next election. i don't regret doing that. i feel like i had to do it. it was the right thing to do. now, it's complicated, because it was redistricting. mich anyhow. that -- seat in the house. very 10 years, incumbents are mushed together. so it is not as simple as saying that was the cause. but it has increased the fear people have, and of course this time aipac says they are going to spend $100 million in this cycle, an inconceivable amount of money. and most of the money they are raising in democratic primaries is from republican billionaires.

so it is a very difficult thing. >> the january 6 situation, and the ones like fred and liz cheney and adam sometimes you have to vote against your constituents to do what is right too. so, you have that situation. >> and most did not survive. >> there are not many. so you have to do that too. and that is what you are therefore, you have to follow the rule of law. if yourethat, they are not payiu enough to violate the law. >> the question on the hastert rule, i always thought it was a silly thing, personally. i can point to several votes. we always told the majority to pass the bill. in 2013, i cannot tell you homie times i voted for a debt contin 29 to 85 votes of republicans

imposed the hastert rule until they didn't, which was all i would argue the spirit of hastert rule was never violated, because there was always the majority of people who supported what we were doing, just not a majority voting for what we were doing. [laughter] seriously, that was always the case. it is one of those things they would go out there all the time, but i thought it was meaningless. >> it is kind of spreading though, because i will say that we actually looked at the senate vote this week on the package in terms of what the split was in the senate. it was, but the previous vote had not been the hastert rule, which of course they want to come up with a known name for the senate. but we did look at it and mcconnell was kind of downplaying it, but he was happy he got a majority of his members after what had gone on. >> we are supposed to break for

lunch but i want to give an opportunity to three of our attendees who are probably as knowledgeable about congress as an e3 living human beings -- as any three living human beings in washington. isqú■ó there some question thatu would like to ask or a comment that you would like to make? and if so, could you go to that microphone which is right over there? please -- [laughter] this is the aforementioned norm of the american enterprise institute, has been studying congress for a very long time. >> i came here in 1969, and ot her than chris, who came here as an infant, i think i have more immersion in this institution then anyone else here. first, i want to say we talked about the schedule before.

mark russell use to end his shows by saying i want to say to my audience what members of congress say to each other every wednesday night. have a nice weekend. [laughter] the things that i pushed for decades was to change the schedule to five days a week from 9:00 a.m. monday to 5:00 p.m. friday, three weeks on and one week off. and during those three weeks, no fundraising, which didn't get very far. which means you still have 15 days a month left to do the fundraising. but of course that was to come even more dominant. i■ raise a couple of larger issues. one, whi this set of problems. the tribalism that newt gingrich really generated has metastasized out to the country as a whole.

it was accelerated by trump. but keep in mind, we have a larger set of structural issues that go well beyond any of the current things that are going to be a crisis of legitimacy in our political system. we are almr)4aoost at the pointe 70% of americans live in 15 cities. 50% live in eight states. the electoral college is increasingly going to give us instances where a majority vote and the outcome does not reflect that. 30% of americans will elect 70 senators, they are not representative of the diversity of the country or the economic dynamism of the country. and over time, we started by talking about how we have a system of voters elect their representatives. that is not the case anymore. and we're seeing people vote. and if it does not get reflected in the outcome. that is true of the house of course, with the gerrymandering but also with the natural

we're going to have to confront this. it is very hard to deal with the senate, because you need a constitutional amendment. but i would make a pitch for the fair representation act introduced by don buyer and a number of others that would require for the house, first of all, redistricting in all the states. also, would bring us back to having the ability to do multimember districts, which just requires repealing in 1957 law, and combining it with rank-choice voting. illinois in its legislature for decades leading up to the 1960's had three member districts, and voters could have three votes for one, two for one, one for another, or one for each. then you of candidates, including by the way, more groups in the society that are underrepresented. it also means we are not going to move to the extreme, those se

votes. when they did away with it without even thinking about it, they are not as tribal lysed as any other. there are structural things we can do that can create more varied districts, more heterogeneous districts, stronger pools of candidates. and i would add to that, enlarge the house, which has been basically fixed since 1910. it was done to keep those immigrants coming in through ellisif island, and those former slaveholder families moving up from the south to the north, having representation. if we added 150 members to the house, you could have a different kind of history, and you would have a different mixpt more and better representation. so we have big cultural problems, but there are structural ways in which we could ameliorate this. ill talk more about this this afternoon. >> thank you, norm.

lane is a resident scholar at the workings is a fusion and -- at the brookings institution. and vice president's office during the clinton administration. >> i'll make three points very quickly. one is to chris's comments about relationships. end a book called the georgetown ladies social club by richard hyman, published in 2003. it i a fabulous social history of an era, probably your father's era, chris, where families lived in washington, rich socialites had dinner parties that were focused around pieces of legislation. who sat next to who? republicans and democrats were invited to the parties. the women were very much

involved in a two second track in congress. women did not work. it was a different era. mostly■$ men. the wives did not work, but as most political wives are, they were deeply involved in their husband's work. so you had a social life that was very robust, run by six or seven women with a lot of money, but lots of other women were participating in this. that brought out those relationships. you did not have to go to build those relationships. second is a little more sensitive. i mostly spent time in the executive branch and written about the executive branch. i don't think many members understand just how complicated the modern federal government is, and how much is kept from

congress. consciously kept from congress. therefore, really undermining the ability of congress to dors. we have what political scientists call fire alarm oversight. something goes really, really bad and then congress jumps in. but other than that, i will tell you, i have heard it myself from distinguished members of these it could have branch, talk about th yes sir, that's really a good idea. and they are lying. ok? they are lying. thout of that hearing and not let the complexities and the situation get there. this time?ongress cut the congressional research service. cut all of the institutional support that would help make congress a better place.

finally, on the electoral college, norm has a great idea. it is did a piece of research a little while ago that someplace in the brookings archives showing how, at the turn of the last century, the distribution of the american population was such that having two senators for every state, requiring one congressperson for every state, it was not a bad idea. it did not create distortions. but the population moves and the density are really dramatic. and the short answer that i always give when people say, well, what is wrong with the electoral college? i say, the agricultural revolution, basically. the middle of the country produces food for the entire world, but nobody else lives there. and we are really not

representing modern america. so, i would say those three things are things to bear in mind as we go forward. >> bill, i'm probably going to get this wrong, but for many years was republican staff director, or close to being staff director of the senate budget committee. >> thank you. senate staffer, first of all, for many years. and i have very much enjoyed the entire conversation this morning. i just have a couple comments. first of all in the senate, there was a discussion about having devices on the floor of the house. to my knowledge, senator, you still cannot have a device on the senate floor. >> yeah, but they bring them out there. you're not supposed to. >> the press can't. but the senate does. although some of them cannot work them. [laughter] just a hint. >> lindsey still has a flip

phone. >> i'm really taken about dealing with policy staff. i was a policy person. and there is this recent survey that really bothered me. your staffers believe polarization and rhetoric are making it more difficult to get anything done. -- the conclusion was a significant number of staffers from both parties, 44% of republicans are considering leaving congress due to the heated rhetoric from the other party. significantly, more republicans, 60% than democrats are

considering leaving congress due to the heated rhetoric from the party. we have a problem onan side. you are going to lose goodi had. [indiscernible] [laughter] >> don't get carried away>>. [laughter] >> all ofrequired to do your ows with no accountants. and finally this idea of adding members, i'm fine with that. but more importantly, we should be thinking about a dormitory up here,