legislative issues. this is just under [chatter] [laughter] >> so i am zika manual -- zeke emanuel 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. we want to do more policy oriented work. but we have this beautiful site and we fin and in the domestic sphere, of which this is a part. so that's -- we got good ideas. we all ears. we would love to put our muscle and intellectual firepower behind things. this really is our kickoff conference on 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 @uevent is a course that i teach in the fall called how washington really works where really is in all capitals and we bring sten penn here, taking in thato6 view and talking about studies of when washington works. and what has changed in the interim period of time. but as i said, the goal here is to make this a more vibrant place where we can convene conferences like this and other activities. we are open have been planning this event for a number of

months. there have been five co-conspirators. it was initially steve perlstein's idea. to me, i love the idea. it fits in with our course. we dragooned 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. 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 appreciate being here and i appreciate this discussion with former colleagues. it is so great 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. pe vote and choose their own leadership and they make judgments about that and it has worked for so many decades, a cole when things don't work quite so well and that is a dysfunction i think that is significant and serious in the congress. and so what 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 i want to message -- mention social media. in self-government, the american 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

medit those misfits who celebra- and soda social media -- celebrate the anger and the af■ignorance that comes from thr behavior and their comments, they become a significant part of the congress,, as social media describes it. i want to mention just one thing and then we will continue. we had a couple of them show se d completely. it was like putting a drop of red dye in 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 media is substantially changing how people see and h press look at d

can get maxi before all of us is to figure out what is that and how>> i wi. i was drawn to this whole idea, too. in my day job, im 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 abouthithink, havings there, i think about people we e process, is it performative politics, is it social media, is it the or partisan media, redistricting? the parties have become, frankly, in many ways to molest diverse ideologically. they used to be more ideologically diverse and that contributed to moderation and now that they are more ideologicallytalks about parliag patterns. i hope to get into these types

of issues today to stimulate this conversation. i am grateful to you for sponsoring this. especially grateful to my colleagues because all of us belly of the beast and all we want is a better beast. right now, the first branchvern. most important branch of government, but it has been broken for some■l time. perhaps not as broken as the worst days in american history which were probably the age of acrimony 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 really simple. why can't the housework work on a majority basis? it did in the ukraine and foreign a votes recently -- aid votes recently. why can't the senate work on a super majority basis? this would make theinstitution t

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. ■kour founder, benjamin frankli, i have often said is the brightest american -- the brightest person ever born iw7n north america. he succeeded in everything he did for world-class status, world-class inventodiplomat, et. at the close of the constitutional convention, he was 81 years old and many of you know that he wrote a to be the final speaker at the 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 paragraph that says, "i confess

that there are several parts of this constitution that i do not at present approved but i am sure i never -- i shall never approve them foraving lived long, i have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information or fuller consideration to change opinions even on important subjects which i once 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 otit is an speech, 700 13 words. beautiful sentiment about the importance of listening to others, having an open mind to you don't get everything 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 beenentioned wee. the neyorting about ukraine, wre in its banner 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, right, before 30 years ago -- it wasn't that big> 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 sessi■on ovr to steve proceeding, --

perlstein. we became friends over the affordable care act. steve was one of the three people i le he was interested in the bject and not in the headlines. for more than 30 years, he has beena theked to. prize award for business journalism. for the past 13 years, he has been a professor at george mason and for the past couple of years, he and i taught a course of how washington really works, together bringing studentsrom 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, andph welcome to all. michael moderator of this morning needs 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,w his colleags in those days but from a large state school in the midst, illinois state. [laughter] he began covering congress way back in 1985. and now, he is the chief washington correspondent for the new york times who regularly delivers very insightful commentary and analysis of the itution at the other side of the window. his book is called "confirmation it explores 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. he was a collaborator and they wrote their branch, way back in 2006 and a decade later, norman tom came up with an updated version. titled -- it's even worse than it looks. i think 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 fighof the -- all the fault of the other part get things done. it's those other guys who are unreasonable and whoand while tf truth to that going in both directions, our aim in putting this conference together was to uv 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 cooperation. this is not a representative group. the other explanation you hear for a dysfunction is that it is inevitable. it's the result of the political polarization of the country and the voters. the realignment of the parties, ideologically, demographically, geographically, as charlie points out, the clustering of voters into solid red and blue states and districts and the aggressive use of gerrymandering to encourage that and of course, the retreat of the voters into partisannd ideolog information bubbles. there is no doubt that olitical environment are a major reason why congress can no longer fficult issues.

they make it unlikely if not impossible to go back to the good old what is also true is that rather than trying to restrain the centripetal forces, these forces partisanship and polarization, congress has the pitch them. and not just capitulated to them but turbocharged them. in other words, was not inevitable but rather reflected choices that members and leaders made. choices about roles, about norms come about practices, about schedules, about expectations, about the distribution of power in congress itself. it is on those factors that are internal to congress, why the place runs the way it does, why members and leaders behave the way that they do that we like to focus this morning's discussion.

as for members, you know the institution from the inside and as former members, you also have the political freedom to talk candidly abouthi institution and former colleagues that you we want this to be a free-flowing conversation so just jump in when you have something to say. our hand or anything like that. 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 can 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, notleader

of the majority caucus and we saw what happens when responsible members collectively exercise their power to marginalize fringe groups in committee and then on the floor. it seemed revolutionary but for many of you sitting here, you 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 o thing? >> i will give it a shot. go home after your introduction. all the issues we are dealing with. the biggestast 10 or 12 yearsleaning has become an essel part of their personal identity.

i know in kentucky last fall, we -- somebody pulled statewide on a variety of issues. on every issue except one, an overwhelming percentage of 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 a republican 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 down -- 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 job and then she went on this three or four

minute speech in which, as she said, i am a republican once, i am a republican 15 times. after she was f all those comme. 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 ou about you and she acted like i had hit her almost. she said■z, i'ú'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 seeingwe are seeing straight voting down the line. off what charlie said, we have devolved into parliamentary behavior in a balance of power structure and even a lot 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 coalitnstoday -- are thr do they volve 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.icallyd there and ways to become the majority. at has happened here, steve, the minority party today no longer considers 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. quite stressed because they can. so even 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 districtscts. november for most members is a constitutional formality. ei 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 pols pack --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. >> id0 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 dleadership, verr

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 of the freedom caucus that was causing the problem and because of the two vote majority for republicans at up, but you had leaders like mike, who heads up the affairs, mike rogers, armed services, whd their democratic partners also stayed committed to this, who were unrelenting, and they were staying on really encouraging micah johnson to the intelligence was showing things like these freedom caucus members like marjorie taylor green and others were literally 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 points, so these people were very studying in -- steady and getting the 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 rylys working very carefully to not ere really kind of holding back political attacks to make this deal work and that is kind of washington at its best, that you could actually get this through and that a -- this is very archaic, but the rule went through with support,r happens and it's something that, you know, that -- when the republicans on that committee o can stop it. the freedom caucus guys on the

rope -- was committee, we are going to stop it, and then they got support so you did have this rise to the occasion because it is that important. democracy is at stake, and hopefully, this is not just a moment. hopefully, this is something where the majority of americans who really care about this can build on this. i hope one of the things that comes out of this is that the administration, republicans, democrats, who get the split in congress, will both bring forward more of this disinformation that moscow iflo. 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 guys who got this done. f 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 involved and part of the conversation, trying to help foster and develop the opportunity for that to ripen. really, to me, what i witnessed -- i was a spectator in that 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 democratse rules committee, and the rules committee is very itical 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 d not exert its

authority in a way that took that down. and on top of that mike has and the people that willtay in the seat was honored and committed to ball to 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 that is when i really get concerned about the viability of the instuti are talking about sf the structural issues that keep congress from functioning in the way that it means to and to build on this question of trust because i think in order

to build trust, you have to build relationships, and there are many disincentives within that building to keep from building those relationships that then allow you to trust another person's voice, and i think that some of it has to do with when are the times in congress where people have an opportunity to get to know each 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. caucuses meet on their own. there is a limited time schedule. you only have time for, you know, your committee work or for fundraising, and that then wipes away the opportunities that you can have to build or personal relationships so that when the tough stuff happens, then you

are at least able to have conversations that bridge those gaps. >> if committees actuay't meet very often and if committees in fact don't legislate very much, then you have even reduced those interactions which frankly was when a lot of that trust was ñsú built generally out of publc viewjust sort of shows up on the floor from the leader's office, there never those opportunities. >> can 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 happened this weekend and i was involved with some of that

myself. but there was still a leadership driven bill. 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 tt 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 controversial, and say that in some way in my view, the problem, all the small d democratic infirmary's cause us to not be parliamentaryno the sg things done. so the idea of a parliamentary system is that people don't vote so much for personalities. cial democrat, he is a communist, you are a green, whatever. some party wins or some coalition and then they run their program. then in h not. but the point is problems of our democracy isig that

we don't actually try our programs. i will speak as a deover my adus it gone with fundamental labor law reform, with raising wages, ensuring functions -- pensions, getting health care for everyone? we have not really done much. we have not gotten much accomplished across multiple -- and jimmy carter and bill clinton anba obama and joe biden all had democratic majorities in both chambers at least for two years over the last 50 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 this congress has been least productive inan decades. some of the causes of ts, amok r sure. infirmities of our itself, the ,

the person who wins the vote does not necessarily become the president. the gross inequities in representation in the■f senate, with all due respect to say, north dakota, orer state. california with its fall -- 43 million people having the same representation. and super majority rule in the senate. people have said even this morning as if super majority rule on the senate was part of the founding fathers vision. no, it was not. that is just not correct. someone also said this morning, they filibuster everything. this rule that was introduce■lby segregationists to stop black people from becoming ll anded states. >> you want donald trump to be 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 y said, is we the worst of both worlds. we have a parliamentary system in the sense that people are voting with their party now but we have a division of power stctin the united states constitution which gives us the disadvantage of not being able done. so the disadvantage is now with the parliamentary system and the division of power system. but you seem to be arguing the solution t this is to have more party unity and discipline for the party in power, the party that is the majority, and go full bore intohe 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 got here, look, i have to just mention briefly my dad and 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 thingsthey were al 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 commerce committee as a freshman, where this bill would go. so i found francis rooney, a 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 democrat, i will say, if you look at the history of our country, if you are congressional historian and you say, well, what did we accomplish? basically it all happened in the 1930's and the 1960's. wage and hour, social security, medicare, medicaid. >> democrat majorities. >> yeah. and there was less partisanship in those times in this body then there is now. in reagan's time, sometimes it

don't think partisanship is a simple issue. >> you were the chair of the energy and commerc committee. what is your reaction? >> a couple things. 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 issues impacting the midwest, great lakes, etc. but i changed the rules. i said if you've gotten 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 th 200 bills signed into law, the best legacy

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 we worked with the senate and passed that bill through 92-26. d we withstood a filibuster led by elizabeth warren, and wet it done. but what i would suggest is, you look at these too many ratios. yeah, you are right, enough comes through the committee process. but the committee ratios are althey are not respective of the ratio. >> you mean the ratio of publicans and democrats don't reflect -- >> there also a super majority. 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 wayourepublicans and democo work together and get these bills througe. 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 thoht spn the road, gallagher. as abused when he surprised people by voting no and heai yot looks like you, i am out of here. and he is. and he left. he is no longer a member of congress. >> how do you get the leadership

to give up its power? that is what you are talking about. >> t are going to give regular order but they don't. >> i think it makes sense. but how do you get someone -- seen in congress is people do not give up their power easily on he gavk what h arose because the minority was kind of abusing their minority rights. that ister in the senate went from 60 to 50 for nominations. you majority you could not get basic nominations through because everything was filibustered. that is why in the house they went from open rules on appropriation bills to more closed rules and finallyfice bee the minority was putting up a lot of poison pill amendments. it is on both sides, egged on by theirs in the media to be overly partisan. >> lance, we ve not heard from

you, and then senator dodd as well. >> fir of all, i want to go back to ukraine. i don't think we should be congratulating ourselves so much. i have seen much t much self-congratulation. this should have occurred several months ago. only time will tell whether our aid will be 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 for not enacting the ukraine legislation much earlier. now, why did that occur, and why did it only occur this weekend? in my judgment we need to use 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 myto lessef leadership. be it democratic or republican. number one. number two, i am opposed to parliamentary government. i prefer our system and it is clear we are moving in that direction andoke 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.

virtually impossible to change the constitution. but as we all know there is the national popular vote interstate compact signed by 17 states and the district of columbia with 209 electoral votes. and let's hope that mo states will sign and that would be a way iny 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 ai the foreign affairs committee in the house, to gather some people ■ufrom this party and maybe some democratshe speaker's office and say mr. speaker, look, we got 300 votes for this. we don't want to have to do a ublic. so please, put this on the

floor, let the majority emerge. because otherwise we are going to have to do thiwhy did that at not happen? >> you sure that that not happen? >> i thinkt t got him to move. >> why did it take six months? >> because it is broken. the institution is broken. like they are going to fix this overnight. >> it should have been done three months ago.if you had trur there anwe didn't have the misfits in charge, 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? it is a tool 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 twice then you 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 freedom caucus was 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 actually advance something we thought was good public policy. the only reason we were successful is because you may remember the moment. john boehner just announced he was resigning after the pope had sii 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. ecause he supported the policy and new we were trying to advance this program that he supported pre-that is how we got it done. we basically talked to the democrats and said if you get 42 will do the rest we marched down and did our 42 and in like five minutes they signed and we passed the bill with over 300 votes. what has happened in this congress though is there is a rough wing in my party that does not have the votes about anything but wants to determine outcomes. on 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. jordan, but the people aligned with jordan prevented him successfully from becoming the speaker. so they used their leverage to try to affect outcomes that they cannot obtain through the democratic process. in the leaders, frankly, need to stop it and doha did with the ukraine bill. put the bill on the floor and 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. >>q@■, bush wanted it. so how do you get this tool more in use? because 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. >> the american people have chosen this government. it is not that someone showed who was not chosen. they won elections. so you can mak case that the american people have chosen dysfunction. not because they went to about box and said this is what i want. but they did not know exactly what they were going to get. let me get back to this. i mentioned cial5■ this which ha profound impact on virtually 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 americaneople now believe the 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 book

called the death of truth that comes out soon. when you talk about■iu trust, hw do you also understand the combination of trust and truth and what voters know when you decide how they want to choose a government? i think tyone in america is a broadcaster,profound impace know and what people decide to do with spect to their choice of government and who they send to washington, d.c. that is a significant part of the problem. ow what exists. the question then is how do we change it?that has been much ofs discussion. i will let chris talk a little about the senate because -- but i think chris can do a better job of describing what has happened on the senate side as well. >> i want to thank the biden senate for this. it has been very worthwhile. 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. we had a good discussion last evening over dinner as well. but there has been this of the congress. that did not happen overnight and it is not happening overnight. it is happening slowly. there is a new book and i'm not promoting it, but it is the age of revolion. except for some cataclysmic events, they happen slowly and invisibly. and we are in the middle of one. there is no going back come in a the underlying reason why itere

functioned was because people knew each other. it was not a rule someplace. we're talking about things we could do that might enhance to me that would be the biggest victory.create an environment we people have to spend time with each other. if it doesn't startre 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 we have all told anecdotes -- there is no rule i've ever read anywhere that reques you to tell the truth, or to listen to other people or tell something country to your interest. i am a great advocate looking 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. havingunch with a teacher i guess qualifies. so we made it difficult. the 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■p can we do and w 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 think need to be really discussed and 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, deatsenators,u 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? >>hink 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 55oted against it. it is a generational shift going on here. those of us who look around the table here of course fa into that latter category of older members. we remember how we were able to get things 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 thurmond and ted 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 throughoute e. today you don't get a sense of that. people don't know each other very well at all. i don't have any quick ideas on how to fix it. but until we talk about that, how do we do that? the american people have such disrespect for us as an institution. what a great shame it is when ns over the years. my hope is when we talk about ideas, some of them may sound facetious but they 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. 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 don't have democracy. you cannot have a winner take all to me, that is where the emphasis needs to be. >> i will associate myself with the words from the gentleman from connecticut. it may be by the way■, that what happened last week is a new paradigm. we are divided. 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 i don't think you could put the genie back in the bottle. unfortunately, your point, social media feeds that the vision. most young people get their information from tiktok. >> at the moment. >> ando, 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 controls everything, get what they want, we're going to be in trouble. the founders had billions and

understanding that -- had bril liance in understanding that. we have two ears and one mouth, use them in■s that proportion. in a practical side, we've not spoken much abouterrymandering and about what it takes to get 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 raceg in. got 60 something seats. today, 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 and you don't deal with the other side. if only have 30-something district that are in play, then what you are doing is we are breeding folks coming to the body in a way different from 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 raf

listening to another idea, you think you have a problem. so■y i kind of want to look at w we are feeding the system and structurally, what we can do to change it. because i think we are in a new age, we are in a new place, and we're not putting the genie back in the bottle. >> the jungle primary might be the solution. >> jungle primary, meaning? >> general primary is like what california has rather take the top two vote getterre of party. you could have two republicans or two democrats,2ó but in essee you are running the general among the whole field. louisiana i think has that same rule, if primary you don't haveo run in november. it's over. >> ranked voting. >> it is very similar to that. >> i want to go back to chris's point of little bit. the schedule is a big 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■÷ nt and you're out thursday at 2:00. i mean,#: and senators are waitg there and their cars are out>> . [laughter] >> the idea is, if you go to do that, subsidize that in a sense,spend as much time a, spend as little time as you can hear and spend your time back at home. obviously atmed to be a smart thing to do. on this day and age, the idea you can do that,

for a lot of people, it was an expectation to the we created that expectation and now we have subsidized it, undermining the very point the founders had inthey required pey around. my father's generation, john rhodes, tip o'neill. tip o'neill would sing. [laughter] it a beautiful evening? no. [laughter] >> thing but directly related to this. this has been a pet peeve of mine for the last few months. the senate in some ways has become this phony body. because they have these -- because of the schedule, there is no time. they stack up these amendments at the end that all have to fail. you don't really have real

debate on these amendments. the only way you can get an amendment vote in this body is 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. last majorityin the senate that kept people around for days, five days was robert c burton. a very different leader in many ways. he wanted people to be there and stay 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 hold the bow because he's at the airport and it turns out it was the philadelphiairport.

[laughter] when i came to the house in 2007 worked longer weeks. we were there four days a week. we did not take two weeks on, two weeks off. we would be in session 150 days a 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 ally follow what we are doing, the percentage of our constituents, is minuscule. >> part of that is local news slowly dying. news that would report to the conits what they just di, how they voted. local news is quickly leaving us. >> being replaced byocial media, run by opcacy and agenda. and they are telling everybody exactly what you are doing through the prism that they want it. >> i want to hhlight one positive for social media, one area where members could do it in 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 greatand spontaneou'd them mention jeff jackson of north carolina. a congressman from north carolina. he's now running for attorn general. they redistricted him out, so he decided to run for attorney he does these tik but he can easily move what he does to reels oracebook. he sits down at a table a couple times a week, maybe once a week, and he tells what's going on. he has these great explainers that he does, very common sense. 7he'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. 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 jef jackson 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 he gets -- but it gets a bad rap. there's a place for what he is doing. it cuts through.>> cooper, i wiu

the last word on this session. >> folks who have not served in congress don't understand, this is what congress will do in 2024. folks back home think that work is a five day a week job. here, we basically work on wednesday. 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 constituts 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. for a part-time job. we are working hard campaigning back home. buth