And academics are part of this discussion hosted by american Political Science association. Routinely congress pulled very portable people as whether they approved of the job it is doing. This trend is bipartisan whether democrats or Republicans Control Congress most people assign it a failing grade. The trend is also a longstandig peer over the past Decade Congress has not once achieved Approval Rating above 30 . It wasnt always this way. During the 1990s congress Approval Rating typically were in the 40s and 50s. Today they hover in the teens and the 20s. Once thought to be the great repository of americas republican Principles Congress is now referred to as a broken branch. Why exactly has Congress Come to this point . What are the causes of the dysfunction . Has anything changed since trumps election and the democratic takeover of the house . Can this longstanding state of affairs be changed . Can congress be reformed, it is so what do we need to do to reform it . To answer these questions weve assembled a distinguished panel of experts on congress with a variety of perspectives and ill introduce them all briefly in the order they will speak in alphabetical order. I will introduce them all at the beginning so we can launch into the remarks. Our first date is catherine pearson, associate professor f Political Science at the university of minnesota. She worked for several years as a legislative assistant to members of congress and she teaches and writes on congress, Political Parties and women in politics. Shes the author of Party Discipline in the house of representatives which was published by the university of Michigan Press in which i commend to you is a good book. Next well hear from molly reynolds, senior fellow and government studies at the brookings institution. Her research focuses on the role of the congressional rules play in affecting policy outcomes. Shes the author of exceptions to the rule, the politics of filibuster limitations in the u. S. Senate. Dr. Reynolds will be followed by matthew spalding, Vice President of washington operations and a professor of constitutional governance. And dean of the graduate school of government in washington, d. C. He is editor of the heritage guide to the constitution and the author of several books but most recently the bestselling we still hold these truths. Last, not least, be james wallner, senior fellow in governments at the R Street Institute when he writes about congress, especially the senate as well as on legislative procedure and the separation of powers. Hes the other of two books on congress. Most recently, on parliamentary war, conflict and procedural change in the United States senate. We will hear initial remarks of each panelist and then some exchange among the panelists after that, and followed by your questions. First up is catherine pearson. Thank you very much and thank you to the Claremont Institute for organizing this panel. Happy to be on this panel. We could talk all day about whats wrong with congress but we will limit our remarks that its important to note much of what is wrong with congress did not start in 115th or 116th Congress Rather different trends that have been duly for a long time. Its likely most of us will talk about the increase in partisanship and everything has come along with it. We have a heightened partisanship, parson polarization and intense Party Competition in the u. S. Congress and that has made it more difficult for members to work across the aisle through a variety of reasons. There is some real policy disagreement. We know this liberals and conservatives differ on key issues and key values but theres much more to it than that. Theres a little ideological overlap between the parties and the differ on issues that are not related to conservative or liberal core values. Because of the way voters are less likely to split the tickets and incumbency advantage has dropped to nearly zero despite the fact incumbents are routinely reelected, members dont have that many incentive to work with members across the aisle. In 2018, House Democrats voted together and against republicans on average 89 of the time for cows republicans on average 91 of the time. Senate democrats 87 , and Senate Republicans thanked 2 . These are not even 2 . These are not even a High Water Marks. Were looking at a very partisan house and senate. The rise of Party Competition is another dynamic that fuel polarization and the narrowly divided country with few voters splitting the tickets, we know 95 of partisans voted for their parties congressional candidates in the 2018 midterms. Currently there are only 31 house districts, one by democrats in 2018, and trump in 2016, at three districts won by clinton and republicans in 2010. 2010. Not only are we narrowly divided but most members dont have incentives to work with the other party and as this trend of partisanship has been building roads since the 1970s its only been exacerbated. Fewer members are institutionalist than in previous years and that goes for members of both parties. My book on Party Discipline in the house of representatives shows the ways in which Party Leaders reward their members for the Party Loyalty. Not for being institutionalist, not necessary for having good ideas all the back and help, but Party Leaders are more likely to give that but with the party, use partisan rhetoric on house e house floor, support the party in efforts or to block discharge petition efforts we comes to committee transfers, when it comes to getting legislation on the house floor. We know Party Loyalty is very important. Most members have incentives that a constituent base to be loyal and Party Leaders reward that loyalty. This has been combined with a decline of Committee Power and expertise, and the rice of intraparty factions. Well know the story of the reforms of the 1970s which increased the power of Party Leaders in the Democratic Caucus and rankandfile members as well at the expense of Committee Chairs. These trends were magnified in 1995 when republicans took over congress for the first time in 40 years but today we are at an interesting point. Political scientist talked about power as a pendulum, Committee Chairs were very powerful during the textbook error, Party Leaders became powerful beginning in the 1970s intensifying in the 1990s. But today as weve seen with speaker ryan, Speaker Boehner and now to some extent Speaker Pelosi, we see Party Leaders are struggling with their own intraparty factions. Committees dont have the capacity they need the Party Leaders have a hard time as well because many of the incentives have changed. More members of commerce are interested in tweeting out symbolic policy positions than being institutionalist. Accompanying this is of course a decline of regular order. Whereby members a few opportunities to take part in the legislative process with many more close rules whereby if there nepotism it in committee and have fewer opportunities on the house floor, its easy to see how members are incentivized to communicate rather than legislate. Another problem with congress is its lack of responsiveness to Public Opinion and major problems. Thats not to say the one at 15 congress did not pass some important provisions. They did. Extended antiterrorism surveillance authorities. They rolled back doddfrank regulations. They passed a new law fighting opioid abuse and a criminal justice and prison rehabilitation law. But if you look at the most recent pew survey of the most important policy problems facing america that people care about, though matter what the position is on these issues, its clear congress is not responding to these issues. Emigration, healthcare, climate change, or guns, whatever policy direction were talking about. Another thing i want to focus on briefly which is not a new problem and, in fact, congress is doing better on this dimension but still is a problem for congress and that is congress is not representative of u. S. Population when it comes to gender, race and ethnicity and when it comes to class. We know from Political Science research this representation is linked to substantive representation. Not only that, racial minorities, people of color, women who are represented by members of congress who share characteristics within are more likely to be engaged in the process. I can come the 116 congress is a High Water Mark in terms of representation but still falls well short of the population with the house comprised of 24 women, with 36 new women of republican women are dramatically underrepresented. There are 44 latina members of congress and 55 africanamericans. Sort of underrepresentation of really every group except for highly educated older white men. When it comes to staff capacity, its more difficult to retain quality staff and staff are not the first. Along with others on this panel and others in industry i part n american silicide Association Task force on congressional reform. One of the things the task force has been charged with looking at his staff retention and diversity. We know theres more turnover than that used to be and Staff Members are leaving capitol hill to do things that are more lucrative including but not limited going to the lobbying and mrs. Route community. Interest group committee. Many Intelligence Community bring for a long time and so we cant say the all change with election of President Trump or the most recent of congress. In many ways they have been on display and the weakness of congress as an institution has been on display. We dont just have members of congress communicating via twitter. The president and members of congress are communicating with one another via twitter. It is unusual to have a president who is so unengaged in policymaking and i think particularly under unified Party Control in the last congress we saw how that hurt republican efforts to get a lot not all but to get a lot of the policy priorities that they had actually enacted with some key exceptions. In the 114th congress was a republican Party Leaders really struggle with intraparty factions and i think many observers myself included expected if Speaker Pelosi became speaker again that she would enjoy some of the high party unity she did back in the 110th and 111th. While its true democrats are routinely voted with one another and against the other party, she was struggled with intraparty factions to a much greater degree than she had the last time she was speaker. More reminiscent of the banner and ryan era democrats of her last cycle. I want to turn briefly now to how Congress Might be performed and again theres test Task Force Working on this issue as quickly when the Things Congress needs to do is increase its own capacity. That involves booking of staff, paints and more, training them better, developing expertise, giving power back to committees, restoring to some extent within reason regular order so that more members can be involved in the legislative process, and then legislation on for least in the house of representatives, and increase staff transparency, diversity and training. Theres no clear reform that will necessarily decrease partisanship, the state Party Competition between the parties or the incentives that members have to bolster the party reputation and their own repetition sort of with regard to the other party thinking about the next election. It is also the case there are many partisans who formerly served in congress on both sides of the aisle who are also institutionalist who deeply cared about the institution, about its traditions. As i do think part of reform should be to try to cultivate a sense of loyalty to the institution in addition to party among members of congress, and that could be also through additional training or more sessions with former members of congress to share their own experiences, particularly those who are institutionalist and active and involved policymaker policymakers. Thank you, and thanks to the claremont folks for having me. So i share many of her diagnoses of whats wrong with congress no, i wont dwell as much on some of them. Catherine has talked a little bit about the consequences for congress of the particular combination were currently living with of high polarization and also high macrolevel Party Competition. So the idea that both parties frequently can look at the next election and say, and reasonable expect that the party if theyre in the minority now might find themselves in the majority after the next election. This is profoundly affects the incentives that members have to work across the aisle. It also means that i think theres a greater incentive among the members of the Majority Party in congress to put bills on the floor, that they know will fail simply to be able to say to members of their own party and the electorate to Interest Group allies that these are the kinds of things that our party would do if we had more power, and the ability to legislate after the next election. This is especially to under divided government like we have now, but a can also be true under unified party government. When you think about things like why did republicans before 2017 spin a lot of time in the house taking votes to repeal the Affordable Care act even when the new that was not ultimately going to be a productive legislative endeavor at that moment . I think its in part because the incentive of this combination of polarized parties and high level, macrolevel Party Competition incentivize doing that kind of, spending that floor time of things they know will not pass. Kathryn also touched on increasing nationalization of our politics. This has profound consequences for the electro experience and individual members. Their intellectual fates become much more attached to National Political forces that it once was. Kathryn pointed out that voters split the tickets at far lower rates than they once did. One of my favorite pieces of data on this point is that in 2016 it was the First Time Since the advent of a popular election of senators in the early 20th century where every state in which there was a Senate Election in 2016, the party that won that Senate Election was also the party that one that states electoral votes in the electoral college. There were no states in which that result flipped in 2016. Because voters are splitting the tickets at much lower rates, that gives individual members less of an incentive to cultivate what we might consider an independent branch, to work across the aisle and attract voters who identify with both parties. The nationalization of politics has also meant that our system is increasingly presidency center, centered around the president. As kathryn pointed out many of these trends are not new to the current occupant of the white house, despite the fact, particularly for those of us in washington, does feel like the president is at the center of every new cycle. I think youre a particular, going back to the early 1970s when we saw a number of highprofile pieces of legislation, things like the congressional budget act, some reforms to the oversight of intelligence committee, that sort of thing, we solve the past with large bipartisan majorities in part because members of congress saw a reason to Work Together to increase the legislative branch is power at the expense of the executive branch. As the president has become an increasingly central and polarizing figure in american politics, it can be more difficult to build support for something on institutional grounds in congress. My favorite example of this from recent years comes from 2015 in a slightly different arrow of trade politics and may be the one were living in right now. But in 2015 when president obama was lobbying congress on trade promotion authority, so he was seeking the ability to negotiate what would be the tpp, summit on paul ryans staff, paul hartlis at the time picture of the house ways and means committee, told the white house asked that obama stop asking congress to give him trade promotion authority. Ryan didnt want republicans to think that they were granting obama something special, even if at that point republicans also wanted the trade agreement, this idea merely identifying the issue with the president was making it hard to build a legislative coalition. Kathryn has talked talk about e decline and congressional capacity, particularly the dropoff i