[laughter] [general chatter]

[general chatter] [laughter] >> democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton. you can find her remarks in our video library. it look at tweets from some of the republican presidential candidates. dr. ben carson said he had a

great time at blake's family restaurant in manchester, new hampshire. ted cruz will be in iowa fundraising for the republican party appearing with steve king. today in washington dc, a discussion on oil prices and their impact on racking. that will be hosted by the atlantic council. we will have that live at 3:00 eastern time. the u.s. senate is meeting this afternoon. the house returns tomorrow. we spoke this morning with a capitol hill reporter to get a look at the week ahead in congress. their district work period. what is on tap for today and the rest of the week? guest: a big issue in the senate this week is going to be trade. all eyes are on president obama. one of his top priorities for a second term is to get some of these international trade deals done. the senate is good to take up a bill that was passed earlier in the month from the senate

finance committee. it will come out wednesday or thursday. very interesting issue because it splits -- it has obama on it and it has senate majority leader mitch mcconnell on it but it does not have harry reid. he is a strong opponent as are a number of liberal democrats. a strange bedfellows coalition in congress. it is going to be an enormous lift for obama. it is expected to pass the senate and have a overtime in the house. -- have a tougher time in the house. host: it has been more than a week since we have seen the house bill come back in. when we last left the house, they were debating appropriations bills for 2016. where are they headed this week? guest: a big week in the house. a lot of high-profile issues on

tap. they will come in on tuesday and do some suspension stuff. low hanging fruit. on wednesday they will dive back into the abortion debate. republicans tried to bring up a bill in january that bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. they had to yank it because of concern from female lawmakers in their own party and centrist republicans. the previous bill had an exception for rape victims but only if they reported the rape to police. there was concern within the party that that was going to send the wrong message to women. that it was a bar too high. the new version will yank that language. it requires a doctor to ensure that the woman has received license canceled -- licensed counseling prior to the service. another huge issue, the patriot act renewal.

sections of that that are supposed to expire on june 1. section 215, the controversial section because the nsa uses that provision to justify it all collection of phone records. -- it's bulk collection of phone records. there is a lot -- there is a push in congress to eliminate that and the house bill would bar the government from collecting phone records in bulk. that is supposed to come up on wednesday. on thursday, a defense authorization vote expected. very controversial because there are a couple resolutions that the pentagon should move to allow illegal immigrants who grew up in the country is kids to serve in the military.

this involves all of that. another very tough issue for republicans to move that bill with the immigration language attached. a big move to get it out. a move to expand it. that fight will also be going on on thursday. host: the hill is reporting that there is republican support for allowing those dreamers to have military service? guest: sure. a republican amendment in the committee -- the armed services committee that installed the stuff. jeff denham, a republican from california, is pushing to expand the immigration language to allow illegal immigrants to serve in the military in exchange for legal status. he has tried to that in the past and leaders develop best leaders did not allow him a vote on the floor. it is not clear if they're going

to do the same thing this year. he is pushing for that as more conservative guys want to eliminate the language that is already in their. re. you will that republican versus republican battle on the floor on thursday. host: we appreciate mike l >> the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress, with color photos of every senator and house member. also, district maps. a look at congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies, and state governors. order your copy today. order it at c-span.org through the c-span online store. >> next, a look at the evolving

congress with the bipartisan policy center. they recently analyzed a congressional research service report on the changes in the legislative branch over the last century. this is about an hour. >> are we good? i can start? >> good morning. we are going to get going. thank you all for coming. i am the director of the democracy project at the bipartisan policy center. i am here with a great collection of scholars on the u.s. congress. we are here with a number of hosts. we are a host. the president of the national

capital area political science association is also hosting this event with us. we are here for a purpose to celebrate and investigate the release of a series of essays by the congressional research service and its scholars on congress. it is entitled "the evolving congress." many of you know the good work that crs does. crs works very closely with the congress. they are there to help our senators and representatives, to advise them, to give them background information. this is a document that is publicly available. while -- i will waive it up here -- it does not have the flashy cover, we will be talking about the movie rights, which we are negotiating soon. [laughter] >> it could be found if you so

chose, the government printing office online with a series of essays on the evolution of congress, how congress has changed in a number of ways. that is what we will be discussing today. we will talk amongst ourselves, but we are also looking to turn it over to you. and the audience, we have a greater wealth of knowledge about congress. let's begin. my co-moderator and cohost is if you read your bios, not a professional staff member from the house foreign affairs committee -- that is an error. he is an associate professor of politics at george washington university. one of the founders and contributors of "the monkey cage." he is the author of numerous pieces on campaigns and various attitudes towards institutions. i am going to turn it to him shortly. to my left is the deputy

director of the research service. she is somebody who has worked on capitol hill. she combines practical knowledge and her scholarly knowledge and is a theorist as deputy director of the institution and one of the organizers of this collection. next to colleen is the assistant director of the government finance division with the congressional research service. also a political scientist, who has written the author of books -- who has written books such as "fundamentally flawed." he also wrote a textbook on congress -- "congress in context." my colleague at the bipartisan policy center is next. he is also a scholar at the woodrow wilson institute for scholars. he has a long history on capitol

hill as a staff director of the house rules committee and a staffer on the house rules committee for many years. both of the minority and a little bit in the majority. he also ran the congress project at the wilson center for many years. he think said writes about congress, including his book "congress of the people." then, to sarah binder, who is both a scholar at the brookings institution, as well as a professor at george washington university on politics. she is an expert on the workings of the senate and the confirmation process and other topics. what we are going to do today -- i am going to turn it to john and then we will hear from our congressional research service representatives, who will talk about the collection. we will have reaction from don and sarah, we will have discussion, and then we will

turn it to you. >> we appreciate the support of the bipartisan policy center. we have been in washington dc for over 30 years. it is one of many regional political a science associations . it stretches even to west virginia and pennsylvania. one of the things we are doing is to try to bring together the broader political science diaspora in this community which includes not just those of us who have phd's and worked at universities, but those who have expertise and work in a variety of institutions and other places. this was a neat opportunity for us to put together a group of people that brings the real wealth of expertise to this subject. the second thing we want to to do was to draw attention to the important work that crs is done with this particular report. if you follow congress in a

casual sense, it is not difficult to see that things are changing. a decline in the number of laws being passed. there was a phrase in political science from roughly the mid-20th century that was the textbook congress that we used to have. all of the textbooks have been revised substantially. [laughter] >> now we have a congress that is very different. even the congress of the 1990's is different. we are much in an era when congress is evolving, for better or worse. it is a useful opportunity for us to reflect on how it has changed and draw on the expertise that crs has obtained. i will turn it over to colleen. >> thank you.

i want to thank the bipartisan policy center, the national capital area political science association, and the national press club for hosting us to talk about the evolving congress. what i am going to do is talk about why we decided to write this committee print at this particular moment in time. crs has one mission, which is to serve congress. we assist members in all aspects of their policymaking and wreck resent tatian all functions. we find ourselves in the weeds and facing a lot of deadlines. our unique mission is to serve congress and its research functions and for their research needs. the talented analysts and experts that crs also have the ability to look at the big picture.

more specifically, we ask this question. how has the institution of congress changed over time? the evolving congress committee print is our attempt to answer this difficult question. then the question becomes why would congress want us to grapple with that particular question? the main reason is because if you want to really examine a political institution, it makes sense to understand why development, why change has taken place. some scholars out there and pundits label congress, label the legislative branch right now as dysfunctional or as broken. i think that comparing the contemporary congress and the lawmaking function of what is going on a capitol hill right now to the congress 30 years ago, 40 years ago, or 50 years ago without understanding fully how those representational and policymaking functions of

changed does not provide a full answer to that question. it is problematic. it comes to this. the incentive and decision-making structure has changed. we know the institution and those who have at the institution -- inhabit the institution will respond accordingly. the dichotomy of the congress today -- congress functioned well and the good old days versus a contemporary congress that is supposedly failing -- i think misses the larger picture. furthermore, it is very helpful for members of congress to look at the institution with this perspective. it is also very helpful for them if they want to understand the institution and a larger, historical, and political environment to have easy to read, accessible essays to help them understand the evolution of congress. i think some synnex would say

that members of congress are not interested in those types of inquiries and learning about the development of the institution. both myself and john, we both know that that is simply not correct. that is not a correct supposition to make. lastly, i think the evolving congress was also written because it helps fill the void present today in academic political science. i recently attended the midwest political science association conference in chicago and i was looking at the panels that were presented over the three days in chicago -- you flip through the program and decide what you are going to attend. it seemed to me that there were very few panels addressing the development and the history of institutions over time. i was not sure if it was just me looking at the program or not so it talked to some of my colleagues and everybody concurred that that was the case.

the study of american politics has moved away from the focus on answering very difficult complex, messy questions, such as how and why does congress evolve? there are notable exceptions to my generalized statements. american politics seems to be much more interested in finding very neat answers using very sophisticated methodologies to very complicated questions. i understand why this trend occurred in political science, however, it has shifted the focus of talented graduate students away from answering the most relevant and difficult questions that can be answered by our discipline. let me be clear. everybody in this room and everybody who works in politics knows that difficult political questions are not answered by

models. causal arrows point in both directions. these challenges cannot be completely discarded by political scientists. you cannot do whatever you want in your research. it is not a license to discard social science methodology. they have to be accounted for and dealt with by political scientist. that does not mean that that analysis should not be attempted or done. legislators look to scholars for answers to the big questions such as identifying the institutions in which they serve. crs is filled with analysts that are trained and i could emea but steeped in the day to day workings of congress. they are uniquely able to look

at the challenges in the congress. thank you and i would like to be joined by john haskell, who is the person committed to bringing this print to fruition. john: i second what colleen said and we appreciate the opportunity to discuss the committee print, not just with this distinguished group of panelists, but also, we are here to hear your questions. any criticisms of the print should be directed generically to john. our objective with "the evolving congress" was to provide perspective on the debate about the evolving institution. we wanted people to get the context right. in my view, the authors of the print -- there were 29 people involved, all analysts that crs

-- they all did a great job of getting the context right. speaking intelligently discussing intelligently potential reforms. i will do a brief summary of what i think they achieved. i think they made at least three key contributions. first of all we reminded people in the print that high levels of partisanship in congress are more the norm in u.s. history than the post world war ii period of compromise and consensus. as an aside i think it is amusing and interesting to note that much of the thinking in the 1950's and 1960's criticized as dysfunctional the system that people think to look back at nostalgic. as an undergrad, i was assigned the "the deadlock of democracy." he made the case that the system was dysfunctional and that was written in 1963. the aapsa fervently advocated

something that might resemble a parliamentary style or responsible party style. we cannot wish away the way the party system has evolved and the way it is now. second, crs pointed out how members' lives and work have changed irrevocably through the evolution of the parties and campaign financing pressures technology, social changes, and the housing market. these changes relate to the representational side of members' jobs and they have an impact on the members' legislative work. those changes, we cannot wish away either. last but not least, the evolving congress committee print makes throughout an obvious, but forgotten point that no political institution operates in a vacuum.

congress is not a static institution. congress reflects and invariably responds to social and political dynamics. change and uncertainty are really the only constants in congress. one could say that we could safely project out this congress's popularity -- it is likely to continue. we don't take a position on that it crs but i am just making a projection about the current unpopularity. i think the bpc and many other organizations, there will be many changes in that. without taking a position, i would like to hypothesize on a plausible direction that the change might take. francis lee and others contend

that party leaders believe consensusbuilding and compromising with the other party undercut efforts to maintain or retain congressional authorities. -- majorities. these majorities hang on a razor's edge in each election cycle. the incentive structure, as is described, works against what it takes to legislate consistently unproductively. the political balance sheet weighs heavily in the favor of scoring partisan political points over against compromise and legislating. the calculus will change in one direction or another. i think it is shifting under our feet now. i'm speaking for myself and not for crs. republicans do have some reason to be more comfortable in their majority, at least in the house, then they have been. democrats every sin to be more resigned of their minority status in the house.

research seems to indicate that the structural advantages are strong for republicans in the house. the imperative to score partisan political points might not be as critical as it has been. as the political balance sheet begins to shift may be ever so gradually in favor of other things than scoring political points, it might even go in the direction of showing that you can govern or get things done. in effect, in this formulation, compromise and consensus building can become on some issues political benefits for the majority party and maybe for more than that. i will stop right there. i just want to say that i thank you again for the opportunity to the bpc and the political scientists in the washington area to talk about the print. we appreciate the publicity that it is getting to -- at events like this. john: great.

we are going to stay here in our chairs. i will turn to sarah binder. they have comments about the print. colleen and john noted that it is 29 essays. they are going to go through them one by 1 -- no. [laughter] they are not going to go through them. they will pick topics of interest. we have it well set up to have the house and senate well represented by each one of you. don, could you give a little summary of what your reaction is to it? and then tell us some of your thoughts about some of the pieces that you are looking at. don: i will take the first 250 pages. [laughter] don: thank you. i want to commend the bpc for organizing the event and inviting me here and to congratulate crs on its 100th anniversary. i think this book is a testament to the type of quality staff you have and the diversity of

subjects that you cover. it is marvelous. i cannot say i have read it cover to cover, but i have had a lot of the high points that i thought related to what i know and what i want to know a little bit more about. it is a great thing to read. what i thought i would do is relate some of the first things in the book on not necessarily the role of members so much, but there is a great introductory chapter that traces the history of the congress and that brought back to me a lot of memories. because i have actually been observing congress for five decades. i started in the summer of 1965 as an intern with john anderson and he had me covering the joint committee. i met some brittle -- brilliant political scientists like roger davis, who was kind enough to lend me the manuscript that they were about to publish, "congress in crisis."

john mentioned something that is very apropos. throughout the last half-century, congress has always been portrayed as being in crisis -- an obstacle course on capitol hill is another one of the titles and so on. here was a joint committee trying to work through this to get some ideas of how to improve the institution. i remember that it was surprising to me, since a lot of this was fresh coming out of iowa and not having been to dcb for, that here were especially a lot of witnesses reading from the same page and that page was the same page used in testimony back in 1945 before another joint committee. there were three obstacles to congress doing its job. one was the senate filibuster. the second was the seniority system. the other was the house rules committee, which was then controlled by a conservative coalition of southern democrats.

often resulting in 6-6 ties. fast-forward 10 years to 1975. what happened in 1975, the cloture rule was changed, from 2/3 present and voting to 60 votes. the rules can pity -- committee had been brought under the aegis of the majority party. they were nominating members from -- and the seniority system was dismantled that year with three members outed saying that caucus members be voted by chairman rather than being elevated. it was a lot of things going on, a lot of permit in between 65 --

1965 and 1975, a joint committee produce something in 1966 and came to fruition in 1970. there were things that change the face of congress. roger covers this in a lot of chapters. they had a committee bill of rights that meant members could overwrite its chairman to get things on the agenda. they have more open meetings and hearings required. televising hearings in the house was allowed for the first time. the senate had been doing it, but sam rayburn put the cabal sean this -- kibosh on this. there were a lot of transparency reforms taking place throughout the 1970's. this was a reform revolution taking place in the congress as a whole, but a lot of this was going on, happening in the house. i thought what i would highlight are three things that i think have changed dramatically since

i first came full-time as a staffer in 1969 with john anderson, covering the rules committee for him, and coming on to the rules committee staff. one is the shift over time from committee governance to party governance. i would say the turning point here happened with a letter written by -- cosigned by 40 democrats in 1970 night, speaker tip o'neill, saying give us more closed rules. we're spending too much time on the floor with amendments, being brought up by the minority, used for political ads and tip o'neill gradually obliged, and we began to see more restrictive rules. when i came in 1969, the only bills that had closed rules that had were ways and means committee bills.

bills were shut down altogether on the floor from being amended. that was one of the things that happened that i thought was very dramatic. the shift in power that happened between committees to the parties and their elected leaders was a result of the fact the committee chairman were now let it come had to be responsive to the caucus, but they had lost a lot of power they used to have when it was concentrated in their back pocket. that was one of the things that happened. to add to that, the leadership bringing the committee along on having their way on the house for where they could change a bill altogether. lee hamilton later recounted how he would bring a 25-page bill to the rules committee and it would emerge as 50 bills after things were added.

that was the other thing. the third thing, transparency and my loss was a great supporter of the sunshine rules that began to come forward in the 1970's, making committees a lot more open, more permeable. we had a lot of subcommittees created. the transparency -- and then we went in 1979 to opening the house for to tv cameras and the senate in 1986. these are the three major changes i have observed, some for better, some for worse. but it is overall the congress is better for it because it has always had a bad reputation with the people. >> i was going to remark that i would self assign a field trip. i would walk over to the madison

building -- i recall a window where you can get reports and go into the reading room, and then go back to work. i never thought 30 years later i would be talking about the 100th anniversary of crs. i think i am the world's biggest fan of crs particularly in recent years, but despite the rise of what we might think of data journalism and increased importance that reporters play on gathering information and data about a particular congress. i think crs remains on the top, that they are not only the masters of collecting these types of data. they know which data are meaningful which are not and how to make symptoms of them. they understand not just the details, but the institution but how they fit together as well as for why these details matter for understanding congress today as well as in the past. that strikes me as what has

wrought together in the evolving congress report. briefly, two general observations about the report and highlight three chapters in particular. first, i think the report offers both a deep appreciation of the micro level, whether behavioral at the level of the member, or in additional, at the level of the rules and institutions, but not only the micro contexts, that also the broader macro context. the legal context in which congress tries to work in sometimes cannot. a chapter in particular makes clear our ability to understand how congress has changed requires us to think at the micro level as well as step out side the institution to understand the forces that have tried to effect change. in a world where we try to find these explanations to single of

the one thing that has made the biggest difference, i think the report is an important and refreshing way to encouraging us to think more broadly about multiple exclamations that may come to bear in explaining the development of congress. so second general observation, i think the chapters collectively point us to a very path-dependent way of thinking about congressional development. the idea that passed choices within the institution i very strongly affect future development in the institution. sometimes that path delivers what we think is as increasing returns to the institution, so that members might benefit from those inherited practices, so they do not want to give them up. and colleen's chapter gives us the sense that cometh way those -- there willingness to struggle with to keep those practices so it improves their ability to get

a defense bill each year. sometimes i think the report makes get the path that generates decreasing returns. the case in point, from walter's chapter, the evolution of the extended debate in the senate and senators' willingness to exploit the roles, but at the expense of the ability of the institution, decreasing the ways that the system can be working which was on full display this week as the majority tried to get through the iran bill. two general actions that i think of volume. i would offer three more specifics to highlight from the chapters. first, the walter chapter, what

speaks to be and he puts into perspective these recent calls for the return to regular order particularly in the senate, and walter puts it this week, that regular order is a flexible construct, that calls regular order, and when i say regular order, i usually put quotes around it. now i have permission to do that. the call for regular order mrs. the evolving -- misses the evolving nature of congress on the floor, and today we have a new procedural normal, and that is what we see majority leaders struggling with last week and this week. and changing the leaders of the senate and calling for the return to regular order they might be necessary but not sufficient to change the way the senate operates. different order -- if regular order is a textbook of the, we need to be clear what we are try

to restore in the way the senate works. second highlight from the chapter on the defense bill, which tries to address the public, why is it in this stalemated institution the armed services committee each year returns an annual defense authorization bill. and she recognizes the ways in which they are struggling to keep the annual process going as it encounters other issues on the senate for. points to three issues here. there are practices, the way hearings are construct it, consultations across defense agencies as well is across staff. the bipartisan staff culture, not even just physically sharing space, but the longevity of the staff, and the repeated interactions across staff that we think perhaps helped facilitate the types of negotiations necessary to come to an authorization each year. and colleen notes the closed markup on the senate side,

although not on the house side but raises the question about whether closing the doors despite all the benefits of transparency whether there are trade-offs and perhaps closing the doors, keeping lobbyists and journalists out of the room, mike help -- might help foster these deals, we are trying to expand the pie in how the fence operates. third, the chapter on collaboration, he looks at the difficulty of sustaining relationship in today's senate come with a classic quote from tom daschle, " because we cannot bond, we cannot trust, because we cannot trust, because we cannot cooperate, because we cannot cooperate, we become this module." -- dysfunctional." probably what i took away most from the chapter was the carefully worded criticism of --

political scientists, saying we had perhaps lost the sight of the social part of social choice, and where he we are good but do not understand the nature of social life, how majorities and coalitions are built, but i think as a report suggests it warrants a sustained a more systematic attention of students of congress like myself. so on that right i will stop there. >> thank you. john and i will take some time to ask questions and have a conversation here, and we will turn our audience. at the risk of going on too long, i have two related questions, with an advertisement about what the bbc has done. my first part to john haskell who hinted that the era that

many of us look bad to as the golden era of congress, of american politics, much of the late 20th century was maybe an aberration, that we had political parties that were not left and right as much, much more overlap that some of the institution of congress really stems from this party differences, seniority, the importance of committees, decentralization of power from leadership. i wanted to go further on that to say if that is the aberration do we know some things about earlier eras and how these things work? maybe pick up on your optimistic note that parties are more separated, and they can be productive in some ways people think. i want ask sarah where sarah was picking up on putting scary quotes around the term "regular order." we had a commission that bbc is

looking at a variety of things focused on congress, with a lot of former members from and have an interest in regular order matters. you're right, we have to know what that means. but let me put it this to me to me tea. i think our members were concerned that in this old world where committees dominated where power was decentralized the legislative process function in a certain way, but today as we have had an incredible amount of centralization of power, we lost the role of committees, of average members, of debate on the floor, so even a simple way of thinking of regular order as schoolhouse rock version of legislating that we think about legislation and debate and refined it in committees that we have a relatively robust floor debate where voices are heard and that there is -- there are conference committees to resolve differences between houses, somehow grafting some of the older traditional process on

today's world will have a benefit. it does not necessarily fit currently with the party system, but would have a benefit. i mentioned our healthy congress in this, which has meant to mentioned how congress is doing, how much the senate is opening up to amendments how members of congress are working in a home in the district, working in d.c., how much -- how the committees are doing and how the debate on the house looks very those are some of the things we should get that that is restoring the old era to a new system. i want to get your reaction to that. both of you want to -- an advertisement not just for walter's chapter, but mike's chapter. those are the two most sweeping chapters in the volume, and both emphasize among other things partisan situation particularly post-world war ii, that it

typically is, and there is more ideological overlap. the other thing to emphasize that sometimes people miss, it is not as though the issues battles were less intense, it is that -- which is to say whether it was camommie which hunting with a range of the battle on medicare he or federal education or miss especially civil rights the battles on those issues were more intense really than the battles we have today about incremental changes in the size of the government or incremental changes in the tax code, i think. it is just that the parties did not line up along this issues. and that has real institutional effects. today, to the extent we have serious disagreements i think none of them quite as intense as the battle over civil rights, to the 1950's and the mid-1960's, a

lot of them line up on the way that the parties breakdown. that is whenone thing that people forget about. what i would the size but the book about some of the congressional activities in the early to mid 1960's with regard to the great society is an eye opener that they had to change congressional rules to get things done because congress was not functioning. ms. binder: the question is how do you have a set of disses and routines on the floor that you are trying to get back to some sort of decision-making where there is a capacity for offering consideration of amendments, amendments to amendments, and working your way so the majority does not feel compelled to block off amendments by filing

cloture. if there is some procedural set of practices that we are trying to get back to, the question is on the challenges, i think i have come to the conclusion that it is hard to institutionally reengineer the chambers unless members and parties' incentives are compatible with the exercise of those procedures. the classic example is the super committee created out of the debty debacle in the summer of 2011. the design was almost failproof system, no filibusters, special rules, balanced committee, some with engineer so if there was a bipartisan consensus it could be protected to the process on the fourth and to the president. but they could not reach the incentives which were not aligned to find a way to come to that agreement to be protected. the question on the senate floor

in particular is, our members and the parties' incentivize sufficiently, that they have restraint to allow the collegial process to go forward? just watching what was going on, we have been attuned over the last several years to think the problem is these competing party messages and that harry reid as majority leader did not want to expose his party to threats from the minority party, but what has been very clear this week and last week is the problem of the majority leader is the restraint not to the other party, but the strength of his own members who found the amendment tree and found a way to get in the mix, and that in this case blows the thing up, and we are back to the old ways of setting off amendments, much to everybody's discontent. the question is, how much can we institutionally engineer our way back to a functioning senate, and what is the raw material are the leaders working with?

we have interesting good examples coming out of committees, and that speaks to colleen's point in the venues where we have senators who are used to working with each other and mark's chapter, if you can find these negotiating spaces where people trust each other and have some past history perhaps that is the environment in which they are able to close the doors often defined that way to say we are going to give your party what you want, and craft a bigger deal. i think those who see that coming out in education, on the iran bill, but the question is 100 senators, can you sustain that on the floor, and that is the big challenge. >> what you're saying, what mcconnell's life is organized around five senators who are up for reelection in 2016. if the senate looks dysfunctional on someone, that does not help keep the majority. there is the political incentive

structure, really. mr. wolfensberger: there been a couple articles recently that argued the congressional capacity is in decline. article talks about compile congressmen being lobotomized, because you have seen a reduction in the l the staff, and is a companion piece by a former crs staffer who argued that crs has suffered in some specs in terms of the number of resources it has in the number of staff it has. i wanted to get your sense of whether you guys saw that as true and the tenor of his articles is that is problematic but where do you guys come down -- the policymaking capacity

that congress has right now? >> we're happy at crs. the appropriations committee it in used to fund us. we're happy to come into our jobs as we enjoy our jobs and working through congress. it is addressed in part in the evolving congress. we have one chapter on legislative ranch staffing that talks about -- branch setting that talks about changes. one thing important to keep in mind about legislative branch staffing is that as we have been talking about here today, when there are larger effects going on in the larger macro political world, that affects the decisions and that members of congress make. one of the chapters we have not talked about is the one about how technology and how technology and communications is changing in the world, and then also eventually on capitol hill

with the rise of social media and how members represent constituents. when you start to be making with constituents in different ways necessarily unique to hire people to assist -- necessarily you need to hire people to assist you. capital hill there has been -- we know on capitol hill to have been more resources directed toward press secretaries coordinators, and is finite resources. you do that, there are less people available to other functions that a member is responsible for. i also think the larger people -- pitcher goes back -- picture respect to the 1970's and the purpose for the legislative reorganization act and what comes decided to look at itself in the early 1970's and pass the modification to the -- and that has to do in part with not

congress internally and congress' policymaking or representational capacities, but those capacities vis-a-vis the executive. one of our chapters in the evolving congress talks about resources afforded to the legislative branch, and they pale in comparison. that is historically something to keep in mind, that really congress, no matter who is control, hopkins democrats, -- republicans, and regrets senate, it is one branch of government and its ability to garner collect information and analysis to enable it to bridges but in the policymaking lawmaking functions vis-a-vis the executive branch. i think that is something that perhaps congress understood well in the 1970's given the pressures of situation the presidency was in an something that perhaps they would start to

look to today. mr. fortier: that does not make it any easier for us, but are more essential. >> did you want to weigh in with your top 50's that her? mr. wolfensberger: "roll call," over the years i have kept track of that and those at one point it was if the percent of those people were committee staff where nowadays only about 20 to our committee staff. the rest are leadership staff. that shows you an example of the shift in power from committees to leadership. he looked the titles of the

staff and a lot of them are communications director, assistant to medications director. it is shifted towards messaging and that is a big part of what goes on. in the process policymaking takes a backseat for a lot of members and gets back to the incentive system. is there incentive therefore members do get engaged in policymaking, do they really want to go back to more detailed amending processes in the committees and so on, and that is of the that i still have n't answered, and it varies but the committee markups are now perfunctory. you come back here at 4:00 and we will have 20 votes on amendments, and that will be the market. things have changed considerably. mr. fortier: although committees' influence may have waned, but never still want to be on them. that puts pressure on leadership. mr. wolfensberger: what is the main incentive there?

do those committees attract campaign funds? mr. fortier: it is both. ms. shogan: members choose constitutional functions. one is policymaking. the other function is representational functions. personally, i think the representational unction is equally as important to the policymaking function, and at crs we support members in both of those capacities. they are related to each other not completely distinct. it could be that members -- that the emphasis in this time has shifted from policymaking and perhaps more heavy into representational. another point made in the essays when i reserve viewing the evolving congress in the past couple weeks is the size of the

members' house district has grown over time, over 700,000 people in a house district, average. the amount of time to represent that many people obviously, even if everything else was held constant, if there were no other changes in the larger political environment, just that alone would necessarily probably shift time and resources toward that function. >> i see an equal or good knowledge in the audience. do we have a microphone coming around? we will ask you to identify your self. where's your microphone? we will go here and ask -- >> good morning. i am with the agronomy crops and

soil society. first of all, i read most of the chapters, well written and a really good read. if you have not read all 490 pages, go for it. my question is the theme of the chapters that i felt were interesting, there was this theme of globalness and connectedness. we are from a with the same all politics is local, but i'm interested in the question of has politics changed to be more global. i was wondering if colleen or john could comment on your observations or things you have noticed about how decision-making, congressional decision-making, has evolved to be more about the global context. ms. shogan: american politics

has become more nationalized. even though they spent more time in the states than in previous eras, you would think that perhaps localism would bring -- would reign supreme. they spent time talking about some degree talking about is some degree local issues and local concerns but i think it is also the interaction with constituents about national, and possibly global issues. this once again goes back to how members are communicating with constituents, the members and what they are insinuating. it is about looking at one minute speeches over time over different eras and coding a distribution of one minute speeches over time in the house. it was amazing how in the 1970's and 1980's and 1990's, members were still talking a lot about

local concerns, what was going on in the district. over time that decreases and becomes more about partisan messaging and national issues. i think in general how members interact because they represent is probably more in line with what you observed. >> certainly social media makes the representational aspects of their job, at least national. the point that you may be referring to with respect to the question that a lot of the bigger issues we struggle with today are international. whether it is climate change or any of a number of others. it may have been less the case in the past. >> hi, i am richard skinner from

an american university. since i came back to washington and talked with people who worked on the hill, one think they keep mentioning is the sheer amount of time that members spend on fundraising. i find that is not that surprising. most members are pretty darn safe. one trend we have seen in congressional elections is that they are increasingly nationalized, partisan and individual factors that were so important in the 1960's and 1970's are less important. so why do members spend so much time fundraising? is it just pressure from the hill committee.

it is hard to comment on the motivations. -- colleen: it is hard to comment on the motivations. i've inc. everything is evolving. that is reflected in the piece in the evolving congress about what has changed in congressional campaigns and what remains the same cackling know what remains the same in part is incumbency rates. but having worked for someone that lost a primary, i can speak, and having witnessed that, i will tell you that affect on other senators was a miserable. it was not that they were feeling a primary challenge immediately, but it was because now they knew someone very well who had lost the primary. not so much that you are going to use the election -- lose the election but the threat of losing the election and knowing someone that lost that motivates

you to act in certain ways. it doesn't have to reflect the percentages. empirical evidence does not matter one bit to members. it is knowing someone who has gone through it. that will change and alter behaviors in weight -- in ways in which you suggest. john: did do want to increase their power on capitol hill. you could sit just perhaps that members go the other direction. that is to say the reason i have the elective is because i have the warchest. certainly able to think about it. >> it is a sign of the times when primary becomes a bird. the growth of the leadership tax where members are encouraged even before they are first elected as freshmen, to form a leadership pack. why? because they will call on you to donate money to the party, and this is another way to do that.

members are getting dubbed a certain amount depending on the role in the committee and leadership and so on. this is increasing pressure for raising more and more money. >> this is the national elections that john referred to it is harder for members of an incumbent to 10 votes from the opposite party. what that has meant, if you look at various members, the advantage over time, a fairly unremarked trend. the advantage that grew substantially into the night -- in the 1950's and 1960's and 1970's is basically where it was before. it is much smaller than it used to be. that is not just true with congress, but also with governors. i do not think that necessarily means you need to spend four hours a day on the phone fundraising, which is what the dnc told freshmen members to do.

maybe that is not rational allocation of time. i think in an environment that is nationalized in which the apparent advantages are reduced you can see why perhaps there is internal question not just from the hill committee but members themselves to go out and fund range -- fund raise so much. >> thank you. certain -- i served and has for 10 years. i would agree very much with what you said in the last few minutes. you may win the primary, but you have to spend a lot of money every six years for every three years winning the primary. obviously the benefit of being the incumbents. now you have to face much more money and you used to have to raise just to protect that. that has changed a lot of how you spend your time, how often you go back, and a huge impact

on how your day is casual. that has really changed a lot. companies can spend millions to the feet you hear you has changed everything. -- to defeat you. john: going back to a colleen said about the balance between the legislation a role in the rules that you plate, there is only a certain amount of time left over for oversight. >> i may be up to's, but can you talk more -- obtuse but can you talk about what you mean with the organizational factor. the organization of constituent service, and feeling like you are there to the constituents who want you to be there. when i think about the representation, representation

to what and in what context, so i guess i would be curious to know how that compares in taking a long view. and what way you think has changed now, whether there is a sick change in expectations from constituents about what it means to be a representative. -- expectiations or what it means to be a representative. colleen: great question. i think those representations obviously related to each other. they are not completely the same functions. they feed into each other and feet and forth. i think what has changed, what we have been very interested in, myself and two other political scientists, we have written a number of reports on social media, and how members

communicate through social media. we have seen a disruptive change in representational functions since the advent of social media. and also, electronic communications. before members receiving a lot of constituent feedback by telephone or by regular snail mail, which was manageable because you had a staff of systems, legislative correspondents and assistance usually led by the legislative director that would answer the mail and self-contained. now you have thousands and thousands of e-mails coming in on a weekly basis that you have to sort through the process. i think one of the most interesting changes by electronic munication, particularly with the advent of social media, and we have been thinking about this is who you

represent. who you represent. jamie and storage wrote a really seminal article about a decade ago about representational models. -- jamie sandbridge. one thing she talked about was the idea of surrogate representation and what happens when you are representing someone that did not vote for you that you represent a cause or an issue. we see through social media that members interact with people on social 80 or get feedback from people on social media. or their staff gets me back, and they have no way of knowing whether these folks are people they represent in their state or district. it enables members of congress not to have to serve in the times that dawn was talking about proverbially called backbenchers, people that are

rank-and-file members that are not committee members, not leaders. very much focused on the district and state. you can build a national following for yourself if you are adept in these new ways of communication. to me, that is very interesting a large-scale change and has huge impact down the road for the functioning of congress. we are just that the cost. -- at the cusp. we could take years from now see this kind of change. >> he has measured members twitter feeds. this is amazing stuff. on one point with you it your

book entitled congress, the evolving congress, so it is taken a long time to get where we are on the day of reddish elections. could you maybe put it into perspective that in a representational way, the u.s. congress and legislative branch is far more constituent-oriented and has resources that any other legislature in the world pales by comparison. i give an example of a conference i did years ago with the brits who were excited their constituents, about a 10th the size of ours, that they now had a second staffer in the district. this was about to be a permanent campaign. we talk about staff overtime, but maybe you could put into a little bit of perspective, the bull of constituent service or staff dedicated in a comparative

way. colleen: interpersonal office, a member that may have committee staff, depending on what his or her situation is, if they are a ranking member or subcommittee member, interpersonal office everyone in a personal office every single person, i think, there could be exceptions that think this is a fairly safe statement to make. every personal -- every person is engaged in some way, shape, or form. that is taking in feedback related to a members policy policymaking decision about whether he or she will coast answer legislation or both this way or that way or make a particular decision one way or the other, but also taking feedback about what is going on, local concerns, and how national issues affect the locality.

how national issues affect the locality, which is really important. >> at the and of the day you could say they see the policy world and national policy questions. out of the right eye they see construction of the district. they are all right eye dominant. that world they see, although it is both the left and right eye it is going to be given by the concerns back home. other potential political concerns depending on the objective is it is more national. colleen: i think i would encourage us -- the politics and policy are tightly intertwined and always tightly intertwined. member calculation about policy are part and parcel about

politics. how would these be perceived? how would i justify my vote at home? what do leaders want? they are never separate. that is why the organization of the personal office is part and parcel about keeping in touch with members districts. >> we are going to go over here. still looking for question? you had one before, so i had you in my queue. >> where do put the coffee cup so you don't kick them? >> the issue of partisanship. i wonder the extent to which it is different now in an ideological sense. ideology and abstract claim is thing about states rights has all -- long been a for economic interest in the 1960's and 1970's. and so on. now one gets a feeling that

particularly in the house there are members that will leave in the crusade for smaller government as an abstract concept. in the house you are in the same position as though the board of directors of the novels -- mcdonald's no longer believe in fast food. am i right about that? second, does the increase in abstract ideology actually affect the function? >> i think there are two constants. i was thinking about this last night. what are the constants in member behavior? the first has to be the desire for reelection, given to us by david mayhew. second to that, members actually believe in this stuff. it is nonfiction. it is true. i would not just segment that to

anyone with a particular ideology. in other words more liberal activists ideology. that is a very general laced statement. the chapter i have an armed services senate armed services i make that point in the version, which is i have a great vote for those that actually believe in this. they actually believe in helping servicemembers. they believe making sure we have a strong national defense. this is an actual -- something they wake up in the morning and think about. so it is not fiction. in particular, i'd like that personally. me speaking as a non-employee. that is why i like working for congress. whether or not you agree with a particular member or staffer the passion that people bring to

the job, particular police set aside, the passion in which they want to get something done. people come to the hill not for the glamour, the high salaries apparently, but people come to the hill can't they wake up every morning and think they can get something done, that they believe in actually helps the country. that is the second thing that helps members of congress, just behind the motivation for reelection. >> i concur with what colleen said. at the end of the day, so many people who interact regularly with members and staff, why would they go through that unless they believed in it? we only hear this all day every day. i am large, people would not do what they have to do to be there and go through what they deal with every day and a constituent concern and money raising and everything else unless they had

a larger objective. of course there are objections, but most really believe in something or they would not do it. >> just to speak about a specific point of ideology, it strikes me one of the differences members can fund, republicans can fund, there are conservative movement forces and broader politics that were not there and quite the same way. you can chase modern conservative movement to goldwater. you can think about this. i think there are institutions outside of congress whose value is to police what members do, in terms of dust whose job is to police what members do. -- whose job is to police what members do. a lot of actors we could put in that category. it strikes me anyone of the different between contemporary

era and this is that there is more interest group activity around the abstract ideas, and that might put a different context for members as they think about at as a combination of policy and politics. >> i think you have to differentiate between a strong belief system and what people call ideology. they use the term ideology for uncompromising and so on. these are the folks quite often against everything in the congress and are unwilling to even bend to compromise on a bill the code that is a dirty word in a self, compromise. those are two different things. i just don't quite know how you can down ideology to differentiate between a strong belief system, which i think most people have. >> i am almost tempted to call on people. i do have a question, and i will

wrap up. i want to make sure i am not missing anyone who wants to chime in. let me ask a broad question to let you get final thoughts. i will pick on john haskell's earlier point. i think a lot of us look through the framework that the party system has changed radically. we have had that in past times that all of the political beliefs were not in one party or another, but across party. people worried we are stuck, that is a tough time. you gave a hint that there is new to ask party system will change. are we in the era with polarized political parties where there for congress is in a tough find

echo or are there some hints of where congress may be going or the party system where -- maybe changing or move out of the paradigm we are all talking about? >> i will start by saying members have been chained into almost reaching across the aisle where we have seen productivity in the past month or so. the last two congresses being the least productive from all the rest and the lowest approval ratings and so on. public opinion really does help influence or pressure members to looking at new ways of doing things or just doing things. so that is what i would contribute. >> i just think it might not be all about the tight majorities because they are not as tight as they are. if you think about it purely political of how they do it, mcconnell will not be in the

majority in 2000 17 unless things that -- that are done that benefit mark curran, mark johnson, rob portman. i think that covers it right? so if you think of it in political terms, things change and things change. i think the politics are a little tiny bit different now than they were before. the republicans are getting in the house used to a situation that unlike with the speaker keep your to be in force lockstep. speaker weiner does not seem as effective. that is no criticism for his ability to lead. it is the nature of the coalition. it may open up opportunity for cross party agreement. i think we have party seen some in this congress. >> the polarization along party and ideological lines.

i would refer to the party extras in the room on that. a separate question whether that degree of low functioning congress is reputable. there is more variation. we will see variation here. it does not typically last that long because the majority party tends to overreach. i think there is ample room for more change along the way. you look at this and think this time is different but you might overstate that. >> do you want to comment on that or ask a last question to lead us to the end of the panel? john: i am not as optimistic i guess. it strikes me that we are seeing the variation we are seeing that -- i am just saying it is a small, baby step.

there is the broader ideological parts of polarization to overcome. it also strikes me that, and this is challenging this, we are not moving toward a less competitive system anytime soon. the partisan balance in the system is more even than it had been historically. the percentage of americans that identify to republicans and democrats. obviously the senate is very much at play. i think the white house is in play. any handicap is 50-50 right now. i don't know, that is for me to suggest when control of government is at stake, it just makes it really hard to take tangible steps, at least the steps that would actually really suggest a different congress might register with the public differently. >> you do not have to answer the

question, but could you say a last word to bring us to the end? this is a great collection. we are all in courage and do five the movie -- five in movie. would you like to say a last word about the enterprise and bring us to the end colleen:? colleen:d? colleen: i have been involved in a lot of research project in my career. this is been among the most satisfying to work with the expert that addition to the regular duties, in addition to answering request at comes from members of congress and their staff in addition to that, sat down and found the time, often times outside of regular work hours, in the evenings and weekends to write the very insightful chapters. i think it is -- i am very proud

to be part of the institution of the congressional research service at the library of congress, and terrific institution. we are very happy every day to come to work to help certain members of congress with the goal of an informed national legislature. so as long as we continue to be funded and congress wants us to be there, we will keep showing up for work in producing hopefully more documents like the ones we produced for the evolving congress. >> thank you to those involved in the audience for being here. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> today in washington, d.c. the atlantic council hosting a discussion on oil prices and their impact on fracking. will also take a look at shale boom in the u.s. and potential

fracking around the world. live coverage in about an hour and a half. on our companion network, the u.s. senate -- three of awkward general speeches. voting later on resolution stating the government's policy on the release of u.s. citizens in iran. tomorrow work on trade promotion. the house out today working on a measure to ban abortions beyond 20 weeks. they will start debate on defense programs. watch the house live when they gather in tomorrow on seas in. >> tonight on "the communicators" this year's consumer electronic show we met up with peter nowak who says we are in the a new phase of computer development and through robots and other technology we are likely to enhance the human condition. like robots is interesting because 2014 i think the year of robot angst.

i don't know if it day went by when i did see some kind of story for how robots ours really jobs from humans and how we will all end up out of work. on a daily basis you hear about a robot that is a better bartender, better waiter. so on and so one. the thing that i find that a point -- that a point gets missed that every prior revolution or advance in automation has resulted in better jobs for humans. we are really worried about the human -- robots taking our jobs, we have a hard time imagining what we are going to be doing not just 200 years but 10 years from now. i think history has shown we will figure out a way to combine with the robots to create new jobs, again, that were previously unimaginable. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. >>

if you trade commissioner is -- the european trade commissioner made the latest comments as well future just for the international center for strategic and international studies in washington, d.c. where she spoke for about an hour. scott: good morning, and welcome. i'm a senior advisor here at csis and i'm pleased you could join us for this morning's statesmen's forum. i'd like to also welcome our online audience. we are webcasting this event live at csis.org and the digital video and audio will be available at csis.org following

the event. you can also follow us on twitter at hashtag #csislive. the ninth round of negotiations for the transatlantic trade and investment partnership concluded in new york last week and as part of a commitment of our guest today and ambassador michael froman to meet following each round, cecilia malmstrom, european commissioner for trade, is in washington. we welcome the commissioner to our forum this morning. dr. malmstrom became commissioner of trade for the european union in november 2014. prior to that she was commissioner for home affairs, and has a long career in this field. most importantly in her early days she was an intern at csis. so this is -- [laughter]

this is a welcome back to csis for the commissioner. thank you again for joining us and please help me welcome commissioner cecilia malmstrom. [applause] cecilia: thank you so much for this. good morning, everybody. it's really nice to be here and it is especially nice to be at csis, where as was said, i had an internship almost 20 years ago. i think those 10 weeks laid the ground for my interesting in american politics and it's really good to be back again. this is even bigger. i am here indeed in washington to meet with ambassador froman on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. we are going out to assess where we are and to make sure

negotiations are on track. that's the third time i meet with michael froman this year. that is more often than i meet with some members of my family. i hope that is not the case for him. want to promote or perform those negotiations, we want to make sure this has a political touch with a regular exchange viewpoints, that we take stock of where we are, assessing the difficulties, the possibility and it's economically important for europe and u.s. and that's why we will keep on having frequent meetings until the very end of the process. but we also know that on either side of atlantic is ttip, the be all and end all of trade policy. here in washington understand the biggest buzz is about the trade across the pacific, and that makes sense of course. the pacific region is an

indispensable part of the world economy and the tpp, trans-pacific partnership, is a group that has been negotiated for many years so we follow it as closely as well. also in brussels our trade a strategy goes far beyond one nation or continent. it changes over time as well and right now at the beginning of this new commission i took office the first of november last year we are updating our trade strategy. so the things you have, a very deep and thorough discussion in washington. maybe i thought it could be interesting for you to hear about our discussion on trade. because we are now setting a new strategy and that is of course not an easy task because strategy means planning for future. that is unforeseeable. in my country, sweden, we've to say there are two things that are taken for granted, taxes and

death. the rescue have to improvise. but improvising is something you should resist as well. as a great american once said, yogi berra, if you don't know where you're going, you will end up somewhere else. that's important to remember. he was right. we can't predict the future but we have to plan for it. so how are we doing that for uk policy today? we have been starting to see what works already. we are looking closely at how the world has changed since we last met five years ago and we are looking to answer the questions those changes raise. we know that eu trade policy is helping us to do two things today -- prosperity, and to protect and project europe's land. first, prosperity. the eu is the largest exporter of goods and services at the exports support over 30 million jobs across our continent. almost one in seven european workers owes his or her job

to the export to the rest of the world. but the benefits we get from export go beyond -- our imports are also part of the economic because not only do consumers get goods and wiser choice businesses become more competitive. in a world of global value chains, almost 60% of the upper export is made up of imported goods and services. two-thirds of enforcing our energy come from materials and intermediate goods. and all these inputs also support jobs in europe. we owe these economic benefits of trade to the drive of workers and entrepreneurs but also to open trade policy at home and abroad. european union itself with the -- for almost seven years we have been pressing for greater

openness to work trade organizations, and we continue to do so today. these efforts create a framework that underpins the state's open global economy and the benefits it delivers. we take those for granted today, but they were essential to prevent a return to protectionism in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. and more recently, we've been using our bilateral negotiations to bring more openness and more opportunities for european people. last year alone we concluded negotiations with canada, singapore, and ecuador. these agreements are very effective at opening markets. they remove barriers to trade, goods, services, and public procurement. they loosened relations with -- they loosened regulations with traditional barriers and they work. in 2011 our agreement with south korea came to floor. and since then exports up 35% compared to the year before

we launched the deal. car exports are up 90%. we have evidence that our policy works and is helping to create prosperity on the ground. but europeans, as americans, are demanding people. they want trade policy that is beyond economic, promote european values around the world, values that we share with you, democracy and human rights, protection for the environment and quality. we know this works. let me give you a few examples. eu trade preferences help to reduce global inequality. we're the world's largest importer of products from developing countries. that's because we have a good and big market of 500 million consumers, but also because we offer full duty and quota-free market to the world's poorest countries. and because we are far more

-- and because we offer more limited, but still very valuable trade preferences to all developing economies. we are also using special trade preference to strengthen labor rights and environmental protections. we have a program that gives better access to the eu markets to vulnerable developing countries if they sign up to international conventions everything from combating racial discrimination to biological diversity or corruption. if they don't implement them they can lose that access. thirdly, we are seeking -- seeing some results of innovative tools like a contract with bangladesh on working conditions and closed factories. this is a compact between us between you, between the u.n., bangladesh government, trade unions and employers. in two years from the terrible tragedy in bangladesh for over 1200 people, women, lost

their lives, we have seen some important improvements in the working conditions and workplace safety. there's still a very long way to go but pressure through trade can bring change, and they must continue to do so. these are just three examples how trade can support values at the core of our identity. i think we can be proud of those successes but there is room to do more. the world is constantly changing so we must change for it if you want to keep going. a few recent changes are particularly important for trade policy. of course, first, the world economy has changed. the global economy is becoming more integrated through the value chain. emerging economies like china continue to become more important, meaning that when they need to find ways to connect to them economically. 90% of global growth will come from outside europe. so we need of course to engage with others. technological change means that trade is not only physical but it is increasingly electronic. digital communications are making new parts of the economy tradable and they're creating

new fields of business, too. and innovation is not confined to the private sector. the last two years we've seen governments come up with new and creative types of trade barriers, and these include localization, local content requirements, subsidies like export restrictions on energy and raw material. and trade policy is changing too. there's a new positive mood in the world trade organization. the european union and united states are working together to support director-general in his efforts to conclude the doha round, and this is extreme ly important if we could reach an agreement by the end of the year, especially for the poorest countries of the world. the most dramatic trend in the world policy today of trade is the proliferation of bilateral free trade agreements around the world. standing still is not an option. that would put european exports

at a disadvantage. another change is the politics of trade in europe. they may not be obvious in washington but there is an intense public debate around ttp in europe. it's front-page daily on basically all european papers and the equivalent in social media, so it's a huge debate and many people are very concerned about this. that debate has shown that the people are concerned about what they perceive as ttp's possible impacts, could get public services, regulatory protection, arbitration, environment, et cetera. many of those fears are not justified at all by facts but they show that people see distance from politics, from trade policymaking. they want to be involved and this is something we need to address.

our challenge is to provide a broad response to this and other challenges. we are doing that by asking questions about four groups of issues. first, how do we find a way to seek broader engagement and broader trust from the public? this has been one of my priorities for ttp. so far we've put basically all documents on the european site online so that everybody can see what we are negotiating and what we are not negotiating. so we are looking at how we can be more transparent across the rest of our agenda. and that means also we need to work very closely with eu member states and, of course our european parliament. they represent our citizens and they're essential for our work because in the end they need to give their consent to any trade agreement. second can. -- second, the broad conception of how to advance our values. trade cannot solve every problem of the world that it can -- but it can drive the right kind of change. one idea we want to explore

further is responsible supply chains. we are also working to address issues around raw materials, conflict zones around the world. the question is whether we can look at for the ways to address these issues by promoting the concept of fair trade more generally. third, our strategy must be broad when it comes to hard economics. the scope of trade policy has expanded greatly. there was a time when the main negotiation was about tariffs. then trade agreements took a few weeks. this is not the case anymore. we have to continue to broaden this if we want to be defective. we need to explore new venues like trade mobility, people who want to provide services and maintain goods already sold, and new subsidies. our strategy must look at how we move to deepenn existing areas

working there like energy and regulatory operation. can we find a way to make a different regulatory decision more compatible while making sure it still protects people and consumers? fourth, with limited resources we need to pick up the broad geographical scope of a trade agenda and make sure we deliver on it. the best way to tackle many countries at once is to escort the wto. we need to look at a post-doha agenda. we will need to seek ways to use the energy of bilateral negotiations to drive the multilateral process. but the bilateral agenda itself will also bring the amount of trade covered by open trade rules to two-thirds in the coming year. in asia we have deals with korea and singapore and we are moving towards concluding with vietnam and japan. we want to finalize our investment agreement with china. within malaysia last week we met with trade ministers and we discussed how we can move

forward in a region to region trade agreement in the future. we are also exploring bilateral negotiations with countries such as malaysia, indonesia, et cetera. we are moving towards a new phase in our relationship with africa. last year we concluded partnership agreements with 27 african countries, and these are very much about development but also about partnerships. because countries need to slowly, gradually, and sensitively open their markets to the european union, and this is a positive step that signals a new maturity of new africa trade relations, a partnership of equals. in the americas last year we concluded a groundbreaking agreement with canada. in latin america we have a broad network that includes central america, caribbean, and the entire pacific coast. our new strategy will also look at filling that gap by deepening our existing but old

agreements with mexico and chile. and then, of course, we have to deliver on ttip. doing a deal with our trade partners would make a major contribution to expand the amount of our trade covered by ambitious trade rules. ttip is also the lead negotiation to the most advanced trade disciplines. both sides plan to go for

that their investment will not be confiscated or discriminated or nationalized, but it's in an open, transparent ways that creates confidence. and we are working with this intensively -- is my first i thought that actually and we will present some ideas this week to the uk parliament and to the member states. hopefully then we can have a question resolved or at least

we can focus on other aspects. >> let me move to another issue that we are following carefully. last week we issued a new report fueling online trade imagination the digital agenda -- and you mentioned the digital agenda and how critical that is. the state harbor agreement is now being reviewed, renewed, and we know there's enormous impact over the nsa revelation. tell me what your perspective is on data protection and getting that right. because we are seeing obviously a lot of activity on localization of service. -- servers. obviously, the commission is taking some very strong measures against google and others and the american information technology sector is a dominant in europe and

there is some reaction to that, simply the competitiveness. how are you approaching data protection and that important transatlantic sharing of digital information? cecilia: this is a very important part of it because -- of negotiations because data flows across the atlantic every second and we continue to do so so it's important we facilitate data. trade and data flows in companies. this is the future in many ways and this we will do. we will be discussing this. when it becomes difficult is when we talk about personal data and how it is used. and that's what we have so far the data protection regime of europe is not going to be negotiated with ttip paper -- totip. we are updating our rules. we also, as you mentioned, have the safe harbor and that is about to the sold very soon. we welcome that and we're also

negotiating, my colleagues are responsible for justice, the issue of an umbrella agreement between the u.s. and why that is not part of ttip . it would be very beneficial to sort of set the standards and the umbrella conditions there. so we will find a way to facilitate, of course, data flows but to make sure that personal data is treated in accordance with u.s. i know if you are also updating us. the president has been very active in correcting some of these nsa, how shall i put it? some of the ways some of the ways nsa was using data that was also not appreciated by lots of american people, of course. i think this is a movement that welcome and that is moving forward. it has created, it has created problems for the trust between us, this whole issue. and it's important we build on the reforms that are being

made on both sides and on the reforms we are working on together. heather: you said broadly the european parliament is a more focused on data questions and the privacy protection issue more focus on the isds concern, give us a sense for what is the european parliament concerned about today. cecilia: a long list. [laughter] but the data protection issue has been very high on the agenda for many years, and rightly so. these are concerns people feel not only in the the nsa-snowden context but our issues internally as well. and also with the fight against terrorism to get the balance right, yes, we should fight terrorism but there should also be protection for integrity. there were concerns that for a long time which is good but i would say these two issues and with isds in the ttip concept are probably the most complicated ones.

heather: let me ask you an unfair question, so forgive me. when i speak with european officials that are engaged in the ttip discussion, i hear a common concern, concern that the united states is not as europe would like, forward leaning, and using ttip as way to push boundaries competed with its tariff reduction. would you agree that that statement, that you which the u.s. side was a bit more ambitious, more dramatic and pushing forward its goals? cecilia: well, we would, of course, like to finish the negotiations as quick as possible but we are aware of the political realities. i know that in the congress right now there's an intense debate on the trade promotion authorities, also that trade

with the pacific partnership in its finality of course. this is limiting a little bit the possibilities for the administration to fully focus on ttip. with business we really want an ambitious agreement because we did have a few agreements, that could've been done years ago but that's not what we are aiming at. we trade billions every day but we will get this broad agreement. tariffs are still done, but also look at access to our markets when it comes to the public procurement, when it comes to rules and regulatory. we talked about energy. it's a very ambitious agreement that we have sort of in our preparatory work, so we hope and we trust and we think of both sides come it will not be easy. hasn't