to out-of-state care. watch the full hearing tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span. c-span now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org. >> current and former members of congress talked about problems facing the institution and possible solutions at the biden center for democracy and global engagements here in washinthis s about two hours. >> here. >> crossing the aisle. again and again. so i am zeek emmanuel -- zeke emanuel at pnn, and now -- penn of this which is penn washington. penn and now the faculty director of this. the penn writing center is part of focusing on the global part. -- biden center is focusing on the global part. we want to do more policy oriented work. 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 gd ll ears. we would love to put our muscle and 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 all capitals and we bring students from george mason and from penn 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 i said, the goal here is to make this a more vibrant place where we can convene conferences like this and other activities. we are open have been planning this event for a number of months. there have been five co-conspirators. it was initially steve perlstein's idea. to me, i love the idea. it fits in with our course. we dragooned in three others who i will ask to introduce themselves. it alsore 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 appreciate being here and i appreciate this discussion with former colleagues. it is so great to see those with whom i served and those who have served their country. you know, this is rica 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 dysfunction i think that is significant and serious in the congress. and so what is that dysfunction? why does it exist? and what can we do about it? that is kind of the discussion we are going to have today and i want to just mention -- i could mention a number of things, unlimited amounts of money these days in congress and so many others. i want to message -- mention social media. in self-government, the american people have sent some misfit congress over the time. in most cases, those misfits have been ignored and sent to a corner and never heard from again. with social media -- with social media, it is different. those misfits who celebrate -- and soda social media -- celebrate the anger and the ignorance that comes from their behavior and their comments, they become a significant part of the congress, unfortunately, 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 completely. it was like putting a drop of red dye in a glass of war every molecule in the glass changed as a result of it. and so, i think what is happening is social media is substant see and how people in e congress look at the misfits and can get maximum national attention and the question before all of 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 the people we elect, i■@s that e process, is it performative politics, is it social media, is it the or partisan media, redistricting? the parties have become, frankly, in many ways to molest diverse ideologically. they used to be more ideologically diverse and that contributed to moderation and now that they are more ideologically informed -- davis talks about parliamentary voting patterns. i hope to get into these types of issues today to stimulate this conversation. >> thank you. i am grateful to you for sponsoring this. 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. perhaps not as broken as the worst days in american history which were probably the age of acrimony from 18 65 to 1915, but approaching that era, and it must be fixed. hopefully, we can come up with ideas here today that will help us fix it. i'm really simple. why can't the housework work on a majority basis? it did in the ukraine and foreign a votes recently -- aid votes recently. why can't the senate work on a super majority basis? this would make the intention of 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 is the brightest american -- the 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 to be the final speaker at the convention. he was not a speaker. he was a writer and he did not give the speech. but the speech begins with a think is very important opening paragraph that says, "i confess that there areevion that i do nt at present approved but i am sure i nev -- i shall never approve them for having lived long, i have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information or fuller consideration to change opinions even on important subjects which i once thought right but found to be otherwise. it is therefore that the older i grow, the more apt i am to doubt my own judgment and pay more respect to the judgment of 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 don't get everythingou 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, last weekend was a break. the new york times on april 19 reporting about ukraine, wrote in its banner on the website, "democrats help bring the aid package to the floor. a breach of custom on a key vote that paved the way for its likely passage." that breach of custom, historically, right, before 30 years ago -it wasn't that big a breach of custom. it has become a breach of custom over the last number of years and i think part of our question here is what has changed to make it a breach of custom and how do we get if not the custom back, at least a different way of operating? and with that, i am going to turn this morning's session over to steve proceeding, -- perlstein. we became friends over the affordable care act. steve was one of the three people i le he was interested in the subject and not in the headlines. for more than 30 years, he has beena theked to. prize award for business journalism. for the past 13 years, he has been a professor at george mason and for the past couple of years, he and i taught a course of how washington really works, together bringing 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 all. michael moderator of this morning needs no introduction to anyone in this room. he likes to say that he was an affirmative action hire at the new york times back in 1985. he graduatedyale like most of hs in those days but from a large state school in the midwest, illinois state. [laughter] he began covering congress way back in 1985. and now, he is the chief washington correspondent for the new york times who regularly delivers very insightful commentary and analysis of the 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. he was a collaborator and they wrote their book, the broken branch, 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. i think norm would agree, it's only been downhill since then. you generally hear two sets of explanations for this dysfunction. the most common one that you hear from the members, at least in public, is that it's all the fight of the -- all the fault of the other party. our party wants to get things done. it's those other guys who are unreasonable and who are undermining the process. and while there is a kernel of truth to that going in both directions, our aim in 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 cooperation. this is not a representative group. the other explanation you hear for a dysfunction is that it is inevitable. that it's the result of the political polarization of the country and the voters. the realignment of the parties, geographically, as charlie points out, the clustering of voters into solid red and blue states and districts and the aggressive use of gerrymandering to encou 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 rather reflected choices that members and leaders made. choices about roles, about norms come about practices, about schedules, about expectations, about the distribution of power in congress itself. it is on those factors that are internal to congress, why the place runs the way it does, why members and leaders behave the way that they do that we like to focus this morning's discussion. as for members, you know the institution from the inside and as former members, you also have the political freedom to talk candidly 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. you don't have to raise up your hand or anything like that. we will occasionally exercise 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 md, i would like to start by putting to you the question that zeke raised a moment ago. this past weekend, we saw what can happen in the house and senate. when leaders decide to act as leaders, when the speaker decides to be the speaker of the whole house, not just the leader of the majority caucus and we w what happens when responsible members collectively exercise their power to marginalize fringe groups in committee and then on the floor. it seemed revolutionary but for many of you sitting here, you 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 oduction. all the issues we are dealing wi. the biggest change that i have seen over the last 10 or 12 years is that people's partisan leaning has become an essential part of their personal identity. i know in kentucky last fall, we -- somebody pulled statewide on a variety of issues. on every issue except one, an overwhelming percentages agreede democratic position and yet we have a state legislature and a house -- 38-7. and it's because people -- it used to be you or louisville fad now you are either a republican or a democrat. same jersey colors but again, to tell one quick anecdote, i was sitting at a bar, having dinner, a woman comes in and she's probably fiftyish and she sat down -- she recognized me. she said, pleased to meet you. i never met you before. i wanted to let you know i am a republican. i always appreciate the way you handled your job and then she went on this three or four minute speech in which, as she said, i am a republican once, i am a republican 15 times. after she was 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 ma■yjority thinks that. >> i thinkh 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 stig ticket voting down the line. off what charlie said, we have devolved into parliamentary behavior in a balance of power structure and even a lot of the reforms that are being proposed, whether it is the filibuster -- it would likely make us more parliamentary. we have got to decide, is this really what we want? are the 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. whateve, the minority party today no longer considers themselves minority shareholder. they are the straight out opposition party in the house and the senate. the filibuster was 57 votes and it was really utilized. now almost everything is filibustered. >> even things we agree on. quite stressed because they can. so even looking at some of the reforms that are proposed, it would make us more parliamentary. is this really the way we want to go? that is really kind of where it is right now. just put it this way, most of these 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 leadership, very strong for ukraine allx along so that had not fractured at all. the house was the problem, but you always had majority support. we always knew there were 30 votes for ukraine. the problem was this small group of the freedom caucus that was causing the problem and because of the two vote majority for republicans 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 on really encouraging micah johnson to look at the intelligence, and then the intelligence was showing things like these freedom caucus members like marjorie taylor green and others were literally echoing russian talking points. a number of us who were recently in germany, we heard that from bundestag members that their right wing is also echoing russian talking points, so these people were very studying in -- steady and getting the 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 was working very carefully to not attack. people were really kind of holding back political attacks to make this deal work is kind of washington at its best, that you could actually and that a well -- this is very archaic, 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 got support so you did have thit is that important. demo stake, and hopefully, this is not just a moment. hopefully, this is something where the majority of americans who really care about this can build on this. i hope one of the things that comes out of this is that the administration, republicans, democrats, who get t split in congress, will both bring forward more of this disinformation that moscow is flooding intowe know it's goingr europe. i hope this can be, you know, in this critical year where there are elections all over the world, that we can get a lot more of the information out and we can take this moment that we have had and build on it and i hope the press will be more helpful on that front, too. because this is really unique and we need more amplification of the good guys who got this done. >> if i could add something to that, i totally agree with what barbara just said. one of the things that i needs to be recognized as to how this moment -- i was involved and part of the conversation, tr
Related Keywords