force a floor vote on legislative issues. ydis is just under four hours. [chatter] [laughter] >> so i am zika manual -- zeke fqemanuel cat pen -- at penn and now the faculty director of this. the penn writing center is part of focusing on the global part. -- biden center is focusing on the global part. policy oriented work. we don't have a policy school but we have this beautiful site and we find and in the domestic sphere, of which this is a part. so that's -- we got good ideas. we all ears. would love to put our muscle intellectual firepower behind things. this really is our kickoff conference on this. frankly, in the last 3.5 years, it has sat sallow except for that beautiful view. ■the one enduring event, we have an occasional meeting here. we have occasional students who come here but the one enduring event is a course that i teach in the fall called how washington really works where really is in allals and we bring students from george mason and from here, taking in that view and talking about studies of when washington works. and what has changed in the interim period of time.but as is to make this a more vibrant place where we can convene conferences like this and other activities. we are open have been planning is event for a number of months. there have been five co-conspirators. it was initially steve perlstein's idea. toe, i love the idea. it fits in with our course. we in three others who i will ask to introduce themselves. it also why they were attracted to the idea of trying to think about fixing congress. we will begin with senator byron . just introduce himself and talk about why he's interested and then we will go to charlie and cooper. >> well, thank you very much. i■l appreciate being here and i appreciate this discussion with to see those with whom i served and those who have served their country. you know, this is self-government. the united states of america is self-government. people vote and choose their own leadership and they make judgments about that and it has worked for so many decades, a couple hundred years, but there are times when things don't work quite so well and that is a dysfunct is significant and serious in the congress. and■h so at is that dysfunction? why does it exist? and what can we do about it? that is kind of the discussion we are going to have today and i want to just mention -- i could mention a number of things, unlimited amounts of money these days in congress and so many others. i nt t mention social self-government, the amen people have sent some misfit congress over the time. in most cases, those misfits have been ignored and sent to a corner and never heard from again. with social media -- with social media, it is different. those misfits who celebrate -- and soda social media -- celebrate the anger and the and their comments, they become a significant part of the congress, unfortunately, as social media describes it. i want to mention just one thing and then we will continue. we had a couple of them show up just before i left the senate and that change the senate it was like putting a drop of red dyen a glass of water and every molecule in the glass changed as a result of it. and so, i think what is happening is social mediaei is substantially changing how people see and how people in the congress look at the misfits and can get maximum national attention and the question before all0hf us is to figure out what is that and how do we deal with it? >> i will be pretty quick. i was drawn to this whole idea, too. in my day job, i lead the congressional program so i have a great interest in making sure the congress functions and at the members find ways to better cooperate and do their jobs but as i think about this, i often think, having spent 14 years there, i think about it -- is it theeople we elect, is that the process, is it performative politics, the or partisan media, redist become, frankly, in many ways to molest diverse ideologically. they used to be more ideologilly diverse and that contributed to■u moderation and now that they are more ideologically informed -- davis talks about parliamentary voting patterns. i hope to get into these types of issuesoday to stimulate this conversation. >> thank you. i am grateful to you for onsorings. especially grateful to my colleagues because all of us have worked inside the belly of the beast and all we want is a better beast. we are looking at the building right, now, the first branch of government. most important branch of government, but it has been broken for some time worst days in american history which were probably the age of from 18 65 to 1915, but approaching that era, and it must be fixed. hopefully, we can come up with ideas here today that will help us fix it. i'm real simple. why can't the housework work on a majority basis? it did in the ukraine and foreign a votes recently -- votes recently. why can't the senate work on maf the founders and enable the institution to work better at least in my opinion. i look forward to the discussion. >> i'm going to take the prerogative of the host to say just a few more words. i do come from penn. our founder, benjamin franklin, i have often said american -- te brightest person ever born in north america. he succeeded in everything he did for world-class status, world-class inventor, politician, diplomat, etc. at the close of the constitutional convention, he was 81 years old and many of you know that he wrote a speech thee convention. he was not a speaker. he was a writer and he did not give the speech. but the speech begins with a think is very important opening that there are several parts of this constitution that i do nam sure i never -- i shall never approve them for having livedngy instances of being obliged by better information or fuller consideration to change opinions evence thought right but found to be otherwise. it is therefore that the older i grow, the more apt i am to doubt my own judgment and pay more respect to the judgment of others." it is an incredibly short speech, 700 13 words. beautiful sentiment about the importance of listening to others, having an open mind to change your views and to compromise. you want. and he knew for sure that all things considered, the constitution was -- even though it was far from perfect. how do we reclaim that sentiment is a large part of what we want to do. as has already been mentioned, lastnd was a break. the new york times on april 19 report ukraine, on the website, "democrats help bring the aid package to the floor. a breach of custom on a key vote that paved the way for its likely passage." that breach of custom, historically, rightbe ago -- i'g a breach of■@ custom. it has become a breach of custom over the last number of years and i think part of our question here is what has changed to make it a breach of custom and how do we get if not the custom back, at least a different way of operating? and with that, i am going to turn this morning's session over to steve proceeding, -- perlstein. we became friendover the affordable care act. steve was one of the three people i le he was interested in the subject and not in the headlines. for more tn 30rs, he has beena theked to. prize award for business journalism. for the pt 13 years, he has been a professor at george mason and for the past couple of years, he and course of how washington really works, together bringing students from george mason and penn together in this lovely room. and he is going to introduce the rest of the morning session. >> thank you. thank you, and welcome to of ts morningds no introduction to anyone in this room. he likes to say that he was an affirmative action hire at the new york times back in 1985. he graduated not from harvard or yale like most of his colleagues in thoset from a large state school in the midwest, illinois state. [laughter] he began covering congress way back in 1985. and he is the chief washington correspondent for the new york insightful commentary and analysis of the institution at the other side of the window. his book is called "confirmation bias." it explores the 30 year war at the j shape ideology -- war to shape the ideology of the court system. one of the few things americans agree about is that congress has broken and has been broken for some time. d they wrote their book, the broken 7zbranch, way back in 2006 and a decade later, norman tom came up with an updated version. in 2016, the titled -- it's even worse than it looks. norm would agree, it's only been downhill since then. you generally hear two sets of explanations for this dysfunction. the most common one that you hear from the members, at least in public, is that it's all the fight of the fault of the other party. our party wants to■g get tngs done. it's those other guys who are unreasonable and who are undermining the process. ile there is a kernel of truth to that gng putting this conference together was to get beyond the partisan posturing and finger-pointing and that is why we have gathered former members who were known to be willing to engage in bipartisan compromises and cooperatio not a representative group. the other explanation you hear s inevitable. that it's the result of the political polarization of the country and the voters. the realignment of the parties, ideologically, demographically, geographically points out, the clustering of voters into solid red and blue states and districts and the aggressive use of■berrymandering to encourage that and of course, the retreat of the voters into partisan and ideological information bubbles. there is no doubt that these changes in the political environment are a major reason why congress can no longer resolve difficult issues. they make it unlikely if not impossible to go back to the good old days but what is also true is that rather than trying to restrain the centripetal forces, these forces of partisanship and polarization, congress has the pitch them. and not just capitulated to them but turbocharged them. the extent of the dysfunction, in other words, was not inevitable but ratherchoices ths made. about practices, about schedules, about expectations, about the distribution of power in congress itself. it is on those factors that are inteal to congress, why the place runs the way it does, why members and leaders behave the like to focus thisnias for members, youe institution from the inside and as former members, you also have the political freedom to talk candidly about this institution and former colleagues that you still care very much about. we want this to be a free-flowing conversation so just jump in when you have something to say. we will occasionally exerciseur our prerogatives as the moderator to make sure that we hear from everybody and to get to some of the broad themes that many of you have identified already. with that in mind, i would like to start by putting to you the question that zeke raised a moment ago. this past weekend, we saw what n happen in the house and senate. when leaders decide to act as leaders, when the speaker decides to be the speaker of the whole house, not just the leader of the majority caucuand we saw what happens when responsible members collectively exercise their power to marginalize fringe groups in committee and then on theloor. it seemed revolutionary but for many of you sitting here, you recall decades ago when that was actually the way things pretty much work. so what is it that prevents that from being the norm today? what are the things that prevent members from doing that sort of thing? >> i will give it a shot. we could all go home after your introduction. all the. the biggest change that i have seen over theyears is that peo'. i know in kentucky last fall, we -- somebody pulled statewide on a variety of. on every issue except one, an overwhelming peragf kentuckians agreed with the democratic position and yet we have a state legislature and a house -- 38-7. and it's because people -- it used to be you are either in kentucky or louisville fan and now you are either aaf republicn or a democrat. same jersey colors but again, to tell one quick anecdote, i was sitting at a bar, having dinner, a woman comes in and she's probably fiftyish and she sat -- she recognized me. she said, pleased to meet you. i never met you before. i wanted to let you know i am a republican. i always appreciate the way you handled your jobe went on this three or four minute speech in which, as she republican once, i am a republican 15 times. after she was finished, i said, i appreciate all those comments. i just feel sad that you think it is important that you know that i am a republican, that that is the most important thing i should know about you and she acted like i had hit her almost. she said, i'm going to have to think about that. that is the way people think about themselves and it is reflected in the way members behave because they are going home in their bubbles adhering the same thing. >> do members now think of themselves as primarily -- first thing -- i am a republican member of the house of general -- that's how they actually think of themselves? >> i would say a significant majority thinks that. >> i think it starts with the voters. we are seeing less ticket splitting at any time in history. people used to vote for the number on the jersey and now we are seeing the color. we are seeing straight ticket voting down the line. off what charlie■amentary behavior in a balance of power t of the reforms that are being proposed, whether it is the filibuster -- it would likely make us more parliamentary. we have got to decide, is this really what we want? are the coalitions that we have today -- are these temporary or do they devolve into something else and we move onto something else? >> when you say parliamentary, i think i know what you mean but maybe it would be helpful -- what do you mean? >> parties when. they control all of the levers of government. they move their platform forward and that is what they do. the minority basically said there and ways to become the majority. what has happened here, steve, the minority party today no longer themselves minority shareholder. they are the straight out opposition party in the house and the senate. the filibuster was 57 votes and it was really utilized. now almost everything is filibustered. >> even things we agree on. q-■squite stressed because they. looking at some of the reforms that are proposed, it would make us more parliamentary. is this really the way we want to go? that is really kind of where it is right now. just put it this way, most of these districts -- party districts. november for most members is a constitutional formality. their primary is where they put their time and voting records because that is what makes the district -- the difference. the districts have gone from here to here. the way people receive the news has gone from factual, vented news, outta here, where everybody has their own truth and they don't tune in for information. they tune in for affirmation to get their views validated and the money has moved from the parties which were a centering force in american politics for 200 years after the super pack -- 501(c) four's, enforcement mechanisms in primaries, and there's no cavalry for members who deviate from the party line. i think those factors together have made it very difficult for members to step across those lines and get -- get outside of their comfort zone. >> i would like to go back to what happened this past weekend because i do think it is pretty exciting that you did have this moment, people who were very principled and who had really been staying at it on the ukraine issue, israel, taiwan. but you have leaders like mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer who we know had been talking almost every day, certainly every week, about keeping this coalition together and the senate, republican and democrat leadersh, ukraine all along so that had not fractured at all. the house was the problem, but you always had majority support. we always knew there were 300 votes for ukraine. the problem was this small group s causing the problem and because of the two vote majority for republicans that was holding it up, but you had leaders like mike, who heads up the affairs, mike rogers, armed services, who stayed committed to this and their democratic partners also stayed committed to this, who were unrelenting, and they were staying encouraging micah johnson to look at the intelligence, and then the intelligence was showing things like these freedomgreen and othy echoing russian talking points. a number of us who were recently in germany, we heard that from bundestag members that their right wing is also echoing russian talking were very study- steady and getting the information out, working with think tanks and people in washington to get the message out and allies and i know there were all kinds of, you know, information flows going in very steadily and president biden wat attack. people were really kind back ps to make this deal work and that is kind of washington at its best, that you cou and that a wl -- this is verchaic, but the rule went through with democratic support, which never happens and it's something that, you know, that -- when the republicans on that committee that oppose it thought -- ok, no, we can stop it. the freedom caucus guys on the rope -- was committee, we are going to stop it, and then they rise to the occasion because it] is that important. democracy is at stake, and hopefully, this is not just a moment. this is something where the majority of america who really care about this can build on this. i hope one of comes out of this is that the administration, republicans, democrats, who get the split in congress, willh bring forward more of this disinformation that moscow is we know it's going all over europe. i hope this can be, you know, in this critical year where there are elections all over the world, that we can get a lot more of the information out and we can take this moment that we have had and build on it and i hope the press will be more helpful on that front, too. because this is really unique and we need more amplification of the good■w who got this done. >> if i could add something to that, i totally agree with what barbara just said. one of the things that i think needs to be recognized as to how this moment -- i was and part of the conversation, trying to help foster and develop the opportunity for that to ripen. really, to me, what i witnessed conversation -- is the level of trust that it needed -- that needed to occur in order for that to happen. >> that is between who about what? >> democrats and republicans and micah johnson in particular in the house because with the democrats crossing over that vote in the rules committee, and the rules committee is very critical to this conversation and this solution. they did that, recognizing -- and the republicans trusted their word that they would be there. in order to make sure that the freedom caucus did not exert its authority in a way that took that down. and on top of that, the trust that mike has and the people that will have his back as democrats to stay in the seat was honored and committed to face-to-face, eyeball eyeball. they demonstrated your word in that building matters. and when you give that word, that allows it to function at the level that you saw it happen, in my humble opinion, last weekend. once that word is no longer good or they are not good men and women of their word in the institution, i think that is the path we are on as we go forward. that is when i really get concerned about the viability of the institution. >> we are talking about some of the structural issues that keep congress from functioning in the way that it means to and i want to build on this question of trust because i think in order to buiru build relationships, and there are many dis
Related Keywords