jim cooper, i will give you the last word on this session. >> folks■é■. who have not serven congress don't understand, this istk what 2024. folks back home think 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 the one day that the house is in session is wednesday. that is when all the constituents come from back 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 founderse will be0 minutes. after 11:15. thank you. [indistinct chatter]

>> ok. everyone, check your phones one last time. welcome 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,■ putting nw stories up. ónmammy, philadelphia -- miami,a, charlotte, places like that had big presence. some have too much media, some a lack of media. how much do you think the constant churn of media and twitter all day -- that's got to be having some sort of effect here. mainly negatively. >> there us, three of us in a room, a bipartisan group that went to germany for the week earlier this month. 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 politics. they knew about mtg. they knew the people. i don't know that you would have that same reaction. i did a school every week 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. i't get the times or the post. we got the wall street journal. [laughter] 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 amazed, in 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 hand -- >> i would bet the two people that took my seat, most people have no idea that they both voted no on ukraine 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. it is really a sharp group

of students and business leaders. >> well -- well, so, is the disappearance of so-called local news outlets 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. eir world. 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 speakers fight at the beginning of this session, i looked down at any moment in time, at least half 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 phone. . that tells me something about where their attention is. >> checking their twitter mentions. [laughter] >> there was a time when i ran a house office, and we had one press person in both -- one for both washington and the district. today, in the standard house office, you have a communications director, deputy communications director and the press secretary who was below

. 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 social media feeds. they don't doymore, just sociala 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 priit i will build on. i try to always mentor new members coming in. appalled me -- it appalled me towards 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 -- 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 minute of fame. it leads to huge amount of fundraising opportunities, five dollars and $20 a 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 i can't tell you how many times even seasoned members wh i was r 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 data sheets. we would see, who was responding? i would get at least 2,000,

3000 calls a day. 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 are? how many people called you? 100. [laughter] it was amazing to me the lack ofe and leadership they had. they could not stand up to to hundred people bothering them by just sendg an e-mail in. i would get 2000 and. >> and police protection -- 2000 a day. >> and police protection. >> at the end of the day, you have to look at yourself in in the mirror. >> it is scary what you said about policy people. a 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 started this process of giving the power out of the speaker's office. charlie says, yeah, newtjy 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 that opportunity they came to washington to do, you wil continue to have this cancer 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 the press. what are we giving 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, who doesn't have the regular complement of legislative 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, 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 eer doing something. they're very fast i'll add it --

facile at 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. legislate. >> i want to go back to this point i wanted to raise earlier. i want to give a shout out for 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 e e of'd tremendously over the last 30 years is you had republicans and 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 really want to crash and burn, they don't believe in government 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 government and 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 about 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 listen. i think we both agree, there are limits and that's why the founding fathers 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 them a victory ini was on the we act, we 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 response was

no, a float out no. -- flat out no. we have taken that on some things ourselves. when you have that kind of mentality, the biggest problem is there really isn't a governing menlity in 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, we have done some things, but are frustration wwere 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 this

afternoon. is important to our -- tacknowledge leadership depes 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, newet gingrich -- newt gingrich started the strong speakership, nancy pelosi perfected it. if the individual members realize they are independent contractors, they are not employees, they raise their own money, they have their own district, their 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 followehip. we need a healthy independence. not freaki antigovernment --i love your term , exotics. [laughter] you have to believe in the enterprise. that's the oath of office. people who betray itlmost from day one really should not be here. it is supposed to mean something. >> you described 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. doesn't take 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

member. he 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 for many g=ñind reasonss. 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 identified a very important question. i would love to hear from more people on this. joe crowley, a senior member of congress, gets beaten by aoc, eric cantor the majority leader the republican in the house gets defeated byav b. everyone, to see these stories,

they r now. what matters is the primary vote. jim makes the opposite point, if you are halfway decent politician and anould be able th situations like that. which is right? are members drawing the wrong lessons from these high ng that we are all going to be in the same situation unless we toe the party line -- tow 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 . the real question used to be, do

you change what you are doing because of that? in other words, is 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 meportunity to 'g today. but you've got to dece 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's that the right attitude. he is doing it the right way. do■g■b you have to worry? yes. you have to worry even in safe 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. >> the results that a lot of members have given up a lot? [laughter] >> through. -- true. >> amen. >> iran in a democratic primary against an eight term incumbent and beat him in that ary 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 institution -- and i valued the institution -- is that it required talking to your neighbor. it required working required won your caucus and also on a couple of committees across the aisle. it is a reason i think one barbara comstock came in, we figured out ways we could work

on issues important to the region. it is not always the case that just 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. think their job is to come in and just be disruptors rather than contributing. >> first of all, those who show up to vote in primaries are a more aggressive lot of voters, on the republican side in the democrat side. ■fso 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 dysfunion 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 on. i don't want to bring trump 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. but he is kind of melancholy and apologetic about why we are here. he basically said, there are guys here who will govern and do 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 he to worry about their primaries. i say, i don't give a damn about their primaries. and their primaries more

important than mine? they have to go up and get out from under the table, and 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 unsafe seat. 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'm going to do a lot more in 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 ideologically out of touch with the pg county voters? or did you beat 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 is, take a vote, go 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. votes for example on the iraq war. those things that were really out of touch with the district. he things that happen in a media environment where the washington post is your paper of record, but coverage of local 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 and he was defeated and one of the campaigns they ran against him is he never got an amendment

voted years in the senate. >> that would apply to every senator now. [laughter] >> many house members as well. >> on behalf of virginia, somebody i thought was a great leader in congress and unfortunately he went out as i was coming 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. set of circumstances. laura ingraham decided she loved dave brat, who ended up doing nothing in four years and became a big maga guy and thought he 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 th won that year went out in 2018 with everyone 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. >> they control the amendment process through the leadership offices a 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 take that deal? >> what is a tough vote? voting to fund the government from october 1 two -- it's not a hard vote. it's become a gut wrenching experien 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 high-tech mergers 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 votes, it is like wanting to be an electrician but i'm scared of electricity. let me explain what is happening. what has evolved on the house side. when i was there, the leadership gh votes to protect vulnerable members in general elections.

what emerged over time as they kept their people who worried about primaries from tough votes. it is like you are protecting guys in r-30 districts. but at the same time you don't take up anything. >> right, but the rationale is 80% of the conference. they dominated the conference, they dominated the leadership posts. wouldn't you agree? >> absolutely. it is all about protecting these guys in the safe seats. it is the members 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 was a policy of the house republican 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 ca 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 voted against it, a lot of them 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, are nr it. >> and they were glad it was on a saturday and people were not paying attention. >> 30 years ago, did the leader of thery 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 hdling all those bills. 40 days before a national election in 2008. in the senate side, i knew about what everybody was. we were going to win fairly easily. 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 to vote 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 tell 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. -- it. one public and carly got a great answer. i said, what is the problem? 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 occasionally here with talk of how great -- how bad things are.

sometimes people rally to the moment. not every vote is like what we are talking about. yes, it is a problem, and leadership expects to provide 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. not ancient 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 fort,soe of that single vote. >> we both voted yes, he lost in a runoff, my race was decided not month later by 312 votes. i would have gotten six or 7% conservatives, i got maybe0%. but i would cast the same vote. >> i traveled --

>> we do not want to make 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 constituents, 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 what is right in your mind. and when i wrote the two-state solution act, and after the last is nothing compared to now, i had so many of my democratic colleagues come up to me and say, i read your bill. 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. michigan lost a seat anyhow. that -- seat in the house. years, incumbents are mushed together. so it is not as simple as saying that was the cause. but it has increased the fear ople 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 the jd the ones like fred and liz cheney and adam■ kinzinger, 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 you are not willing to do that, they are not paying you 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 de continue

29 to 85 votes of republicans and a whole bunch of democrats. so they imposed the hastert rule until they didn't, which was all the time. 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 senatm 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. is there some question that you 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? and please -- [laughter] this is the aforementioned norm of the american enterprise institute, has 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

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] one of 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 want to raise a couple of larger issues. one, while we've had 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 things that are goo be a crisis of legitimacy in our political system. we are almost at the point where 70% of americans live in 15 cities. 50% live ieight states. the electoral college is increasingly going to give us instances where a majority vote and the outcome does not reflect that. elect 70 senators, and 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 ue the gerrymandering but also with the natural patterns. we're going to have to confront this. it is verysenate, because you na constitutional amendment. but i would make a pitch for the introduced by don buyer and a 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 have a wider pool 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, because of those second and third place 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 theh has been basically fixed since 1910. it was done to keep those immigrants coming in through ellis 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 mix of people, and you would get more and better representation. so we have big cultural problems, but there are structural ways in which we

could ameliorate this. and i'm sure we will talk more about this this afternoon. >> thank you, norm. lane is a resident scholar at the workings is a fusion and -- at the 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. i'd recommend a book called the georgetown ladies social club by richard hyman, published in 2003. it is 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 sociafe 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 branchi do's 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 do executive level oversight. we have what political scientists call fire alarm oversight. somethin 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 how they talk to u.s. senators. oh, yes sir, that's really a good idea. and they are lying. ok? they are lying. they are just trying to get out of that hearing and not let the complexities and the situation get there. what has congress done dincut th 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 really getting to be a crisis. and we did a piece of research a little while ago that someplace in the brookings archives showing how, at the turn of the last century, theion of the american population was such that having two senators for every state, requiring one 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, college? i say, the agricultural revolution, basically. the middle of the )untry

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. staffer, first of all, for many years. and i have very much enjoyed the 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. 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 heated rhetoric from the other party.

significantly, more republicans, 60% than democrats are consideringeaving congress due to the heated rhetoric from the party. we have a problem on the republican side. you are going to lose good staff. i had a couple of quick reports. [indiscernible] [laughter] >> don't get carried away>>. [laughter] >> -- all ofquired to do your os with no accountants. and finally this idea of adding members, i'm fine with that. but morehinking about a dormitop

here, to keep people here. thank you. >> all right. we will break for lunch and be back here at 1:30 p.m. with new moderatan a focus on what members might actually do to fix this. thank you. [indistinct chatter] and republican senator sullivan visited taiwan to meet with newly inaugurated pre as foreign minister.

this comes days after another delegation of u.s. represensisit the new president in taipei. in south carolina, senator lindsey graham traveled to israel to meet with the nation's president and prime minister benjamanya. duringifthisit to the country since octer 7 attack, senator graham said the united states would holthe international criminal court to account for the on tseek arrest warrants for the prime minister and the nation's defensster both chambers of congress will in session on monday, june 3. >> friday night, watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail. a weekly roundupf c-span's campaign coverage, providing a one-stop shop to discover what the candidates across the country are saying to voters. along with first-hand accounts from political reporters, updated polling numbers, fundraising data and campaign ads.

watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail friday night at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, onlinec-spana