Transcripts For CSPAN3 Discussion On The Past Century In Congress 20150902

That because of our strength, the power of our banks, all we americans have to do if Congress Rejects this plan is return to the bargaining table, puff out our chests and demand a better deal. Ive heard one critic say he would use sanctions to give iran a choice between having an economy or having a nuclear program. Well, folks, thats a very punchy sound bite, but it has no basis in reality. As dick said, i was chair of the Foreign Relations committee when our party came across to enact round after round of economic sanctions against iran. Remember, even the toughest restrictions didnt stop Irans Nuclear program from speeding ahead. From a couple of hundred centrifuges to 5,000 to 19,000. Weve already been there. If this agreement is voted down, those who vote no will not be able to tell you how many centrifuges iran will have next year or the year after. If its approved, we will be able to tell you exactly what the limits of irans program will be. The fact is that it wasnt either sanctions or threats that actually stopped and finally stopped the expansion of Irans Nuclear activities. The sanctions brought people to the table, but it was the start of the negotiating process and the negotiations themselves recently concluded in vienna that actually stopped it. Only with those negotiationiran get rid of its spock pile of 20 enriched uranium. Only with those negotiations did it stop installing more centrifuges and cease advancing the iraq reactor. Only then did it commit to be more forthcoming about iae access and negotiate a special arrangement to break the deadlock. So, just apply your common sense. What do you think will happen . If we say to iran now, hey, forget it, the deal is off, lets go back to square one, how do you think our negotiating partners, all of whom have embraced this deal, will react . All of whom are prepared to go forward with it, how will they react . What do you think will happen to that multilateral sanctions regime that brought iran to the bargaining table in the first place . The answer is pretty simple. The answer is straightforward. Not only will we lose momentum we built up in limiting iran in nuclear activities, well almost surely start moving in the opposite direction. Secretary of state john kerrys speech at national skugs center begins at 8 00 eastern and its part of our Program Related to the iran nuclear agreement. Also a Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing from late july, plus well show you floor speeches by majority leader mitch mcconnell, and dick durbin. Congress has until september 17th to vote on a resolution disapproving the iran agreement. Both the house and the senate will be back on tuesday, september 8th and they plan to debate the iran nuclear deal. And the senate plans to begin debate on a disapproval resolution of the iran agreement on the day they return. The house is not currently scheduled when they would consider a similar resolution. Earlier today maryland democrat barbara mccull ski announced she supports the agreement and that gives president obama at least 34 votes to sustain a president ial veto. Institute Congressional Research Service Recently released a report called the evolving congress over how the legislative branch has changed and the future of the u. S. Congress. The Bipartisan Policy Center hosted this discussion about the report. Good morning. I think were going to get going here. Thank you all for coming. My name is john fortier, director of the Bipartisan Policy Center democrat project. Im here with a great collection of scholars on the u. S. Congress. Were here with a number of hosts. We, the bipartisan poeflt center, are a host. John sides, wholy turn to soon, president of the Political Science center, is also hosting this with us. Were here for a purpose, to celebrate and investigate the release of a series of essays on Congressional Research center and scholars on congress. That is entitled the evolving congress. Now, many of you know the good work that crs does. For some of you, you may not see it as much because, of course, crs works very closely with the congress. Its there to help our senators and representatives, to advise them, to give them background information. This is a document that is publicly available. And while ill wave it up here. It does not have the flashy cover. We will be talking about the movie rights, which youre negotiating soon. But could be found, if you so chose, at the Government Printing office online. With, again, a series of essays with the evolution of congress. How congress has changed in a number of ways. Thats what were going to be discussing today. I will do quick introductions of our panel. We certainly are going to talk amongst ourselves and then were also looking to open up to you. In the audience i know we have an even greater wealth of knowledge about congress. Lets begin. First, my comoderator and cohost, john sides, who is if you read your bios, not a professional staff member from the House Foreign Affairs committee. Thats an error. But has many wears many hats. Is associate professor of politics at George Washington university. One of the founders and contributors of the monkey cage. A Political Science blog with the washington post. And author of numerous pieces on campaigns and various attitudes towards institutions. So, im going to turn it to john shortly to my left, Colleen Shogan is the Deputy Director of the Congressional Research service. Shes an accomplished political scientist and scholar as well as somebody who has worked on capitol hill, combining, you know, Practical Knowledge and her scholarly knowledge and then also at crs, as i say, is the Deputy Director of the institution. One of the organizers of this collection. Next to colleen is john haskell, assistant director of Congressional Research service. Also a political scientist who has written, author of books like fundamentally flawed. Defence of legislative politics. A textbook on congress, congress in context. To my left, my colleague at the Bipartisan Policy Center, Don Wolfensberger, a scholar there, also a scholar at Woodrow Wilson institute. Hes had a long history on capitol hill as the staff director of the House Rules Committee, and staffer on the House Rules Committee for many years. Both in the majority and minority and a little bit in the majority. Also ran the congress project at the Wilson Center for a number of years. And thinks and writes about congress as well, including his Book Congress and the people deliberative democracy on trial. And then to sarah binder, who is both a scholar at the Brookings Institution as well as a professor at George Washington university. One of our experts on numerous things, but including the workings of the senate and the confirmation process and other topics. So, what were going to do it to john and then were going to hear from our Congressional Research service representatives, who will talk a little bit about the collection. Well have some reaction from don and sarah. Well have discussion here and then well turn it to you. So, john. Thanks, very much, john. Appreciate to be here. We appreciate the support of the Bipartisan Policy Center here. It has been in washington, d. C. Over 30 years. It is one of many regional Political Science associations here in the united states. In capsa, as we would say, represents not just washington but maryland and virginia, stretching even into West Virginia and pennsylvania. One of the things that were doing, and i think its illustrated here today, is to try to bring together the broader Political Science to die as practice in this community, which includes not just those of us with ph. D. S and people who have political sign experts and training and work in institutions like crs and other places. This was a really neat opportunity for us to put together a group of people that i think brings a real wealth of expertise, scholarly and otherwise, to this subject. The second thing we wanted to do with this event was to draw attention to the important work crs has done with this particular report. I think if youve followed congress, even in the very casual sense, its not hard to find yourself looking at graphs that show lots of things changing. A rise in the use of filibuster. Decline in the number of congressional staff. Decline of the number of laws being passed. A rise in the amount of money being spent on Congressional Elections. There was a phrase in Political Science from roughly the mid20th century that was the textBook Congress that we used to have. Basically, all the textbooks have been revised substantially since that point in time. Now, what we have is a congress that is very different. A Congress Certainly of the 50s and 60s, even the 1990s, so were very much in an era in which congress is evolving, for better or worse. This is a really useful opportunity for us to reflect on how its changed and to draw on the expertise crs brings to bear. Ill turn to colleen to introduce the report. Thank you. I want to thank the Bipartisan Policy Center, the National Capital area Political Science association, and certainly the National Press club today for hosting us to talk about the evolving congress. So, what im going to do just in a few minutes is to talk about why we decided to write this Committee Print at this particular moment in time. As john said, crs has one mission, which is to serve congress. We assist members in all aspects of their policymaking and representational functions. Because of this mission, we find ourselves on a daily basis, often, as you can imagine, in the weeds and facing a lot of deadlines. That work is entirely appropriate for crs because our unique mission to serve congress in its research functions, and for the research needs. The talented analysts and experts at 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 i think is because if you want to examine a Political Institution, it makes sense to understand why development, why change has taken place. Theres a lot of pundits and some scholars out there who label congress, who label the legislative branch right now as dysfunctional or as broken. I think that comparing the contemporary Congress Today and and the lawmaking function of whats going on right now on clil, to the congress 30 years ago, 40 years ago or 50 years ago, without understanding fully how those59 representational a poli policymaking functions have changed does not provide a full answer to that question. In fact, its problematic. So it comes to this. If the incentives and decisionmaking structures have changed as political scientists, we know the institution and those who inhabit the institution will respond accordingly. The stark dichotomy of a Congress Today, a congress that functioned well in the good old days versus the contemporary congress that is supposedly failing, i think, misses the larger picture. Furthermore, its also help for members of congress to look at the institution in this with this perspective. Its also very helpful for them if they want to understand the institution in a larger historical and political environment to have easytoread, axe sccessible es to help them understand about the evolution of congress. I think some cynics would say that members of congress arent interested in those types of inquirying today and learning about the development of the institution. Both myself and john haskell, who will join me at the podium soon, we both know thats simply not correct. Its 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. I was looking at the panels that were presented over the three days in chicago. You flip through the program and decide what youre going to attend. It seemed to me that there were very few panels addressing the development and the history of institutions over time. I wasnt sure if it was just me looking at the program or not. I talked to my colleagues and friends at the conference. Yes, everybody concurred that that was the case. I think the study of american politics has moved away from a focus on answering very difficult, complex, messy questions, such as, how and why does congress evolve. There are certainly notable exceptions to my very generalized statement, for sure. But american politics seems to be today much more interested in finding very neat answers, using very sophisticated methodologies, to very small questions. I understand fully why this trend occurred in Political Science. However, it is 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 tightly defined models. In real politics, causal arrows point in both directions. Causal relationships are over determined. These cant be completely discarded by political scientists. You cant just do whatever you want in your research. Its not giving you a license to discard social science methodology. They have to be accounted for and dealt with by political scientists, but that does not mean that that analysis should not be attempted or done. Legislators, in my opinion, look to scholars particularly for answers to the big questions, such as identifying the pressures affecting the development in the institution in which they serve. Crs, with smart analysts, trained largely in academia, but steeped in the daytoday workings of congress is uniquely positioned to answer these challenging inquiries about the future of representational democracy in the united states. So, thank you. And now i would like to be joined by john haskell, who is the person responsible for bringing this Committee Print to fruition. Of course, i second what colleen said, and we appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Committee Print. Not just with the distinguished group of panelists we have, but also were eager to hear your questions. I do request that any criticisms of the print be directed generically to john, and ill defer to the organizers of the panel, which are sides and fortier here. Our objective with the evolving congress was to provide perspective on the debates of the functioning of the institution. In other words, we wanted people to get the context right. In my view, the authors of the print there were, i think, 29 people involved in writing the print, all analysts at crs did an excellent job at just, that getting the context right. Kind of a kickoff to speaking intelligently, discussing intelligently potential reforms. Im going to do a brief summary of what i think they achieved. Im leaving out a lot. But i think they made 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 than norm in u. S. History than the postworld war ii period of compromise and consensus that folks often harken back to. As an aside, i think its amusing and interesting to note that much of the informed thinking in the 50s and 60s, the heart of that postwar period, criticizes the dysfunctional system that people seem to look back at now nostalgically. As an undergrad i was assigned the dead lolock of congress and made that comparison. That was written in 1963. As many of you know, the apsa in the 1950s, i think its safe to say, ver vently advocated for something that might resemble parliamentary style or responsible party model. In any case, we cant 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 due not just to the evolution of the parties but also Campaign Financing pressures, technology, social changes and really even the housing market. These changes particularly relate to the representational side of members jobs, although they also have an impact on the members legislative work. By the way, those changes we cant wish away either. Last but not least, the evolving congress Committee Print makes throughout what might be an obvious but i think sometimes forgotten point that has already been said a couple of times already this morning. No Political Institution operates in a vacuum. Congress is not a static institution. Congress, as much as any other institution, reflects an invariably responsed, histori l historical, social and political dynamics. Change and uncertainty are really the only constants in congress. Although i guess one could say that theres we could safely project out that congresss unpopularity is likely to continue. We dont take a position on that at crs, but im just suggesting that. Even with respect to the hyperpartisan state of affairs that animates the bpc and other organizations and interests a lot of people, there will be changes even in that. Whether hyperpartisanship intensifies or lessens, thats up for well find out. Without taking a position though, id like to hypothesize on a plausible direction. That that change might take. I see that francis lee is here. She and others contend im putting words in her mouth, of course, but ive heard her Say Party Leaders believe compromise with other Party Leaders undercut efforts to maintain or retain congressional majorities. The majorities hang on a razors edge in each electoral cycle. Essentially, the incentive structure as its described militates against exactly what it takes to legislate consistently and productively. Another way to look at it is that the political Balance Sheet for members of Congress Weighs heavily in favor of scoring partisan political points over against compromise and legislating. The calculus will change in one direction or another. I think its actually shifting under our feet now, although im speaking for myself and not for crs. Republicans, in fact, do have some reason to be more comfortable in the majority, at least in the house than they have been. And democrats have reason to be more resigned in the house, i suspect. At least research seems to indicate the structural advantages are strong for the republicans in the house. The imperative bipartisan political points, then, might not be as critical as it has been. As the political Balance Sheet begins to shift, ever so gradually in other ways other than scoring political points, it might even go in the direction of showing that you can govern or get things done. In effect, then, in this formulation, compromise and consensus building can become at least in some circumstances on some issues political benefits. For at least the Majority Party and maybe more for that. Ill stop right there. I want to thank you for the opportunity, to the bpc and the political scientists in the Washington Area to talk about the Committee Print. We really appreciate the attention that its getting from an event like that. Im leave it over to john. Great. I think were more or less going to stay here in our chairs. Im something to turn to Don Wolfensberger and then sarah binder. There are 29 essays. Theyre going to go through them one by one no, theyre not going through them one by one. Theyll pick topics of interest, and we have the house and senate well represented by each of you. Maybe turn to don, could you give a little summary of what youre reacting to, because we havent gone through the whole thing. And then tell us some of your thoughts about a couple of the pieces that you were looking at. Ill take the first 250 pages. You take the second 250 pages, all right . Thank you. I want to commend the bps for organizing the event and inviting me here and also to congratulate crs on its so 0th anniversary. And i think this book is a testament to the type of quality staff you have there and the diversity of subjects that you cover. Its a marvelous i cannot say ive read it cover to cover yet, but i have hit a lot of the high points that i thought related to what i know and what i wanted to know more about so its a great thing to read. What i thought id do is relate the some. Things in the first part of the book on not necessarily the role of the members, so much, but theres a great chapter intrukt ter chapter that traces the history of the congress, the house and the senate, and that brought back to me a lot of memories because i have actually been observing congress now for five decades. I started in the summer of 1965 as an intern for John Anderson. He had me covering the joint committee on the organization of congress. Thats where i met some brilliant political scientists like Robert Davidson here, who was kind enough to lend me the manuscript they were about to publish congress in crisis but something john haskell mentioned is very apropos. Throughout the last half Century Congress has been portrayed as in crisis. So, here was a joint committee trying to work through this to get some ideas to how to improve the institution. And i remember that it was surprising to me, since a lot of this was fresh, coming out of iowa and not having been to d. C. Or anything before, that here were especially a lot of witnesses that were reading from the same page. And that page was, it turned out, 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, second was the seniority system of senior conservative southerners and the other was the House Rules Committee which was then controlled by a conservative coalition of southern democrats two southern democrats and four republicans, often resulting in 66 ties on getting things even out of the rules committee. These are what i call the three horsemen of the congressional apocalypse or whatever you want to call it. Then fast forward ten years to 1975. What has happened . In 1975 the cloture rule was changed. Is that the right year . From twothirds of those present in voting to 60 votes. The rules committee had been brought under the aegis once again of the Majority Party. The speaker was now nominating rules Committee Majority members directly to the caucus rather than going through the steering committee. And the seniority system was effectively dismantled that year with three members being ousted under the new caucus rules that said that the caucus would now vote on Committee Chairmen rather than having them elevated automatically by virtue of tenure on the committee. A lot of things were going on, a lot of ferment in between 65 and 75, the reorganization act that joint committee had produced something in 1966, i s think, and then it finally came to fruition in 1970. There were a lot of things in there that changed the face of congress. Rog rogers chapter covers a lot of this. One thing is they had a Committee Bill of rights, which meant that members of a committee could override a chairman and get things on the ajen da. They had 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 a kibosh on that when he was speaker because of some committees that were acting up during his tenure. But there was a lot of transparency reforms taking place throughout the 70s as the political scientists here have written over and over. There was a reform revolution taking place in the congress as a whole, but a lot of this was going a lot of this ferment was happening in the house. So, i thought what i would just highlight are just three things that i think have changed dramatically since i first came full time as a staffer in 69 with John Anderson covering the rules committee for him and so on, and then eventually coming on to the rules Committee Staff. But one is the shift, gradual shift over time from Committee Governance to party governance. And i would say the turning point here happened with a letter that was written by john lafalls, cosigned by 40 democrats in 18979 to the speaker, speaker tip oneill, saying please give us more close rules. Were spending too much time on the floor with amendments. Amendments bringing brought up by minority, embarrassing us, being used in political ads and so on. Tip oneill began to oblige. When i came in 1969 the only bills that had closed rules were weighs and means Committee Bills up. Couldnt open that because you would open up the entire tax code, is what they said. We had more structured rules and more and more closed rules where bills were shut down all together on the floor from being amended. So, you know, 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, i think, was a result of the fact that Committee Chairman were now elected, had to be more responsive to the caucus but at the same time, they lost a lot of the power that was concentrated in their back pocket, in effect. That was one of the things that happened. To that was the leadership bringing the rules committee along on a lot of these innovative procedures that allowed them to have ntheir way on the house floor where they might change a bill all together. Lee hamilton, when he was chairman of Foreign Affairs committee, recounted how he would bring a 25page bill up to the rules committee and emerge as a 50page bill after a lot of other things were added. The whole thing of selfexecuting rules came into being. That was the other thing. Then the third thing, i think, transparency and my boss was a great supporter of the sunshine rules that began to come fword in the 70 reorganization act, making committees more open, more permeable. We had a lot of subcommittees created by number of subCommittee Chairman and subcommittees and so on. But i think the transparency then we went in 79 to opening the house floor to tv cameras in the senate in 1986, i believe it was. So, these are the three major changes that i have observed. Some for better, some for worse, you might argue. But i think its overall the congress is better for it even though its had a very Bad Reputation with the people. Thank you. Sarah . Well, don has two decades on the hill. I was going to remark when i first worked on the hill in late 1980ed for lee hamilton, i would selfassign myself a field trip when i got tired of responding to constituent mail. I would walk over to the Madison Building where the i recall like a crs window. Like, you could go and get reports. Id go into the reading room and hang out there for a while, and then id go back to work. I never thought that 30 years later, here id be talking about the 100th anniversary of crs. I have to say with all due respect to the crs partisans in the room, i think im the biggest fan of crs. Particularly in recent years, despite the rise of what we might think of as Data Journalism and the inherent increased importance reporters play on gathering information and data in particular congress. I think crs really remains on the top, right . They are not only the masters of collecting these types of data. They know which data are meaningful and which arent and how to make sense of them. In other words, they understand not only the details of 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 whats really brought together in the evolving congress report. So this morning very briefly, two general observations about the report and then highlight three chapters in particular. First, a general observation. I think the report offers us a deeper observation of the microlevel, whether its behavioral at the level of the member or institutional at the level of rules and institutions. But not only the microcontext but also the broader macro context. The electoral context, legal context in which Congress Tries to work and sometimes cant. Waultders chapter that don mentioned makes clear our ability to understand how congress changes, to think both at the microlevel as well as step outside the institution to understand the range of forces that have come to try to effect change within the institution. In a world where we often try to find these sort of mono causal expectations, to single out the one thing thats made a single difference, the report is a refreshing way to encourage us to think more broadly about multiple explanations 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, what we call in the business, a pathdependent way of thinking about congressional development. Past choices in the institution might strongly affect future i÷o development, future path of the institution. Now, sometimes that path delivers what we think of as increasing returns to the institution, such that members might benefit from those inherited practices and so they dont want to give them up and colleens chapter on the Senate Armed Services committee gives us a sense of that, their willingness and struggle to keep with those practices because i think it improoufs their ability to return a defense bill every year. Thats how you think about path dependency. You go down a route and keep with that route because the costs of deviating from it are too hard. Sometimes the report makes this clear implicitly the path can generate decreasing returns from the ways in which you do business. The case in point here, clearly from walters chapter as well as marks chapter, the evolution of extended debate in the senate and senators willingness to exploit the rules for their own agendas but at the expense of the institutions ability to function. Decreasing returns from the way from the way the system is working, which was, of course, on full display last week and this week as majority struggled with how to get through the amendment tree on the iran bill. Those are two general reactions i think of as lessons to the volume. I would offer two three more specific highlights from the chapter. Again, the walter chapter. What speaks to me there is he puts into perspective these recent calls for the return to regular order. Particularly in the senate. Walter puts it this way that regular order is a quote, flexible construct that calls regular order. When i say regular order, i usually put quotes around it. Now i have walter telling me that its okay to do that, right . That calls for regular order missed the evolving nature of congress as it functions and how it works on the floor. He says, look, today we have a, quote, 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 simply calling for the return to regular order, they might be necessary. Im not so sure. But certainly not sufficient to change the way the senate operates. If regular order is a flexible construct, we need to be very clear about what it is we are trying to restore in the way that the senate works. Second highlight from a chapter, colleens chapter on the defense bill, which tries to address the puzzle, why is it in this seemingly stalemated institution the Armed Services committee can each year return an annual Defense Authorization bill . And she points to three she sort of recognizes the ways in which they struggle to keep that annual process going as it encounters issue on the senate floor. Points to three issues here. First the rootization of practices, consultations across from defense agencies as well as across staff. The bipartisan staff culture, not only physically sharing space but the longevity of the staff and repeated interactions of staff that we think, perhaps, helps facilitate the types of negotiations necessary to come to an authorization each year. And colleen notes the closed mark up on the senate side, although not on the house side, but does raise the question about whether closing the doors despite all the benefits of transparencies, perhaps closing all the doors, with all due respect keeping lobbyists and journalists, out the of the room might help foster these deals where at the end of the day were not trying to cut up the pie. Third, the mark chapter on collaboration. He looks at the difficulty of sustaining relationships in todays senate. With the classic alltime quote from tom daschle from a david rogers article. Quote, because we cant bond, because we cant trust. Because we cant trust, we cant cooperate. Because we cant cooperate, we become dysfunctional. Which puts into a nutshell why the sustaining of these relationships across members might have consequence for the broader inability to function. The other quote from marks chapter is the carefully worded criticism of political scientists, but thats okay. He suggests that perhaps we have lost i might be putting some words in his mouth here. Lost the sight of the social part of social choice. Were very good at social choice. Perhaps not so good at understanding the social nature of legislative life, which of course is hard to study in a systematic way how preferences are formed, coalitions and boetdz are formed. It warrants more study. On that bright note, ill change. I think well take time to ask questions, and then well turn to our audience. Have i two related questions ill ask together in a little bit of advertisement about something the bbc has done recently, a healthy congress. My question, first part to john haskell who hinted the era many of us look back to as the golden era of congress of american politics, much of the mid and late 20th century was maybe an ab rags. That we had Political Parties that were not left and right as much. Much more overlap. That some of the institutions of Congress Really stemmed from those party differences, the rise of seniority, the importance of committees, the decentralization of power from leadership. So i guess i wanted you to go a little further on that. If that is the aberation, do we know something about earlier centuries . I picked up on your optimistic note that parties more separated, more centralized power still can be productive in a way people think not. Related to that, i want to ask sarah. Sarah was picking up on or putting scare crow putting square quotes around the term regular order. What ill ask about is this. We had a commission at bpc with a variety of things but we focused on congress, and certainly had an interest in regular order matters. I think youre absolutely right. We have to know what that means. I think our members were concerned that in this old world where committees dominated, where power was decentralized, the legislative process functioned in a certain way. Today as weve had incredible amounts of centralization of power, weve lost a lot. Intermediate players. Weve lost the role of committees. Weve lost the role of average members. Weve lost the role of debate on the floor. Even a simple way of thinking a regular order as the schoolhouse rock version of legislating that we think about legislation and debate and refine it in committee that we have a relatively robust floor debate where voices are heard and there are conference committees to resolve the differences between houses, somehow grafting some of that older traditional process onto todays world would have a benefit. Doesnt necessarily fit perfectly with the party system, but would have a benefit. And to that end i mentioned our healthy congress, and meant to measure how congress is doing in some of these areas. How much the senate has been opened up to amendments. How much were seeing members of congress are actually working and working here in d. C. How much time how much how the committees are doing and how the floor debate on the house looks. Those are some of the things we thought we should get at, that is restoring a bit of the old era to maybe a new system. So, i guess i wanted to get your reaction to that. So, both of you want to not just for walters chapter thats been mentioned a couple of times, but also mikes chapter which comes after walter. Those are the two most sweeping of the chapters in the volume. Both of them emphasize, among other things, the partisan situation, particularly post world war ii, was different than it typically is. There are more ideological overlap between the parties, but i think that the other thing thats emphasized that sometimes people miss, its not as though the issues battles were less intense, its that the which is to say, you know, whether it was comi witch hunting in the 1950s or the whole range of the battle on medicare or federal aid to education or most 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. And its just that the parties didnt line up along those issues. 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 probably through the 50s and into the mid60s. A lot do line up along the way the way the parties break down. I think thats one thing people forget about is its more intense now. Its not more intense now. Julian zellers book about some congressional activities in the early to mid60s with regard particularly to the Great Society is an eyeopener they had to change congressional rules to get things done because congress wasnt functioning. I think its a good question sort of about i dont know if this is a chicken and egg or cart before the horse, but the question is how, if you have a set of practices and routines on the floor that youre trying to get back to some sort of collegial decisionmaking that there is the capacity for offering consideration of amendments and amendments to amendments and so forth and working your way so the party leader doesnt feel compelled to block off amendments by having cloture or filling up the amendment opportunities. If theres some procedural set of practices were trying to get back to, the question is or the challenge is that you cant i think ive come eventually to the conclusion over the years its hard to reinstitutionalize the chamber unless members and parties incentives are compatible with the exercise of those procedures. So, i think the classic example recent classic example is the Super Committee created out of the debt debacle in the summer of 2011. They designed this almost failproof system. No filibusters, special rules, right, some way, balanced committee, some way to engineer so that if there was a bipartisan consensus, it could be protected through the process through the floor and to the president. But they couldnt reach the incentives werent aligned and preferences werent aligned to come to that agreement. So, the question on the senate floor in particular is, are members and the parties insebtives sufficiently do they have sufficient, in part, restraint to allow this collegial process to go forward . Just watching what was going on, weve been attuned over the last several years to think, well, the problem is these competing Party Messages and that harry reid as majority leader didnt want to expose his party to threats from the minority party. But whats been very clear this week and last week is the problem for the majority lead certificate restraint not from the other parties, restraint from his own members who found the amendment tree and found a way to get in the mix. That actually in this case blows the thing up. Then were back to the old ways of filling the tree and shutting off amendments, much to everybodys discontent. The question is, how how much can we institutionally engineer our way back to a functioning senate and whats the raw material are the leaders working with . But we have some interesting, good examples coming out of the Committee System here. And i think what somewhat speaks to colleens point in her chapter, is that in these venues where we have senators who are used to working with each other and marks chapter, right, if you can find these negotiating spaces where people trust each other and have some past history, close the door often to find that way to say, were going to give your party what you want, your party what you want and craft a bigger deal. I think those we see that coming out, education. We saw it seemingly on the iran bill. The question is, 100 senators, can you sustain that on the floor . That is the big challenge. In the sense, you know, mcconnells life is organized around five senators from blue and purple states who are up for reelection in 16. So, they if the senate looks dysfunctional in some way, that doesnt help him keep the majority. So, theres its a political incentive structure really. I wanted to ask a question of john and colleen and then don and sarah are welcome to weigh in. There have been a couple of questions recently that congressional policymaking capacity is in decline the article talked about congress being low botmyized because you have seen with the republican takeover in 94, youve seen a reduction in the number of staff, staff that have policymaking focus, Committee Staff. Theres a companion piece by a former crs staffer who argued that crs also has suffered in some similar respects in terms of the amount of resources it has and the number of staff it has. I wanted to get your sense of whether you guys saw that as true and as obviously the tenor of these articles is that its problematic, hence the name lobot lobotomy. Where do you come down on the policymaking capacity congress has right now . Well, were very happy that crs that the legislative branch and the Appropriations Committee continue to fund us year after year. Were very happy to come and do our jobs because we all really enjoy our jobs and we enjoy working for congress. I think it is addressed partly in the evolving congress. We have one chapter on legislative branching that talks about change in legislative Branch Staffing. One thing important to keep in mind about legislative Branch Staffing is, once again as weve been talking about here today, when there are larger effects going on in the larger macro political world, that affects the decisions that members of congress make. So one of the chapters we havent talked about is matt glassmans 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 enter that type of realm and you start to communicate with constituents in different ways, necessarily, you need to hire people to assist you in that type of representational function. So, we know that on capitol hill, for example, theres been more people, more resources directed towards press secretary, social media coordinators, things like that. There is finite resources. And you do that, then there be work on other functions that a member is responsible for. But i also think that the larger picture is goes back to the 1970s with the legislative reorganization act and the purpose for the legislative reorganization act. And why did congress decide to look at itself in the early 1970s and pass a modification the lra . And that has to do in part with not congress internally and congresss policymaking or representational capacity, but really those capacities visa vee the executive. And i know one of our chapters in the evolving Congress Talks about the resources afforded to the legislative branch versus the executive branch of government. And they pail in comparison. So thats historically something to keep in mind is that really congress no matter whos in control, its really one institution. Its one branch of government. And its ability to garner and collect information and analysis to enable it to participate in the policymaking and law making functions visa vee the executive branch. And i think thats something that perhaps congress understood very well in the 1970s given the pressures of the evolution of the presidency and the situation the presidency was in, and something perhaps they would start to look to today. The only thing i would add to that is the way we look at it is crs has always been essential to the effective functioning of the congress, but to the extend that congress does some of the things that you describe in the monthly articles then were more essential. That doesnt make it any easier for us, but were more essential. Did you want to weigh in with your top 50 staffer anecdote . I always thought that was an interesting point you made before. The roll call periodically runs fabulous, the top 50 staffers as roll call reporters see them on the hill about half house, half senate, and so on. But over the years ive sort of kept track of that and noticed at one point it was about 60 of those people were Committee Staff whereas nowadays only about 22 are Committee Staff and the rest are leadership staff. And that just shows you one example of the shift in powers from committees to leadership. And you look at the titles of these leadership staff and a lot of them are Communications Director, assistant Communications Director and so on. So it is all shifting towards messaging. And thats a big part of what goes on on the hill. And i think in the process policymaking really takes a backseat for a lot of members and this gets back to the incentive system. Is there incentive for members to really get engaged in policymaking . Do they really want to go back to detailed amending processes and so on . Thats something i still havent answered because i visited a few committees and it varies obviously, but committee markups now are prefunctory. Judy snyders piece in the print stresses although influence may have waned, its still important and members want to be on them. And that puts a lot of pressure on leadership. So they still see value in it. Why do they want to be on certain important committees though . Whats the main incentive . Do those committees attract Campaign Funds . Well, its both. I guess i would say the only amendment i would make to dons comment is going back to my earlier comments is that sometimes we lose perspective of this is that members have at least two constitutional functions. One is certainly policymaking, law making. And we tend to focus on that. But the other function is representational functions. And personally i think the representational function is equally as important to the policymaking function. And at crs we support members in both of those capacities. Theyre certainly related to each other. Theyre not completely distinct. So it could be that members could be the emphasis in this period of time has shifted from policymaking and perhaps a little bit more heavy into representational. Another point thats made in the essays when i was reviewing the evolving congress in the past couple of weeks is, you know, the size of a members House District has just grown average House District has grown over time. Its over 700,000 people in a House District on average. So 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 towards that function. So we have a credible collection of congressional knowledge on the panel, but i also see an equal or Greater Knowledge out in the audience. So we want to turn to you. What well ask is i think we have do we have a microphone coming around . And well ask you to identify yourself. Were going to where is the microphone . Okay. So we can go right here in the back. Morning. Bethany jones. Im with the e gronmy and soil society. First of all, i read most of the chapters very well written and a really good read. If you havent read all 490 pages yet, go for it. My question is the theme from the chapters that i thought were interesting there was this theme of globalness and this connectedness. I think were all familiar with the saying all politics is local, but im interested in the question of has politics changed to be more global . So i was wondering if colleen or john could comment on your observations or anecdotes, things youve noticed about how decision making, congressional decision making, has really evolved to be more about the global context. That certainly might be the case. I wouldnt phrase it as the politics in general i think american politics has become more nationalized. Even though members spend we know more time in the districts in the states rather in d. C. As in previous eras. So you would think that perhaps localism would reign supreme. I think what theyre spending time talking to people about is of course some degree local issues and local concerns. But i think its also that interaction with constituents about national and possibly global issues. And this once again goes back to how members are communicating with constituents, the messages that theyre sending. I was part of another Research Project not involved with the evolving congress about looking at oneminute speeches over time over different eras and coding a distribution of oneminute speeches in the house. And it was amazing how in the 70s and 80s and 90s, even into the 90s members were still talking a lot about local concerns, what was going on in their districts. But over time that decreases and it becomes more about partisan messaging and National Issues. And so i think that just in general how members interact with those they represent is probably more in line with what you observe. Certainly social media makes the representational aspect of the job at least national a lot of times, which is matt glassmans point. And walter makes the point which you may referring to with respect to your question that a lot of the bigger issues we struggle with today are international, whether its Climate Change or any of a number of others that may have been less the case in the past. Red shirt up here. Hi. Is this on . Yes. Hi, im Richard Skinner from american university. And since i came back to washington and talked with people who work on the hill, one of the things they keep mentioning is the sheer amount of time members spend on fund raising. I find thats not that surprising. Most members want to be as safe as possible, but most members are pretty darn safe. And one trend weve seen in Congressional Elections in recent years is that they are increasingly nationalized and partisan and sort of local and individual factors that were so important in the 1960s and 19 s 1970s less important. So why do members spend so much time fund raising . Is it just pressure from the hill committees . Is it because its important to their advancement in congress . And whats the effect on the work of congress that members are spending so much time on this . Its hard for me to intuitive about members exact motivations. But i will say, yes, the reelection rate, the incumbents in fact i think everything is in the evolving congress. That is actually reflected in sam garrett and kevin colemans piece in the evolving congress about what has changed and whats remained the same. We know whats remained the same in part is incumbency rates. Its not like a bunch of members are losing elections left and right. But having worked for someone that lost a primary, i can just speak in having witnessed that i will tell you that that effect on other senators was immeasurable. And it wasnt that they were feeling the primary challenge immediately, but it was because now they knew someone very well who had lost the primary. So its not so much that you are going to lose the election. Its the threat of losing the election and knowing someone that lost an election that motivates you to act in certain ways. So it doesnt actually have to reflect the percentages, the impir kal evidence doesnt matter one bit to members. Its actually knowing someone whos gone through it and that will change behaviors and alter behaviors in ways you suggest. Richard, you partly answered your own question. They do want to increase their power on the hill. Sometimes you could suggest that members see the causal link going the other direction. That is to say the reason i get reelected is because i have the war chest. Thats certainly a reasonable way to think about it. Id like to concur with colleen there. Its a sign of the times when the word primaries become a verb. I might get primaried. People are talking about this. But the other aspect too is the growth of the leadership pacs where they form a leadership pac. Why . Because your leadership is going to 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 their role in the committees and leadership and so on. So this is increasing pressures for raising more and more money. John sides, you. One more implication of the nationalization of congress gregsal elections that john haskell referred to is that its harder for members as incumbents to actually win votes from the opposite party. What that has meant if you look at various measures of the incumbency advantage over time this is actually a fairly unremarked upon trend as far as i can tell in the broader conversation. The incumbency advantage that grew substantially for the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s is basically is down from where it was. Its much smaller than where it used to be. Thats not just true for congress but true of others. I dont think that necessarily means you need to spend four hours a day phone on the phone fund raising, which is what the dccc told members to do at their orientation after the 2012 mid election. Maybe thats not rational allocation of time, but i think in an environment that is nationalized in which the apparent advantages of incumbency are reduced you can see perhaps why there is some internal pressure at least not just from the hill committees but maybe members themselves to go out and fund raise so much. Go here. Coming right there. Thanks very much. My names jim moody. I served in the house for ten years. I would agree very much with what you said the last few moments. All of it of course but especially you may win the primary, but you might have to spend a lot of money every six years or every two years winning that primary. Obviously you have a benefit of being the incumbent. But now you have to raise much more money than you used to have to. Just to protect that. And that has changed a lot of how you spend your time, how often you go back. And has a huge impact on how your days scheduled. And thats really changed a lot. The buckley versus vallejo and companies can spend millions now to unseat you. Thats changed everything. I think its most unfortunate but thats my personal opinion. I would tie that to what colleen said earlier about the balance and the legislative role and the representational role, which, you know, if you have to spend more time doing that than youre spending theres only a certain amount of hours in a day, maybe less time on oversight or something else. Phil back there and then come over here. Hi. Phil wollack from brookings. I may be being obtuse here but can you talk more about this what you mean when you say the representational function . It seems like youre talking about some combination of constituent service and sort of feeling like youre there to the constituents who want you to be there. But when i think about representation and sort of representation to what end in what context, and so i guess i just be curious to know how that compares in taking the long view, what representation looked like a hundred years ago or fifty years ago and what you think has changed now whether theres some basic change in expectations from constituents about what it means to be a representative . Right. I think that yeah, its a very good question. I do think i want to make sure that everybody recalls those two roles, representational policymaking theyre related to each other. Theyre not completely distinct functions. They themselves are feed into each other and feed back and forth. I think whats changed what weve been very interested in at crs myself and several two other political scientists, Jacob Strauss and matt glassman, weve written a number of crs reports on social media and how members communicate via social media. So weve seen a sort of disruptive change in representational functions since the avent of social media. And also electronic communications. So even move it backwards to email. Before members receiving a lot of constituent feedback by telephone or by regular what we call snail mail now which was manageable because you had a staff assistance, legislative correspondence and legislative assistance usually led by the legislative director that answered that mail and it was all selfcontained. And now you have thousands and thousands and thousands of emails coming in on a weekly basis that you have to sort through process. And i think one of the most interesting changes by electronic communication especially with the advent of social media and weve been thinking about this at crs and otherwise very curious as political scientists is who you represent, who you represent. And Jayne Mansbridge wrote a really similar article about a decade ago about representational models. And one representational model that she talked about but she didnt put a lot of emphasis on was this idea of surrogate representation. And what happens when youre representing someone that you actually didnt vote for you but you represent a cause or an issue. And we see through social media that members interact with people on social media or get feedback from people on social media lets put it that way, or their staffs get the feedback, and theres no way of knowing whether these folks are actually people that they represent in their state or their district. And it enables members of congress not to have to serve in the times that don was talking about as proverbial that arent rank and file members, theyre not leaders where your representational function is very much focused on your district and your state. But now thats not necessarily the case. You can build a National Following for yourself if youre adept in these new ways of communication, these new ways of representing others that may go well beyond the district or the state. And to me thats very interesting. Thats a large scale change. And has huge impacts down the road, i think, for the functioning of congress. And were just at the cusp. Were just starting to see it happen. Were just starting to understand how representation is changing. We could ten years from now have a totally Different Institution on our hands if we convene ten years from now because of just this change. I want to point out colleen is on the cutting edge of this research. She measures twitter feeds even. I mean, this is amazing stuff. On one point with you, so your book is entitled or the print is entitled, congress, the evolving congress, so its taken a long time to get to where we are, on the day of British Elections can you maybe put in perspective in a representational way u. S. Congress, legislative branch is by far more constituentoriented and has resources than any other legislature in the world pails by comparison. I give the example of a conference we did years ago with the brits who were excited that their constituencieconstituenci about the tenth of the size of ours, that they now had a second staffer in the district. Right . And this was thought to be the Permanent Campaign coming to so this is, you know, we talk about staff has come down in a way, but maybe you can put a little bit in perspective the bulk of constituent service or staff is dedicated to this in a comparative way. Well, not a comparativist but i mean in a personal office a member that may have Committee Staff depending on what his or her situation is if theyre a Ranking Member or chair or subcommittee chair, but you know, in a personal Office Everyone in a personal office, everyone, every single person, i think, there could be exceptions, but i think this is a fairly safe statement to make, but every person employed in a personal office is engaged in some way, shape or form in constituent relationships or representational functions. And thats taking in feedback related to a members policymaking decisions about whether he or shes going to cosponsor legislation or vote this way or that way and make particular decisions one way or the other. But its also taking in feedback about whats going on, what are local concerns and how those and how National Issues effect the locality. Thats the other thing. How National Issues effect the locality. Which is really important. And thats the blurring of the line between the representational and policymaking function. At the end of the day you can look at it say out of their left eye members see the policy world and National Policy questions, out of the right eye they see the concerns of their district or state. Theyre all righteye dominant. So that world they see although its both out of right and left eye is going to be driven by the concerns back home. And then other potential political concerns depending on their objectives if its more national. I play one on tv. I think i would encourage us to even put lets dispense with the i analogies, but the policies tightly intertwined. Members calculations about policy are part and parcel about the politics, right . How will this vote be perceived . How will i justify my vote at home . What is the party representation, what do leaders want . They are never separated. Thats why the personal office is part and parcel about keeping in touch with members districts. Were going to go over here. You still looking for question . You had one before so i had you in my cue. Sorry. Yeah, where do you put the coffee cups so you dont kick them . No, with regard to the issue of partisanship i wonder the extent to which its sort of different now in an ideological sense. I mean, ideology and abstract claims about things like states rights have long been sort of a mask for economic interests in the 60s or civil rights a mask for protecting refute lichl and so on. But now one gets a feeling that particularly in the house there are members who actually do believe in the crusade for a Smaller Government as an abstract concept. So in the house youre sort of in the same position as though the board of directors of mcdonalds portion no longer believed in fast food. And first of all, am i right in that . And secondly, does the increase in sort of an abstract ideology actually affect the functioning . I think that theres 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. You know, given to us by david mahue. And i would put second to that is that members actually believe in this stuff. I mean, its not fiction. Its true. And i wouldnt just segment that to anyone with a particular ideology. In other words, the conservative ideology over a more liberal activist ideology. I wouldnt separate that at all. Thats a very jegeneralized statement. I think the chapter i have in here on Armed Services, Senate Armed Services, i think i make that point in there in this version which is i have a great quote from someone who says members just actually believe in this stuff. They want to pass the bill. They actually believe in helping service members. They believe in making sure that we have a Strong National defense. This is an actual something that they wake up in the morning and they think about. So its not fiction. And in particular i like that personally. Thats me as a crs employee, not working for congress. Whoever youre working, the passion people bring to the job, the particular belief set aside but the passion in which they want to get something done, people come to the hill not for the glamour, not for the high salaries apparently, but people come to the hill because they wake up every morning and they think they can get something done that they believe in actually helps the country. And thats the second thing that motivates i think members of Congress Just behind that motivation for reelection. Mark has a great question. And i concur exactly with what colleen said. At the end of the day, you know, those folks so many people in this room who interact regularly with members of staff and all that, why would they go through that unless they believed in it . By and large, you know, we only hear this all day every day, by and large people wouldnt do what they have to do to be there and go through what they did to get elected and what they deal with every day and the constituent concerns, money raising and Everything Else, unless they had some larger objective. Of course there are exceptions to that, but most either left or right really believe in something or they wouldnt do it. Just to speak to the specific point about an ideology that emphasizes Smaller Government for its own sake, it strikes me that one of the differences that i think members confront obviously particularly the republicans confront is that there are conservative movement forces in broader politics that werent there in quite the same way. You can chase modern conservative movement to gold water and campaign for president and pushing forward and think about the tax revolt. But i think there are institutions outside of congress now whose job it is to police what members do in terms of just overall is the government getting bigger or smaller . In the ere rar of 50s and 60s its just theres more Interest Group active around these abstract ideas and that might put a different context as sarah put it this combination of policy and politics. I would weigh in just briefly on that. I think you have to differentiate between a strong belief system, which youre talking about, and what some people pa jortively call ideology and use the term idealogue against everything in the congress and unwilling to even bend to compromise on a bill because that is a dirty word in itself, compromise. Those are two different things. You know, i just dont quite know how you pin down ideology and differentiate between a strong belief system which i think most people have. With all this wealth of knowledge im almost tempted to call on people. I wont. I do have a question and maybe john might want to wrap up but make sure im not missing anybody who wants to chime in. Well, let me ask a broad question, sort of let you give some final thoughts. John, you may want to followup with one. But again, pick on john haskells earlier point that, i mean, i think a lot of us look at this through a framework that the party system has changed dramatically, our parties are more polarized, we have divided government as you pointed out weve had that in past times. But all of the political beliefs werent in one party or the other. They were across parties. So people worry that were stuck, that its a tough time, that were not going to get out of this. You gave a little bit of a hint maybe theres some new path, maybe theres some thought that the party system will change or congressional institutions will change . Ill throw it open to all of you, but are we in this era with polarized Political Parties where therefore congress is in a tough bind . Or are there some hints of where congress may be going or the party system may be changing where we move out of that paradigm that were all talking about . Go ahead. Ill start by saying that i think members have been shamed almost into beginning to reach across the aisle where weve seen some productivity the last month or so. When youve had the last two congresses being the least productive than all the rest and lowest public approve ratings and so on, i think Public Opinion really does i think help influence or pressure members into looking at new ways of doing things or just doing things. Thats what i would contribute. Its a political Balance Sheet. Its an incentive thing. I just think it might not be all about, you know, the tight majorities because they arent as tight as they were. And certainly i mentioned this before but i think certainly in the senate if you think of it purely political, which is how they do it, mcconnell wont be in the majority in 2017 unless things are done that benefit mark kirk, ron johnson, pat toomey, i think that covers it, right . So you think of it in political terms, things change. The politics of things change. And i think the politics are a little tiny bit different now than they were before. Furthermore the republicans are getting in the house used to a situation where unlike with speaker hastert, speaker hastert appeared to be able to enforce some lockstep, Speaker Boehner doesnt seem quite as effective at that. Thats no criticism of his ability to lead. Its the nature of the coalition. And it might open up opportunities for crossparty agreement. I think weve already seen some in this congress. I guess its almost two separate questions, first whether the polarization along party and ideological lines whether thats immutable and i defer to the Party Experts in the room on that. But its also a separate question whether that degree of sort of low functioning congress is also immutable. My hunch is as don suggested, theres more variation even with a polarized congress we will see some variation here. In particular unified Party Control has a way of unjamming the works and unified Party Control typically doesnt last that long because the Majority Party tends to overreach. So i think theres ample room for seeing more change along the way. So in some sense we look at this polarization and think this time is different but i think we might overestimate that. John, do you want to comment on that or ask a last question to lead us to the end of this panel . Im just im not as optimistic, i guess. And it just strikes me that were seeing, you know, the variation were seeing, maybe john im not saying tast good or bad thing. Im saying its small. You know, its baby steps, right . And theres the broader, you know, ideological parts polarization is difficult to overcome. It also strikes me that in sort of channelling, you know, francis lee here as well, were not moving towards a less competitive system any time soon. The partisan balance in the country is more even than it has been historically just in terms of the percentage of americans that identify to republicans and democrats. It is true the structural advantage the republicans have in the house is real it seems, but obviously the senates very much in play. I think the white house is in play. Any sort of handicapper in the president ial race is 50 50 now, back of the envelope. That to me suggests that when control of government really is still at stake, it just makes it really hard to take tangible steps. At least the kinds of steps that would actually really suggest a Different Congress and might register with the public as a Different Congress. You dont have a final question. Colleen, you dont have to answer this question, but you can you say last words to bring us to the end . This is a great collection. Were all encouraging you to buy it, to see the movie, its free. Thats right. But would you like to say a last word about the enterprise and bring us to the end . I mean, ive been involved in a lot