with your documentary. be bold. amongst the $100,000 in cash prizes, 5000-dollar grand prize videos must be submitted by january 20th, 2023. visit our website at student cam.org. r rules, tips, resources and a step-by-step guide -- ♪ ♪ ♪ weekends on c-span two are an intellectual -- every saturday, american history tv documents american stories and on sunday, book tv brings you the latestn nonfiction books a authors. c-span two -- comes from these television companies and more. including -- >> homework can be hard. -- is even harder. that is why we are providing low income student access to affordable internet. so homework and just be homework.

connect to compete. >> fox along with these television companies support c-span 2 as a public service. >> good evening, my name is -- i am the chair of the harvard conservancy of the national parks. we oversee a lot of our federal monuments, with the exception of the statue of liberty and ellis island. they have their own conservancy. but it is within our region. we have amazing monuments. including this crown jewel called federal hall. this evening i'm joined by two board members of our board of directors, former congressman steve israel. come on, steve. >> [applause] >> my dear friend and one of the great form under former republican chairs of new york, ed cox. >> you see, like

the former members of congress, are where board is a bipartisan board made up of people from both political parties, all walks of life. that is what new york represented when we formed this great nation in a building that is not the original federal hall, the original federal hall was a wooden building that basically lasted through 1812 and then was demolished. he was serving as the city hall of what was then new york. ironically, in 2024, new york as a unified city, founded city, will be 400 years old and 2026 at life for three will be celebrating our nation's 250th birthday. coinciding with that, i am sure all of your kids and grandchildren will want to know to come to new york in new jersey because we are hosting the world cup of soccer so we

hope. america to 50, as you know, sanctions in 2017, the commission in charge of celebrating that 250th celebration of our nation's great history designated for host cities. obviously commission with five members from massachusetts. the commission with five members from pennsylvania had philadelphia. there were suburban cities like the city of new york, but we understand. then they added charleston in new york. it was supposed to be representative of the the 13 original colonies that found the 13 original states and we hope the federal hall, which

will soon be named a national site will be one of those places in which we celebrate this incredible moment in history. in 2026 the sign of declaration of independence was the document that you mendez the nation. the largest -- armada ever assembled was when the british marines guy here in 1776. no bigger armada was formed until we went to normandy in the great world war ii. george washington had just delivered, got delivered the document known as the declaration of independence. we had our troops lined up in green and he read the declaration to them as if

fierce mata armada was coming towards us. i'm not going to rewrite history here, we got our butts kicked in brooklyn. it's something like the brooklyn dodgers, we always lost in brooklyn. washington recovered and the rest of that history as well familiar to you. this part of town, as we call it, peg legs diverse and was our first governor when the dutch got here. peg leg iverson built a wall. they called the dock blockade, now it's called wall street. later on a guy by the name asr alexander hamilton figured it out, that he would give up the city being the national capital city so we could be the city of capital. it worked out pretty good, right steve? especially for members of out of -- out of the country we have mapping the

city of capital all of the time. it's of 65, before the four shots were fired i lexington and concord, it was side whether colonies -- so much more, throughout that period. i will say to you that this building represents so much that history. washington actually lived down a block from where the museum of the american indian sets and thomas jefferson's lived on maiden lane with these adams guys. they live together on maiden lane. by the way, new york city has a couple of items to. the mayor of new york city has eric adams in the city council president of new york's adrienne adams. déjà vu, for those of us who remember the other adams. george washington,

when he gave his amazing first inaugural address. before he gave it he went to his friend, james madison, to then once you look about writing here. he said, you cannot deliver the such arrests. >> why? >> you cannot stand there and hold the 13 seats together by saying slavery must come to an end or talking about antisemitism and i was strong executive government. we just feed the king, why would you say that? >> he wrote the speech, bound to some odd pages, then madison and monroe with the response to the speech. that's the way it should work, right? you should write a response to what happened is that they then had this congress -- in 1989. it

was the most prolific congress since that time, it passed the bill of rights and other analysts laying far legislation. the first lobbies i am allowed to use. the first a lobbyist was clarify land, he was retained by the quakers against slavery in the same very same building. he didn't do very well. the thought of our -- you have a great country. we are going to celebrate the floors and the goods in 2050-year celebration. we are honored to have you here, the former members of congress. pete, i don't see pete. oh, he is working. pete, thank you

again for the leadership you have shown in bringing -- this is the second time, the last time we were together before the pandemic and we had a debate here it is a debate on him -- i time former members involved as well as the organization we thank you it's put all of you for being a federal hall to support and to be here. i get honor of introducing a great author, -- he's written extensively, i will know more than i will have now. he is sliced by the wheel. he wrote -- a war. think about how public information civil war. if -- for a time we built

a -- americas great debate, imagine, the of stephen douglas in the companies are preserved the union. washington, the making of an american capital. is everyone know that george washington distilled whiskey in mount vernon? it is $127 a bottle if you are interested. tonight, though, we will certainly hear about those books in the first congress and how james madison and george washington. and all these extremely -- there were no people of color, no made of americans. the fan documents ever growing. he was shared and heralded the place first, so i want to give a great honor and respect -- >> good evening

everyone. we are our history. you carry with you. we i want to thank cline and every embers for inviting me to say if you wait for the first congress and to say here in this careful space which as a new yorker i'm familiar with. i want to i have always -- this cold federal hall euphemistically because it is the site of federal hall. this is an immensely rich sight of riddle in of importance in american history so i rarely use this kind of turn but it's

as close to a sacred site, political figure side is any rate as this country has. we are standing on the site where the first congress math. james madison and counts of the main founders persuade in the base here, george washington was a member of congress obviously. he was here many times, rather grumpily and inarguably it is one of the most insignificant historical site in the united states. the house of representatives met approximately where we are tonight, in this part of the building that then stood here which was not nearly as magnificent, made of brick, but

it was the grandest building on in new york at the time. the u. s. senate met on the second floor, hence the upper house because it was upstairs. nothing more, had no other implications. he was just up there. we think philadelphia is the first place that american liberty. philadelphia obviously has a very good claim in that the continental congress first met, there declaration of independence within their, constitutional convention was placed there. this, the site where we are sitting, federal hall is the birthplace of american government began here.

that was on the basis of the step that was the constitution, the constitution didn't great government. it was an idea for government. the government's court by the first congress, that was a did all the political work necessary to make that an idea. -- into their own constitution. the machinery, the machinery of government centered here in the first congress. it is only outlined in the constitution. when i speak about the first congress, bear in mind that it was plan b. the constitutional plan. the constitution was plan

b. plan a was the articles of the federation, and it failed there was no plan c. there was no plan c. if this didn't work, nobody knew what was going to happen. the degree of anxiety that infused the members of the first congress was intense from washington down to the least consequential unleashed sober member of the house. and institutions that became our government didn't spring-like athena from uses holt fully formed. they took years of highly creative and contentious politics to accomplish the job. creative and politics don't

often come together in american speech. it required, it always requires, in every congress, each one of you was a member of requires a man's creativity that is wholly unappreciated by a lot of the american public who don't see the machinery at work very often. when the first congress sat here, in march, april 1789. the challenges facing were immense. keep in mind it was barry lee hunter at all, it was a shaky function of 11 sovereign sovereign states because north carolina and rhode island hadn't even decided to join which was with respect to tommy rhode island a

real bone of contention in congress and it was actually debated whether or not to send troops to the border to bring about regime change in providence. fortunately, a pump -- more than 200. even a new constitutional convention to reinvent and destroy what the government meant always referred to. there are more than 50 different currencies and circulation. there is no -- no seat of government. sectional suspicions were intense. there were well founded fears

the west -- west of the appalachians. we are talking about wyoming and montana. the west would break off into another country or maybe even several. quakers, some others, were demanding an end to slavery. south honors written in secession where they are to tamper with the peculiar institution and threatened secession in exactly the same kind of language that was used in the 1861. even members of congress doubted that -- james madison and, this is one of the most telling remarks madison perhaps ever made in the purpose of a latter memorably, we were in the wilderness without a single footstep to guide us. in a sense, the embodiment of the guiding spirit that congress had. madison feared that no one would show up. if you read his letters and, i want to mention

parenthetical because some of you may already be aware of this, there was a marvelous, the first marvel congress project which was founded as long as 50 years ago and just recently completed the 23rd volume of the collective papers of all congress. not online, unfortunately. it makes fabulous reading for anybody who really wants to know what the founders were talking about when they were trying to do the work. madison feared that nobody would show up. that they wouldn't be quorum and his letters from that period are, he was in the house to begin with and he is on the brink of collapse. that is all going to be a fizzle at the start. one

by one day trickle in from here and there. manson firing off these letters begging his friends in virginia, new hampshire, please come. if you don't come, there is no government. it wasn't the same in 1789 it's getting on a flight in a couple of hours or getting in your car in connecticut or new jersey in just driving over here. one poor member from virginia, i think, didn't show up and didn't show up, and didn't show up. it turned out as one learned letters that he had been both shipwrecked and land direct to get there. his boat sank -- then he got here. then he died, but anyway. anyway, the first congress achieved perhaps the most prodigious out

put of any congress in american history. just to summarize it in the briefest way established the executive departments, federal court system, first revenue streams for the government. it approved the first amendment of the constitution, boiling those 200 plus down to 12. two of them didn't make it. that's another story which i will not go into, they questioned the bills of rights and -- they adopted a program for paying the country debts and embraced the principles of capitalism as the underpinning for a government financial policy. the man defended the national bank and established the capital on

potomac i. i should say, the debate on where the capital was going to be wasn't tense. intense. 32 different sites proposed all with their own advocates and, as i said earlier, a native new yorker my favorite was the south bronx. mile rave, in what is down the south bronx. spectacular setting but didn't make it either. it did not make the cut. anyway, none of this was for preordained. you imagine, of course as what they had to do, but they didn't actually. it is what they struggle to do. remember, members of the first congress forest demagogues. they certainly didn't regard themselves as that i never expected anyone else to, either. the great majority were surprised professional politicians. most were lawyers. they were overwhelmingly -- none of them were ideological zealots we. one or two of them

were, frankly, a bit crazy. james jackson, a georgian was reported to have -- i couldn't prove that he actually did this, but i think he did, that he pulled out his gun and shot of the back window here to make a point. the senate upstairs we closed windows and say, oh, it's jackson again. there were members who were better known for frequenting local taverns than they were for showing up for business. i don't think this is unique. i mention this because these were human beings, not demigods. they were the kind of men and women, one would've said could have said women but there weren't any. who become members of congress or commit themselves to public service they were the same kinds of people and that is crystal clear in letters that

they are writing to each other. james madison said if you wanted to go -- so out and leaving a fist during the first session he was in effect the four leader in the house in the absence of majority and minority leaders. -- structured seniority, i don't have that exist at the time. he was recognized by everyone as the foremost interpreter of the constitution because he wrote quite a bit of it but he was a brilliant parliamentarian. extraordinary to watch mel work in the records of congress and he had complete confidence of the most -- man in the united states, george washington. washington, i think it's important to point out, had no

program for his first 100 days. that was a core coinage of the 1930s. at the 20th century concept. he had no agenda of his own to advance. he was figuring out the presidency as he went along and when his hands trembled at the inauguration over their weight, are there on the second story balcony, people could see his hands trembling. it is not a myth. it was for good reason, because he didn't know what was going to happen. he didn't know if you could handle it. fortunately he proved to have exactly the right staff at the moment and anyone who really studies that congress or period will come out with an even higher estimation of washington then they went in with. the real engine of governments therefore is not in washington office with terry street, a little further up under what is today one of the pilings of the

brooklyn bridge, he also live down here in bowling green but mainly up there in terry states. it wasn't in the presidents mansion, the real decisions were made here in congress and congress was the driving engine of a government as it was for much of america's history instantly not to get off topic. this is where decisions were made, plans for the country were proposed, and where all of the fundamental conflicts were hashed out. i would hope that it really does indeed, doesn't need underscoring for you that congress didn't accomplish anything with a group hug. the founders of the 1718 90s were not particularly fuzzy guys. they did what they did, instrumentally through pragmatic, sometimes shameless

deep deal making that is ritually disparage by both ideologues and ideals today and sometimes, necessarily, for the suspension of principle in order to get things done in the public interest. i want to quote calm auto who is the french ambassador at the time. he was one of the most acute observers of the first congress, wonderfully quotable guys but i will spare you from all but one. he wrote, the intrigues, cabal, underhanded and sub's insidious deals of insidious spirit are much more frequent in this republic than in the most absolute monarchy. well, the turbulence that established a sham and he was describing with simply republican government outwork. this was democracy at its birth and it was the path patches,

imperative to public servants that members were thrashing out -- members differ on all kinds of issues, it wasn't a giant group of that went on for two years, they deferred on slavery, centralized government, regional interests, taxation's, the powers of the president, but they were determined to make government succeed. yes, they were afraid to fail. they knew that failure would mean catastrophe, there is no plan c,

but they rose and served. they were extraordinary because of what they did, as human beings they were ordinary. they were like people we all know, especially people we know in politics and they rose to the urgency of the time., they believed in politics as a tool for national survival. i'm going to narrate that because it's one of the crucial things to take away from what the founders were thinking in doing, they believed in politics as a tool for national survival. politics, with all its-ness messiness, conflict, frustration, and all of disappointment but they believed in it as a tool of

survival after all the, right to be political was what they fought the revolutionary war for, they fought to put politics into government not to take politics out of government. certain people in our society today imagine -- government is not one we want with politics. they were determined to create a government that would endure. again, there's not a foregone conclusion. they knew what they had was imperfect and one could cite any number of compromises in the constitution and other ones. compromises for the independents. part of the nature of compromise, i think, is the fantasy, popular fantasy a compromise as i compromise and in the end everyone gets what he wants or then they feel better afterwards, my observation of compromise is that most people are kind of angry afterwards because of

what they didn't get. and some relief at least they got through it. they knew what they had was imperfect, but they created a machine that could fix itself, reform itself, modernize itself, and turn those anachronistic to apply but recently they were talking about. there were no originalists at the origins,, i'm saying that pointedly obviously that no members of the first congress thought that things could never be changed, never be made better, never be created a new, they made sure that we take a of a lot of work to change anything. they believed a new and, that was on record very eloquently speaking of this that government could

make itself better through the process of amendment, constitutional review legislation, nitty-gritty committee were the great tough grinding work that's often what changes people's minds. or least exhaust them, they all soon knew that public space can the democrat faith and public institutions more imports than a single issue. they knew to take experienced politicians to shape the compromise that will always be necessary to keep the country together and move forward. they believed that they had made a system that the public would trust and had trust. for most of our history the public has trust today's. for most of our history, i have to say that, as an observer, deep plummeting confidence in

american institutions and, particularly in congress in recent years has appalled me. i find it extremely depressing and distressing, as a historian. the last figure i had, it may not be the same, this for me four years ago is that it spews a percent of the american public has a positive opinion of congress. a percent, nobody that's people who have marked the wrong box. you know? so, look americans always to have to politics. they always mocked their politicians. that's called free speech. the collapse of faith in the institution is something new, you do not find this earlier in american history. you didn't find a generation ago proof, congress, a couple generations ago is very high. not everyone, everyone complains and for other people to know the figures of 70%. as a matter of

course, 8%, 8%. this is a catastrophe, this is a crisis, it's a crisis. we can't afford. this course you can't afford it, january 6th is an event that also demonstrates a collapse of confidence. yes, obviously in congress given what happened that particular day my wife and i were watching the hearing today and we could've left. and what happened, i was watching the news that day. american citizens were out there thought they were patriots. they thought they were patriots, assaulting one of the fundamental perhaps the most

fundamental institution of our government. we can't afford it, we can't afford it. now, even the staunchest anti federalists to i digress into talking about, the federalist who are of course those john adams, hamilton, others who were the most forceful advocates of the new constitutional system, and a federalist for those who didn't make it very much and elderberry who gave us the generally mispronounced term, gerrymandering, same guy. congress, very eloquent, very interesting man but a leader in the first congress of the critics of the new system. even

less don just anti federalist resigned themselves outcomes that they are fiercely resisted. i'm going to quote patrick henry, one of my favorite quotes from the entire period. patrick henry was an anti federalist, he hated the staff. he campaigned against, but this is what he said. although the form of government into which my countrymen determined to place it has my enmity, yet as we are one in all embarked this natural to care for the crazy machine, so long as we are out of sight of a port to reset. he was the

loudest critic of the constitutional system. he wrote that, his protegee, and other anti federalist, just one row to close the covers congress. so, we are always out of sight of a port in american politics, we always going forward not quite knowing how it's going to work out except that they're going to be kind of tough politically. and it's true that the great machine, this crematorium government to be pleased can seem crazy at times. maybe most times. it will never work perfectly, but we can always make it better and i think the former members, this wonderful organization which i am a great fan of, it has an important role to play in the struggle to restore confidence in government by the, through the many means that have been discussed a little earlier this evening and that you have all committed yourselves to. and to educate,

but do much more than reeducate americans, including journalists who it seems to all -- i come out of journalism, by the way, too often lack a throw education in civics or what the process to government actually is. but to reeducate the even thinking americans about what government is what congress, is how it works, it is a big group hug. it is not always fun, wherever perhaps, entertaining the ship is always at sea and out of port, but the crew is much better and more capable than much of the public gives them credit for, so with that the me you say thank you for giving me a few minutes to talk about my fever project. >>

thank you very much. >> [applause] [applause] [applause] >> mr. fergus, thank you very much for that. that was a great book. i read the book, i advised anybody who really has an interest in congress and our national history. please, let's give another round of applause to fergus. thank you, for a guess. le pen so, mine is a left pain,

i was elected about an hour ago in a board meeting to be the president of the former members of congress, so someone said i am the second virginian ever to be inaugurated president in this building, the first was george washington in 1789 so it is a big deal to have this job and i want to thank all of my colleagues who voted for me and i very much look forward to it. i do want to thank tony o and lloyd for allowing us to be in this wonderful venue, this wonderful room. thank you for hosting us. thank you to arp who has been such a good partner for us and have supported us in this endeavor

and many others, and tonight i had the opportunity to ask my first action is president, to bestow on two distinguished members of congress an award that the former members of congress bestow from time to time on people who do something that is unusual. that is, these are people who in congress or former members of congress who actually do extraordinary things that i want to the institution in congress. forget we talk about the condition of the institution of congress, and today, i think all of us are looking at how it is that we can help the congress and have people understand a better. there people in the congress who are doing some

very special work. the two people who i will recognize our current member of congress, derrick kilmer, who is the chairman of the committee, select committee to modernize the congress. and we'll timmins, william timmins, he was the vice chair. i will ask him to come back in just a minute but let me tell you a bit about the award. this is called the award that we give people for distinguished service, so it is the distinguished service award. this award has been given to a number of people over the years, not every year, but when people do special things. you'll recognize some names of recipients, gerald ford, jeff o'neil, bob michael, top fully, all have gotten this distinguished service award. i

think in terms of what congressman -- congressman tim and said. it's not just that they are in charge of a committee that is doing a lot in there talk about that in a few minutes, that is really helping the institution and making it more effective. they are also doing this in a way, very bipartisan way which is really a marvel for all the other committees in congress to have a look at him determine how they might change it up a bit and do something like congressman have done. it lasted both if they might come to the stage at this time and, let me tell you a bit about them as they come up. they're kilmer. congressman kilmer is in his first term, a native of the state of washington and represents the state of

washington, district in the state of washington. he's a graduate of princeton, where he has a b. a. and was a marshall scholar and has his ph. d. and his thesis had to do with comparative social policy and it's a ph. d. from oxford. he worked in the consulting for whom can mackenzie in company for a number of years in also washington state legislature in all this before taking congress. timmins is in his second year, one of the youngest people ever to be elected in the state of south carolina to congress, the grad of george washington university where he has a degree in international affairs affairs and political science, a masters in intellectual studies in a law degree as well from the university of south carolina. he is a masters from

and why you inside her security strategy, he was in the south carolina state legislator before he was in congress and he is now in the national guard. so i would like, on behalf of all of the former members of congress year to bestow upon the two of them the distinguished service award for the terrific work they have done on behalf of the united states congress. so, please [applause] >> so, there is, on behalf of the former members of congress we have a distinguished service award and we also have the book that you are just hearing ferguson talk about which he has brought for you for this occasion. thank you. thank you very much and thank you so much for all of the good work on congress. >>

okay. he wants to say if you meet a few safety words, i said about the big place but also the book. after hearing the author talk, new actually hearing fergus talk about the first congress is absolutely changed what i was going to say. i say that first with gratitude to each of you for being here and for the kind recognition but perhaps more importantly for caring about the institution which you all

served. 54 years ago this month, 220 miles from here i cornell university, john gardner gave a graduation speech and he spoke about the importance of being, what he referred to, as a loving critic. he said for an institution to prove the word of an institution. he can't deny it -- denying the nourishment and criticism needed to improve an institution to unable to fulfill its promise, but it also asked cannot be an unloving critic who. the other thing, this job is very challenging. all of the time, issues the travel issues away from your family. a lot of people yell at you. it has been

very difficult. i will say, when i got it to congress, i had a full head of hair. i looked like tom greg's, it was incredible. three years later, here it is, thanks. but again, as i said earlier -- -- --

presented by the former members of congress, the vice chair, william timmins on june 16th, 2022. [applause] >> i will be brief. this is very special to be here. such an incredible -- the architecture is beautiful. it is an honor to be before the farmer members. i've been working really hard for the last three and a half years. i've been doing the best i can to make an impact. my campaign slogan was washington's broken. and i got up to d.c. and i was like, oh, that was a good campaign -- but i still have hope. i served the first two years -- and they showed me that there is hope. there is hope because they

select committee has been to -- working very hard to try to mend the dysfunction, to try to get us back to what i refer to as our objective. -- in a collaborative matter for a position of mutual respect -- we don't do any of that right now. but they select committee has proven that we can. and if we can do it -- and we appreciate y'all's support of our endeavor and we've made a lot of progress. we have six more months to go. it is an honor to be before. you look forward to the conversation. thank you. [applause] >> in order to facilitate this conversation, we are so fortunate to have with us the senior political analyst and anchor from cnn, john avlon. john is a very noted journalist. he was the editor of the daily

beast for a number of years. -- he won many awards. he is also a very well-known author of a number of books, but his latest is lincoln and the fight for peace, a book that is just coming out this year, so please welcome john avlon. [applause] >> it is an honor to be with you all. i feel like i have had to really keep you guys apart, but this is a real friendship and that is part of the fun we will have. i do want to welcome you all to federal hall and all of you -- steve israel and barbara -- i love the book. i used it for research i did on a book about george

washington's address. this is really a civics space. this is a sacred civics base. george washington stood and took the oath here. -- it is one of the most historic and patriotic places you could be. ted cruz once i dismissively about new york value -- i think walk around lower manhattan. it reminds us how much the history we share here and how we can commune. so, welcome, and i want to ask you about what fergus talked about. how does it feel to be in a sacred space where the first congress served? on a day where we have had hearings about january 6th, what does that inspire and you? >> sure. thank you. it really is special to be here. this is my first time and to be here with the chair and all the

former members, it is just very special. we have a huge burden as members of congress. i fear for the future of our country. we have neglected so many problems for so long. whether it is debt spending or immigration. i very strong concerns about our current state of national security. health care -- if we can't find a way to work together to solve these big challenges that have been facing us for years and decades, we will not have a country. we need to find a way to address these problems. and i think so many people in congress want perfect to be the enemy of the good. and they want to win at all costs. and that is not what the men who were gathered here 200 plus

years ago meant. they had a common purpose. they found a way to accomplish their objectives and that is what we need to find a way forward in d.c.. >> i know you will forgive me in the spirit of this event. what do you say to that? >> we just heard fergus say the founders were not these extraordinary men. it is they sort of institution where they really nailed it in terms of the founding of our country, the founding of the institution, the vision they showed is extraordinary, i mean, it really is extraordinary. and the work that our committee is doing is trying to improve upon, now 230 odd so years later, trying to improve upon that institution. as i'm sitting here in the room with former members of congress, since 1789, up until january of

this year, 10,427 americans have served in this institution. and that is somewhat of a goose bump causing statistic. each of you places yourself in that history and has to think about your role in it. and part of the role that william and i are doing and some members of our committee are doing is trying to ensure that for those that come after us, we are trying to clean up the campsite a little. and god bless you for it. the work you all are doing is important. it is detailed. it seems to be getting done. i wrote a reality check about it on cnn a few months ago because it was a sign of hope and progress, so tell me, what caused y'all to get together. and hope that you could actually get something done in such a divided dysfunctional environment? >> so, maybe i will say a

little something about the genesis of the committee and we will talk about why we took the approach we took. so, this all started about four years ago with the conversation about house rules. about six months before the election of 2018, people realize that we are in a unique moment because we don't know who will be in the majority or the minority, which is a good time to think about how to refresh the rules, when you don't know whether you're going to benefit or not. so, we had a group of members, democrats and republicans, who actually started conversations, thinking about, how would we want to change? and we kept having issues come up that weren't really rules issues. the fact that we have massive outflow of staff. we really struggled as an institution to recruit and retain staff. not really a rules issue, you know, the fact that we're in

1870 institution using -- not really a rules issue. so, we basically created this grabbed of other stuff that we were like, you know, at some point, somebody ought to look at this other stuff and we kind of put a big circle around it. i don't realize that if you look at the history of the institution, about every 20 or 30 years, congress realizes that it is not working the way it ought to. and that is why in the same rules package, following the election in 2018, this committee was created. and we were assigned a bunch of topics. and one thing that we decided to work on -- the approach that we took and started with former vice president graves. it is very different than what most committees in congress have done. and that we decided -- you get the committee budget

and you do you see matt. democrats get their half of the money. democrats use their have to hire people. and republicans use their half to hire republicans to put on reggie's. and they spend the rest of the time fighting with each other. i approached tom before our committee kicked off and i said, crazy idea, what if we don't do that? what if we just collectively hire one staff and some will be republicans, some of the democrats. we will both be involved in the hiring. and we will all put on jerseys that say -- to his credit, he said great, let's do it. and to williams credit he said, sure, let's keep doing it. and if you watch one of our committee hearings on c-span, you probably have too much time on your hands. >> [laughs] >> but if you watch one of our hearings on c-span, you will notice something. we function differently. we don't sit democrats on one

side and republicans on the other. when you hear a witness see something cool, you lean over to the person next to any, say that's kind of interesting. when we do something with that idea? we don't even sit on -- i've never had a good conversation saying the back of someone's head. so, we said at a roundtable and we look each other in the eye and we try to figure out how to move things forward and that is not cosmetic, right? that is actually driven some of the outcomes. >> can all committees work that way? that sounds like common sense. it is country over party. so, congressman, tell me about the ways you have been able to find consensus and some of the reforms that you are most proud of because there is a list of 100 and some of them are small, some are big, all are important. >> the three areas -- that i think our most important our time, the calendar, the schedule --

we don't have enough time in congress. and he ten minutes we can get here or there, it just adds up. it is exponential. incentive structure. i don't need to tell the former members that oftentimes, the incentive structures in congress are not designed to facilitate the best result. and last's relationship. we do not do enough. it is not intentional. we need to be more intentional about relationships. we need to engage and policymaking with one another and if you know the person, you're more inclined to be mean to them and tell them their ideas stupid. but at the end of the day, you will probably agree with him on the next thing and you will want to work with them then and if you have offended them in your previous encounter, they are going to write you off. so, we made a recommendation last time regarding the time you need to travel less, work more. obviously, in 2019, we only

were in d.c. for 65 full days. 65 full days! that is pre-pandemic. i have to go back to 2019. we traveled 66 days. and you all know -- -- so, then you have days when i are committees and subcommittees are trying to jam it in and you have four votes and it just messes everything up. and everybody still needs to fund-raise and half conferences and we need to be in d.c. to work. because that will allow us to build relationships. i have built some of my closest relationships through this committee. i have worked with derek -- a manual cleaver -- all of my friends, on a number of issues --

our principles are intact. in one way -- we have not sacrificed principles. but if we agree on something, we should work together, and we have had results, and that is how it is supposed to be. the other thing is this job is very challenging. all of the time issues, the travel issues, family -- a lot of people yell at you. it has been very difficult. i would say, when i got into congress, i had a full head of hair. i looked -- it was incredible! three years, here it is. but, again, as i said earlier -- >> you own a yoga studio to say you should be chill! >> this committee gives me hope, it gives me hope because we have shown that we can do our job and our goal is to spread

our message to show people that you can do together and do things done -- there are so many false choices that are presented and -- >> there's so many false drill down on choices that are presented. and look, the american people have a couple more specific successes. a sense that things are divided and dysfunctional. but before there's 100 things he wanted to get done, how many have you we get to, that drill down on gotten so far? some specific successes. there's 100 things he wanted to get done, how many have you gotten so far? >> or committee so far has passed 142 recommendations. two thirds of them have either been implemented or are on the path towards implementation. we made a very conscious choice as a committee, at the beginning of each congress, our committee has done a bipartisan planning retreat. we actually brought in somebody from the library of

congress in each instance to talk about the history of these reform committees. i listen to these historians talk about, well, in the failed efforts of this year. you're, like i don't want to be one of those. and one of the key takeaways with committees that had the most success, they really focused on implementation. as an example, let me give an example of some of the things we've gotten across the finish line. certainly most of the former members of congress will agree, a lot of the success and progress made in the institutions is a consequence of the capacity of staff. we really rely on having capable people who are able to solve problems for the american people. and you have the institution really struggling to recruit and retain and have diverse staff. so, among the recommendations that we've made, there's been one, to boost capacity, make sure we're doing a better job of providing adequate compensation and benefits to staff. which, just in the last spending bill, he

saw office budgets get a decent boost so that the institution could better compensate its team members. that's not for, us that's for the american people. because, in the absence of that, what you have seen, is of the three air tenure marker greszler. have, so every time someone developed expertise, they hit the road. hopefully this will help hang on to people better. beyond that, also with the professional development both of staff and of members. i have never been, until i got to, congress in an institution that didn't have any professional development opportunities. with the exception of freshman orientation, there was nothing. so, one of our recommendations was upon, to build out a staff academy that provide professional development opportunities for staff members. that has happened and we just kicked off a member academy to start providing members of congress with professional development opportunities. >> in a nonpartisan way, right? >> in a nonpartisan way. absolutely. so, that's one area. i'll mention to others. i think that has been real

concern about the degree to which congress, as the first branch of government, article one under the constitution, has devolved power to the executive branch. and so, one of the things we orient was trying, two in the budget appropriations process, restore the power of the purse. including the ability of members of congress to direct spending towards specific projects and efforts in their district. recognizing that there had been a flawed process previously, the earmarked process. we said let's replicate that and have a new process that restores article one authorities but i had a greater level of transparency, a greater level of efficiency, a greater level of accountability. and that is limited in scope. and our committee made that recommendation and the appropriation bill that was passed two months ago includes,

for most members, projects and investments in their district. what that means for me, as a member, is to affordable housing projects getting built in tacoma and three coastal tribes they're getting washed off the planet being able to get some federal help to try to move to higher ground., so that is what we are talking about. the third area that i will mention is, along the lines that william mentioned, we ended up really double clicking on issues related to stability and collaboration within the institution. that is a topic we were assigned. but the reality is, a lot of the challenges that bedeviled the institution are not the consequences of rules. they're the consequence of norms. i came out of a state legislature where every bill was taken up under an open rule, and i can count maybe, five maybe six times where that was abused. where is somebody used to those rules for political point scoring. now, imagine that in congress, it's almost

laughable. to think that it would be limited in that way. and yet, that's not a rules, issue the norms issue. you don't have a rule that says, don't be a jerk. so, part of the work we've undertaken is trying to figure out how to foster a more simple and collaborative environment. i'll give you a quick example. we had a hearing where we invited in, actually adding up to the hearing we talk to everyone who could think of. we talk to political, scientists we talk to management consultants, we talked organizational psychologists, we talk to marriage counselors. literally. we talk to sports coaches, i thought about consulting an exercise. to think, how do you get an institution to not be the jerry springer show. i'll give you a quick example. one of the most interesting conversations we had was with a former sports coach. i, said what do you have when you have a team, members of the team, trying to torpedo the team?

>> i say, i cut them. >> i said, we don't have that option. he said, i bench them. we don't have that option either. i said, let me ask you, southern had to do new player orientation? but new member orientation. said, how do you do it? i said that's an interesting question, because if you talk to do members, they'll tell you that we do at the entirely wrong way. literally, you shopped orientation and say, democrats you get on this bus, republicans get on this bus. most of the orientation process is an exercise and keeping the two parties apart., so one of our recommendations that has been implemented is stop doing that. that seems so simple. but i think it's really important. >> it's hugely important. and i think most americans would be shocked to hear that orientation was as partisan, divided as it is. look, most

people, certainly every time i talk to an ex member of congress, they eventually get to the place where they say we need more constructive compromise. and by implication, some of them, say i wish i had done that a little bit more when i was in office. i know that's how people feel when they are running. they may have their own partisan arguments, certainly winning a primary, i know in south carolina. but i say that with, affection my folks live in the first district. but one going i'm wondering is, how does that perspective help you appeal to the better angels of your colleagues nature? what a lot of the gravitational pull on the incentives in your works drive people to be more divided, to not find ways to collaborate and compromise constructively for the country. >> i think it all comes back to relationships. i have great relationships with all my colleagues in the republican conference, and i do my best and build relationships across the aisle. if there is a very touchy issue and people are stepping out and getting aggressive in the media and causing problems for the rest of the conference. you go to the news and say, have you

thought about this? can we work on it on this on this way? what about changing this in a different manner? and if they're your friend, which hopefully they are, you talk through it. and you find a way to move forward together. but you least have that conversation. and i have seen it moderate people's approach to different issues. because, again, it's really easy to say mean things about somebody or their idea. and unfortunately, the current environment kind of facilitates it and rewards it. and that goes back to an issue of the media and the transition of, really, journalism because of technology. it's a completely different world than it was 20 or 30 years ago. i think it all comes back to relationships and being able to communicate with somebody from a position of mutual respect, to try to find common ground and move the ball forward. that's what we have been focused on, getting congress to do for the last three and a half years. we've made a lot of progress and i think that we have more work to do. and i'm optimistic. >> there is always going to be more work on the civility front,

for sure. i'm wondering, by the way, if you have some of that algorithm reform people, please, the cycle it could be done. that would change some of the incentive structures, certainly around social media. what is still on your do list this congress? what do you think you can get done? >> so, where at 142 recommendations. our plan is probably to get to 200. we're looking at hearings related to technology, hearings related to constituent service. that, i think, as a committee we just had two days ago a discussion about 30 recommendations related everything from how do you approve how straight offices are set up and how they can serve their constituents to trying to drive more evidence based policy making. so, some of the work in the next six months will be pushing out some additional recommendations. the other big thing, and i think that would get past, needs to be passed by the senate as

well. >> is it just a procedure in the house? >> we, as a committee, will pass these recommendations. and the question you just asked lead us to the second piece, we have to focus on implementation. and part of the next six months is going to be focused on implementation and part of the next two years, probably, will be focused on implementation. if you think about the stuff we proposed, implementation looks different depending on the recommendation. some of those can be dealt with through the legislative branch appropriations bill. some of this can be dealt with in the next rules package. some of this can be dealt with by the speaker. and it seems, for example, the speakers pay ordered one of our recommendations to ensure that we can hang on to a senior task

members. some of this will require -- for example, we made as a committee about eight or nine recommendations related to reforming it. in terms of the congress, that really hits my district. my biggest employer is the federal government, it's a naval shipyard. and if there is a government shutdown or continuing resolutions, it really sticks it to a district like mine. 78 or nine recommendations focus on the budget reform. that would require legislation that we are introducing that will need to pass the house, passed the senate and pass the president. we're going to keep pushing on all of these, because we keep

joking, it's like that saturday night live commercial. the bank that only takes change. and their tagline, as we make, changes what we do. that should be our committee motto, our goal is not to make recommendations, it's to actually make change. that's what we do. so make recomm>> let me ask you, pendulm swings occur in off years. this is an election year and i love that you're getting things done even in an election year. this subcommittee was created, it sounds like, initially when no one knew who was going to be in control. if control of the house moves to republicans next likable, do you have the assurance that the import work of this committee will continue? >> first, the rules package for the next congress is putting a lot of our recommendations through. i hope and whoever the next speaker is will make sure it's a priority. because i

think everyone agrees that congress needs to change. we -- that was too easy. >> if you didn't get that pitch, it would be disappointing. >> i am very optimistic that it's going to be a priority the pendulum swings. we're going to be very focused on you for the next role package as many of our recommendations as possible. implementation has been a core component of this congress, of our work together. and, really over the next six, months we're going to be focused on continuing down that path but also making sure that next week, or whether it, is as making this priority. the next question is what happens after that. i think that's an important discussion. we've kind of agreed that it could be a subcommittee on house administration, tried to let someone else continue the implant haitian process and monitor that this does not fall on deaf ears. but no matter

what happens next congress, i'm optimistic that the two of us will can do to get these recommendations. up >> i just don't know any other subcommittee that can point to more than 100 items that they were able to get done together, on behalf of the american people. that's a record of success, i don't know why anyone would match with it. let me stick with you. i saw you got a masters degree in cybersecurity, which is very, cool from and why you. i wonder, part of modernization is technology, we've discussed that. what do you think needs to be a dated with regards to cybersecurity in congress? >> everything? >> that is unacceptable answer. >> you, know it's really challenging. we have a lot of older people who don't understand technology. the senate's way where, as the senate is way worse. but we've made a lot of strides. one of the things i'm focused on right now is we're trying to create, essentially, program that the conflicts committee and

subcommittee schedules to allow members -- most members have on five and a half on average committees. and when they're both running, you're just running around. nobody in congress really defends their, ideas they don't have to. most of the time when you're in committee you do your five minutes of theater and that you leave and nobody ask you questions. you just pontificate about your meaning of life and then runaway. you need to sit there and listen to other people's ideas, you have to defend your ideas. when i was in the state senate in south carolina, everyone, it didn't take long when someone proposed an idea for the rest of the room to be, like that's a bad idea. where that's a good idea. but we don't do that. we don't have debate, we don't have an exchange of ideas. we don't learn from a different

perspective. i'm hopeful that if you are the chair for that debate, for that dialogue, at some point you're like, i never thought of it that, way that makes a little sense. how do i reconcile my preconceived position on this with what they just said that make sense? >> i want to double down on that at the time we have left. because it goes back to, i think, the big picture of confronting congress. people feel that congress has divided and dysfunctional, your subcommittee is a positive counter example of that. it leads people to be cynical about democracy at a time when democracy is being challenged around the world. and being here, in a place where, as fergus points out, the first congress didn't have political parties. people represented their conscience, their constituents, people don't have political parties when they got things done. what are the kinds of reforms, structural reforms, that you all think could be done to help heal the hyper partisan polarization that is clearly killing our country? a >> it is striking that there

are a number of issues that aren't in the jurisdiction of the committee that we drive. everything from how much the social media divides us to the rule of money in politics. i mean, fergus just spoke about the first congress that members who represented 30,000 constituents will represent between seven and eight 8000. it's really complicated. particularly in a world of cable news on social media and all that. i actually do think that there are structural reforms that are outside of our committees jurisdiction, but that are important. including the role of money and politics, i think partisan gerrymandering. thank you for telling us the derivation of that. here but we have to have a system where people choose their own officials, rather than elected officials choosing their voters. i think you've seen, in many states, districts get far more blue and far more red and it makes the type of collaboration that you've seen out of our committee really

challenging. because people say, well, i still remember my first week in congress. i sat down with one of our colleagues, we had a group that went out. two democrats and two republicans, sitting up on a burger joint on pennsylvania avenue. at about 45 minutes into the meal i said, you know, seems will be able to get some of this figured out. one of the colleagues who is with me just happen to be in from the midwest liu. could tell the story with a democrat, but it wasn't. he said i really like, you but here's what you don't get. he said i won my seat by defeating a republican incumbent. i ran against him as not being conservative enough. is that the first vote i cast when i got here was a vote against john boehner from speaker of the house, and i spent it and voted against him because he's too compromised, too willing to work with democrats. i was lauded in my district for that vote. i said derek, i like, you but you don't understand that my

constituents didn't semi her to work with, you they sent me her to stop you. i walked out of that burger trying to call that my wife and, said i have two reactions to this. one, incredibly honest. and to, my god! like, this is a real problem. so, i wish i could tell you that we could, that the work of this committee could dramatically alter that. but i will tell, you we've made some recommendations that provide some targeted intervention to change up some of those incentives. but there is a big outside forces, including money and politics, gerrymandering and social media, that will still make that type of progress that i think all of us want challenging. and we have to get to those issues to. >> what is your take on that question? what are the big structural things that you think need to get done? go blue sky, but based on your knowledge of the institution. >> should or cam? >> let's go should, and then can't. let's do both.

>> we've spent a lot of time trying to figure out why congress is so dysfunctional. a term i learned with conflict entrepreneur. you know? it's a terrible term, but it's accurate. so, the question becomes, how do we -- it is a problem congress or is the problem the country? and is the country this divided or are members of congress doing something wrong? i actually think that the root cause of all of this is the. if you go back to the printing press, when it was created, it took generations for people to appreciate that some idiot can get a printing press and print something, that's ridiculous, it's not true. but that wasn't the case. it took literally generations for people to say the printed word is no less accurate than the spoken word. and with technology, what we have seen is journalism is dying. a subscription-based model, that are printed newspapers relied on, it's gone

to the internet and it's gone to clickbait., now you've got different media outlets that are catering to people that will click on it to then sell advertising, that's the model. and that model is not good. that model facilitates bad outcomes, that model creates arguments over facts. we literally argue over science. i mean, post covid, who is your doctor, who is my doctor, they disagree. scientists disagree. so, we really enter this era where technology has given everybody a platform and technology has allowed just ideas to be heard that may not be true. it's hard to decipher what is and what isn't true. and until we can grow past the challenges associated with

technology, the challenges associated with people being able to say something on social media to me that they would never say at church or in a grocery store, that didn't happen, 30 40 years ago. we were a different culture., so we have to get better at managing technology and managing the new normal a few men interaction. >> look, just because you talked about technology. first of all, if there were algorithm reforms, that could incentivize better behavior and better conversation. these are macroeconomic things but there are laws and bills in place that could address that. and should. keeping in mind that, by the way, there were partisan newspapers and the founders time too, that's not a new thing. but you mentioned the debate over fact and science and evidence based, i know

that's a passion for you. i want to ask you about this. given that today was the third of the hearing, given that you voted like 147 of your colleagues not to certify the vote, i wonder, was that about constituent pressure? without about peer pressure? or about real belief on your part? >> sure. so, this is an extremely complicated issue, i have written a seven-page legal opinion on it. it took me forever, i wrote it myself. if you look at the history of certifier not certifying, and if you look at what happened in the last presidential election, whether we should have that vote as one conversation. but given the history of the vote in previous congresses and given that the fact, circumstances that were present in the last presidential election. chairman thompson voted against certifying bush, raskin voted against certifying trump.

>> very small levels. >> but again, if you read the ninth circuit opinion for arizona, which i voted against certifying, the dissenting opinion says that thousands if not tens of thousands of people voted who should not have been allowed to vote because a federal judge overturned the duly elected representatives and senators the arizona general assembly. so, is that voter fraud? if you aren't legally entitled the, vote i don't know what else you call it. as more than enough to justify the not certifying. then you have the question of pennsylvania, which we could go on for hours. in georgia, you have the consent decree that's not legal. if you like the opinion of justice thomas -- the supreme court did not take up the pennsylvania case. he said, what is going to stop this from happening again if we don't do anything about it? i'll end with this, this is probably the strongest

argument. the supreme court only ruled on the merits of one case for the last presidential election. very few people even talk about this. for south carolina, a federal judge who almost became a supreme court justice, judge child, overturned the recent covid friendly voting laws in south carolina. it went back and forth about the supreme court unanimously overturned her. so, the laws that were enacted that allowed people to change the voting lies because of covid would have been overturned had to pay got them. this is now my argument, they would have likely been overturned had they gotten to the supreme court prior to the election, after the election there is nothing they can do. so, that's the issue. when i see people say the big lie, it's just so complicated. and trump over simplified it in stop the steal, i colleagues across the aisle have simplified it into the big lie. it's in the middle.

>> i want to -- we've had these hearings, certainly recognize that all the republicans, trump administration folks testified that the president wasn't telling the truth. you're telling a different 0.80 clearly believe it still. so, here's the bigger question, beyond all, that to both of you. given that fundamental divide about facts goes to the heart of our democracy and the peaceful transition of power, which is relevant in this room. if you sincerely believe that idea sincerely don't, on that particular issue, you clearly have a great relationship and have gotten a lot done together. that's a hopeful thing. do you think we as a country and he was colleagues can get past that? >> i would argue, we've actually never -- well, this country hasn't had a legitimate dialogue and debate about the sides. we are taking extreme positions of the left in the right. i mean, look, stop the is an incredible oversimplification of a complex legal argument that justifies republicans voting not to certify the election results from arizona and pennsylvania. and the big lie is also an oversimplification of trump's

oversimplifications. we need to engage an evidence based policy making and a collaborative manner from a position of mutual respect. that's what we're supposed to do, and we're not doing a very good job of that. >> how do we do that? everyone agrees with those three things. how do you think, just given the time, what is your prescription for how we can grow past us as a country? and you as an institution? >> let me talk about one thing specific to our committee and one thing not specific. one thing general to our country. specific to our committee, listen, this was hired. for those of you who serves in the institution, that's what's a fracture and created more tension in an already tense institution. we did something on our committee, i mentioned we had a bipartisan plan a retreat. the start of our

planning retreat was three hours and which we brought in someone with expertise and conflict resolution, and we just talked about it. when we had an honest conversation about it, which frankly i don't think this happened anywhere else in the united states house. but it happened in our committee. >> that's important. >> because i didn't -- at the start of this congress, i sat down with every one of the committee members. of the 11, eight mentioned, i'm worried about how january six is going to play into the work of our committee and whether it's going to be that argument you had with your spouse. three years from, now when you can agree what to have for dinner, it gets thrown back in your face. so, i thought it was important, william agrees, we should just have a conversation as a committee about it., so that brings me to the general point. that, is i think we have to get better as a country about having tough conversations about things that we don't have full agreement on. i had two things happen earlier, that happened last fall and into the winter. first,

in my district, unfortunately there is an attack on a number of religious institutions. we have the islamic center burned to the ground. we sought to buddhist faith leaders get beat up outside the temple. we saw a church get vandalized. all within the span of about three weeks. and in the spirit of something good coming out of something bad, the inter faith community held a solidarity event to say, that's not what we are about. part of living in a religiously and otherwise plural lies democracy is being able to talk to people who look and pray differently than we do without it coming and a conflict. one of the faith leaders kim of me and, said that was a good, our but if we are going to do this right we

have an ongoing conversation within our community about these differences. he said, just a curiosity, is there anything like? that i, said not really. months later, got invited to the ymca in my district, thinking they're going to talk to me about mike quigley bill about gymnasiums that are losing money. that is not what they wanted to talk to me about. i got in there and they said, you know what? all the conflict we see on cable news, all the conflict that you all see in washington, d.c. has shown up in our ymca. we are living having heavy arguments, even fights break it over pick your red or blue issue. this becomes of bad we can't ignore it anymore, we've actually hired a consultant and they are training our, staff training our board and conflict resolution. we were to start hosting events to get people to talk across their, differences actually have dialogue about tough conversations. just out of curiosity, is there any support for something like that? i said, not really. then, because we chaired this committee, the national academy of arts and sciences just did a report at the end of last year

called our common purpose. but refreshing american democracy. chapter four of it is focused on what they call civic bridge building. the point said that the united states currently spends tens of millions of dollars trying to foster social cohesion and build civic bridges as a means of strengthening democracy. in other countries. but we don't do it here. so, we have introduced a bill, ten democrats, and the lead sponsor. ten republicans, williams one of the lead sponsors. it says let's actually provide some support to these hyper local efforts. ymca, the inter faith groups, that are trying to do the right thing. to not have the jerry springer show but rather have dialogue across our differences. our founders, which we sit here, offenders presumed that we were going to agree with everything. they will be wind but they knew would be able to live together. i think we have to work at that, the federal government has got to support that as we work to build a more perfect union. will

>> that his, the more fact is that you're both embodying this in this conversation. and that you're getting so much, done building real relationships. in a difficult and divided time that is incredibly hopeful. people should take notice for, it may that sent forth mueller ripples of hope. and more civic education please, for places like this and for all of us. (applause) if you're enjoying american history tv, sign up for a newsletter using the qr [applause]

(applause) if you're enjoying american history tv, sign up for a newsletter using the qr code on the screen to receive the weekly schedule of upcoming shows like lectures in history, the presidency and more. sign up for the american history tv newsletter today and be sure to -- on c-span.org slash history. -- c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington. even on the back you get to the day's biggest events. but live a for proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress. white house events, sports, campaigns and more for the world of politics all at your fingertips. and also stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal, and scheduling information for c-span tv network, and c-span --

plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play, download for free today. c-span now, your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. weekends on c-span, are in an election wealthy. every saturday, american documents america story. and on sunday, book tv brings you the latest, nonfiction books and authors. funding for c-span two comes from these television companies and more. including charter communications. >> broadband is a force for empowerment. that is why trader has invested billions in building infrastructure, upgrading technology, empowering opportunity and in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications, along with these television companies, support c-span 2 as a public service.