Former Lawmakers Discuss Improving Congress, Part 2 : CSPAN : June 1, 2024 9:11pm-10:06pm EDT : Free Borrow & Streaming : Internet Archive (2024)

the last word on this session. >> folks who have not served in congress don't understand, this is what congress will do in 2024. folks back home think that work is a five day a week job. here, we basically work on wednesday. you come here tuesday and thursday, fly in and fly out days. the one day that the house is in session is wednesday. that is when all the constituts back home. if you don't greet your constituents who traveled all the way to washington to see you and miss your hearing, miss your markups -- so we have really collapsed the schedule until one day a week. for a part-time job. we are working hard campaigning back home.

but that is a different job from what the founders intended. >> we will be back here in 10 slightly after 11:15. thank you. [indistinct chatter]

>> ok. óeveryone, check your phones one last time. welcome back. welcome back to our viewers on c-span. >> wrapping up,social media, i m of. when i started covering washington, we would write one story at the end of the day, maybe a couple of week. being written all day. there is such a variety of

stories and reporters are chasing members around constantly, posting, putting new stories up. mammy, philadelphia -- miami, philadelphia, charlotte, presence.ke that had some have too much media, some lack of media. how much do you think the constant churn of media and twitter all day -- that's got to be having some sort of effect here. mainly negatively. >> there were six of us, three of us in a roo a bipartisan group that went to germany for the week earlier this monwe spoke to thousands o. we lectured at colleges, high schools, bundestag,

american chamber and others. i was personally amazed at how literate -- how the students knew about america and our politics. they knew about mtg. they knew the people. i don't know that you would have that same reaction. i did a school every week when i was in congress until covid. the local news covage --the chicago tribune used to have 80, 100 people here. now you look at your local papers, and there's nothing there. in michigan, we don't get the times or the post. we got the wall street journal. [laughter] their cog's not the normal

person this going to get it. at two kids in their 30's, they don't follow the news. but i was amazed, in germany, they really knew the they asked wonderful questions. >>■ is that a good thing? that can be a good or bad thing. >> if you are a member and voters are not paying attention, you could argue, i have freedom to do what i want to do, on the other hand -- >> i would bet the two people that tk seat, most people have no idea that they both voted no on ukraine last weekend. >> the students were very interested in ukraine, democracy issues. issues like russia infiltrating their intelligence systems. they were very aware of sharp group

of students and business leaders. >> well -- well, so, is the disappearance of so-called local news outlets have a bad effect on the voters, members? which way does it could be libeg not to have to worry about people like me. tell me about that. what do you think, tom? >> it works both ways. if it affects the it will affect the members. this up -- they tune into source. theirs is probably different than mine. that is their world. that is their bubble. different understandings of how congress works, the world works. it adds to the polarization.

>> i will make two observations i made during the last year. during the big speakers fight at the beginning of this session, i looked down at any moment in time,ht least half the members were on their phones either reading or typing. these are members of congress. they were not talking to each other. they were on the phone. . that tells me something about where their attention is. >> checking their twitter mentions. [laughter] >> there was a time when i ran a house office, and we had one press person in both -- one for both washington and the district. today, in the standard house office, you have a director, deputy communications director and th press secretary who was below the first two. two things i w it,

it's very difficult to get a busy.call returned from any of and what they are very busy social media and doing social media feeds. they don't just social media outgoing things. most house offices, the number of communications people exceeds the number of legislative assistants by at least one or two, the house office. i don't know how it goes in the senate. what does that tell you about how they are spending their time and their priority? >> i will build on that. i try to always mentor new members coming in. appalled me -- it appalled me towards the end of my career that some of the members who were very popular we advising there from the freshman members coming in, you don't need a policy team, all you need is a co team -- com

team. they don't have policy stuff. them. they are built for coms operations. their golden motivation is to get the clicks, minutes of fame. it l of fundraising opportuti and $20 a. that is what they teach each other that you are supposed to do as a member of congress. that is a real problem. the media issue -- i can't tell you how many times even seasoned members when i was there, i was in a majority maker seat. i got attacked all the time. both sides. left and right. i would get daily reports for my team. what is coming and?nc you gedata sheets -- what is coming in? you get data sheets. we would see, who was responding? i would get at least 2,000,

3000 calls a day. it was not unusual. but i would have some numbers. if republicans got 100 calls, they would be ci9rying to me, we have to stop this. do you know how upset my people are? how many people called you? 100. [laughter] it was amazing to me the lack of confidence and leadership they had. they could not stand up to to hundred people bothering them by just sending an e-mail in. i would get 2000 and. >>■+ and police protection -- 2000 a day. >> and police protection. >> at the end of the day, in in the mirror. >> it is sca what you said about policy people. a big loss of policy expertise on the hill. this stuff? >> charlie rangel said it best. when we were complaining that newt gingrich started this

process of giving the power out of the speaker's office. charlie says, yeah, newt started it but nancy perfected it. they don't have power to do their jobs as legislatives. that's what i learned. there is very limited power outside the speaker. until you give members that opportunity they came to washington to do, you will continue to have this cancer growth. >> a lot of them don't even want to pass bills. what is the point of saying, we will give you more power? they don't want to do anything, what are we giving them more powerful? >> i want to express there may be a difference here, a partis d democrat, however far left, who doesn't have the regular complement of legislative staff. >> would you say aoc has that? >> i have a text from a young

guy, a student at a professor, a claimant activist from my district who asked me for a recommendation for her office, and i had to tell them, you never actually worked for me, love ya, but you were not a student of mine, i don't give recommendations to wonderful young people that i don't know about their work. that would be inappropriate. he texan and -- he texted me back, no problem, i've already got the job. is that a lot of the younger new members on the democratic side are communications geniuses. they are not just checking. they may be putting out a tweet or doing something. !@ythey're very fast i'll add i-

facile at it. i don't think the democrats -- i don't think it's a case we don't want to legislate. the case that we don't want to legislate. people may not like the green new dealeo or medicare for all. but those people actually turn it into law. even if they may want things we don't all agree with. but they really want to legislate. >> i want to go back to this point i wanted to raise earlier. i want to give a shout out for party identity. i don't think there's anything wrong with identifying with your party and i the challenge is when you allowy of doing work. one of the things that's changed tremyears is you had republicand democrats who had a basic belief in government, they may have

disagreed about how much government or where government would work best or not but they did have a fundamental belief government was ok. the difference today is you have a set of people who really want to crash and burn, ty don't believe in government at all. as a result, why do you need policy people around? why do you need to participate in a committee? because you want to see it crash and burn. we do have to figure out a way where we got to a point where people have some basic belief system and government and have the wherewithal to make proposals that either make government work better or figure out ways to compromise. i think that is the real problei don't really have a prom with identifying as a democrat. for me it's about a value system. but i do actually believe in

government. >> that's what■: ia proud republican who wants to push back on government because i think we both agree that freedom , that is why from a republican perspective, our success is not necessarily about getting legislation passed, i'getting sd within the confines of a limited government and finding the compromised position takes a lot of work of listening to ■4your idea and what side of government you are willing to expand to and accept and i'm willing to put a restriction on. andy a i talked many times, he is very left. i am a proud conservative republican. but i'm willing to stay in the room toten. i think we both agree, there are limits and that's why the founding fathers put this mission in under the constitution. >> you can have that debate when you both believe it should exist at all. that's a debate you can have. if you have one set of people

who don't believe in it at all, it's tough to have the debate about what the limits are. >> we haven't talked about the dynamic in which both parties don't want to see the other party get legislative victories. >> good point. >> clearly with the immigration bill that came over from the -- that the senate passed. ump said, we can't give them a victory in an election year. i was on the ways and means, while doing the affordable care act, weting with members of the committee, not one staff member, unheard of. the chair asked the republicans, is there a way we can write a support? and i forgot who the ranking member was -- he saidhi was

no, a float out no. -- flat out no. on some things ourselves. when you have that kind of mentality, the biggest problem is there really isn't a governing mentality in washington. there is an electoral mentality. regardless of the issue, it is, how do i get an electoral advantage against the other side? not the advantage for the cofrom that. part of it is our own frustration as memrs did the re, over the last couple years, we have done some things, but are frustration we were not able to do much of any consequence and therefore the focus has to be on preserving the majority are not worrying on policy as much. >>afternoon.

is important to our -- to acknowledge leadership depends on followership. we have some rank-and-file famous leaders here. but you have more independence and freedom than some want to realize. they can't do much to you. exactly what tom was saying with charlie wrangle, ne gingrich -- newt gingrich started the strong speakership, nancy pelosi perfected it. if the individual members real independent contractors, they are not employees, they raise their own money, they have their own district, their own base and popularity, there's very little the national party can do to them. but people are afraid to exercise that democ easier to gt

get hassle to go get it. it is a balance betwn leadership and followership. we need a healthy independence. no antigovernment --i love your term exotics. [laughter] you have to believe in the enterprise. that's the oath of office. people who betray itfrom day ont be here. it is supposed to mean something. >> you described a berkey and model there. there are very few left in congress. members worry about their primaries. it's not just the leadership. it is the primarydoesn't take oe crowleys to get everybody back into that safe space. >> with the advantage incumbency, if you do a minimal job, you should be able to quell much opposition in the primary. joe crowley is an excellent member. he did not campaign.

he took it for granted. dhe was still on the ballot. lost.uld have still run but members choose to. my from worry is the best members are the first to leave. we have seen some examples of that. why do the less good members stay the longest? [laughter] >> looks like we are all here. >> i think we have identified a very important question. i would love to hear from more people on this crowley, a seniof congress, gets beaten by aoc, eric cantor, the majority leader the republicans in the house gets defeated by david b. everyone, to see these stories,

they infer from it that we are all in danger now. what matters is the primary vote. jim makes the opposite point, decent politician and an incumbent, you should be able to deal with situations like that. which is right? are members drawing the wrong lessons from theseigh visibility events and saying that we are all going to be in the same situation unless we toe the party line -- tow the party line? or are there better politicians than that and they should have■x confidence in their ability as a politician? >> the fact is they do have to worry about pri reality. >> losing yeah, because if the s further to the right, further to the left, that is who shows in primaries. the real question used to be, do

you change what you are doing because of that? in other words, is the job worth it? ?kl■; you can't be who you are. i think that's the question it. every day that i looked up, literally said thank you god for giving me the opportunity to do what i'm doing today. how much you are willing -- that is a question. friends was tom, who voted his conscience. i said, you know something? i'm not going to worry about the next election anymore. tom's that the right attitude. he is doing it the right way. do you have to worry? yes. you have to worry even in districts. if you have a motivated, and energized opposition, hether -- whether it is maga or far left, you have to make a

personal decision of how much you are willing to give up in order to keep doing what you are doing. >> can we infer from the results that a lot of members have given up a lot? [laughter] >> through. >>-- true. >> amen. >> iran in a primary against an eight term incumbent and beat him in that primary from the left. people assumed when i came into congress ti ht? recruiting other people to run againstwould have quicklyeazed is that it required talking to your neighbor. it required working required won your caucus and also on a couple of committees across the aisle. it is a reason i think one barbara comstock camen, could wk

region. it is not always the case that st because you run in a primary and win that it necessarily means that you have to perform like a renegade. and so there is something about the people we're encouraging, or who are empowered and enabledrue period of time. that they think their job is to come in and just be disruptors rather than contributing. >> first of all, those who show up to vote in primaries are a more aggressive lot of voters, on the republican side in the democrat side. so when you ask that question, there is a difference. these days especially with respect to the primaries, and the danger to those who are incumbents. let me just make another point. we're talking about this

function, and we are talking about a lot of reasons and there has been no discussion at all of donald trump. for good reason. but the fact is, the emergence of donald trump as significant political force in the entire country has consequences, i think, as well with respect to the house and the senate. it particularly had consequences with respect to the immigration piece is probably would have come to the house and been voted i don't want to bring trump into this fully, but we have had a long discussion in the most significant issue out there with respect to politics overlaying the congress is donald trump what that means. so i am just interested in how others see this as well. >> i think many of the problems that often are attributed to trump sometimes predated him.

i've often felt he was a consequence more than a cause. there was a simmering fire. he is just to be makes it worse. but he did not necessarily cause these problems. i'll give you an example about the primaries. it was october of 2013, the government shut down because of obamacare. i get into john boehner's office because i was running my mouth on television because how stupid this was. but he is kind of melancholy and apologetic about why we are here. he basically said, there are govern and do a news to be done. i have at least 40 guys who just want to burn the place down every day, then another 110 guys in between who can be pulled to worry about their primaries. i say, i don't give a damn about their primaries. and their primaries more important than mine?

they have to go up and get out from under the table, and that is how you deal with your primary opponent, fear. but that was my concern. these members in these very safe states kind of forgot they had a responsibility to govern. i came out of the state legislature, we had small majorities. we had to vote fhiif anybody gol it was someone in a really unsafe seat. in a general election this said ok, you can take the past. the rest of us in the safe seats, we will man up and do what we have to do. i cannot tell you, i voted for tarp and how many people came up and said i'm really glad you voted for it. i wish i could have, but i'm glad you did. [laughter] >> vote no, hope yes. >> i thank you for that vote. >> well, we're --

>> i'm going to do a lot more in the afternoon but want to ask donna something, because you are the person here who actually beat an incumbent. did you beat■j al win because he had grown ideologically out of touch with the pg county voters? ■]or did you beat him more becae he just kind of got comfortable, and even know his district was literally just a couple miles fromhe capitol, he did not work hard? because charlie's point and jim's point is, take a vote,nd l probably win nine times out of 10. so, do you think he did not win t lost touch and didn't care and got sort of :soft, or was it purely an ideological thing? >> no, i think there were some very specific votes that he took

that were really far afield from where the district was. people not know about it and what i think our campaign did was point that out. votes for example on the iraq war. those things that were really out of touch with the district. things that happen in a media environment where the washington post is your paper of record, but coverage of local issues and local members really just does not happen very much. there is that metric, i suppose. but it means that there are a few opportunities where people can actually know what the i think we were just very successful at pointing out where he was disengaged ideologically where the district was. and it was effective. now, i don't think that same argument could have worked in some other district.

but when we are in the super majority, democratic district, i think arguments like that could work where they would not work somewhere else. >> i think this is getting to something at part of the primary and something that i pay attention to. congress does not vote. so there is a reluctance to take tough votes. harry reid and mitch mcconnell really kind of shut down the senate in some way they did not want their members to take any votes. to me, that was always like, well, shouldn't you vote more and then every vote doesn't carry the same wei how big of a, and he was deated and one of the campaigns they ran against him is he never got an amendment voted on in six years in the

senate. >> that would apply to every senator now. [laughter] >> many house members as well. >> on behalf of virginia, a gret leader in congress and unfortunately he went out as i was coming in, eric counter -- eric cantor. it was tragic that he lost. that was a very unique set of circ*mstances. he was cutting deals. >> immigration. >> he also had talk radio ganging up on him, he had antisemitism going on in the rural area of his district. he had a weird set of circ*mstances. laura ingraham decided she loved dave brat, who ended up doing nothing in four years and became a big maga guy and thought he was the ticket for everything and he got washed out in 2018. so yes, it wa

everyone thought that because he didn't win that year that maga was the answer to everything but the maga guy who won that year went out in 2018 with everyone else. i wanted to point that out. >> question of tough votes? because the leadership is fixated on avoiding making members>> that is why they conte amendment process through the leadership offices and that is why you do not get a motion to recommit anymore. >> what is that about? are leaders being overprotective of the members unnecessarily, if i was a member i would say ok, it is nice that you don't let me take tough votes but if the trade-off is i never get to offer an amendment, i don't know whether as a politician i would take that deal. why do they take that deal? >> what is a tough vote?

voting to fund the government from october 1 two -- it's not . it's become a gut wrenching experience. to keep the government from defaulting. i do not think it is a tough vote. or to fund ukraine. >> immigration is a tough vote. nancy pelosi did not want to bring up a bill having to and antitrust because she did not want the members from california to have to take a tough vote. >> it is also of interest to a degree. >> it seems to me if you are going to be a member of congress an votes, it is like wanting to be an electrician but i'm scared of electricity. let me explain what is happening. what has evolved on the house side. when i was there, the leadership kept tough votes to protect vulnerable members in general elections. what emerged over time as they

kept their people who worried about primaries from tough votes. it is like you are protecting guys in r-30 districts. but at the same time you don't take up anything. >> right, but the rationale is 80% of the conference. they dominated the conference, they dominated the leadership posts. wouldn't you agree? >> absolutely. it is all about protecting these guys in the safe seats. it is the members in marginal districts putting up all the tough gorntime, and those guys e fringes take a pass whenever the hell they want. >> i don't think that is the operating principle on the democratic side. >> we should mention the rule. >> how does it work? >>■y the hastert rule is not a rule, but it was a policy of the house republican leadership and caucus which is when the republicans were in charge, they

would not put something on the floor, whether it be an amendment or a bill, that did not have the support of at least half of the republican congress, hence the majority of the majority. >> that makes a lot of sense because you're not going to be speaker long if you're putting up votes in the majority of your caucus opposes. >> so it became not just the hastert rule, it became the has to and pelosi rule. >> even with this recent ukraine vote, i have not gone back and checked, but immediately after the vote a lot of those 112 who voted against it, a lot of them did not even post anything about it. they wanted to vote for it but they kept wanting to avoid the primary. they figured they were the vote no, ops. they knew it was going to go through. so they are not even talking about their votes. i think there were a bunch of them.

even though we had the hastert rule, these were people who were fined to see it go through. they did not vote for it, but they are not really opposed for it. >> and they were glad it was on a saturday and people were not paying attention. >> 30 years ago, did the leader of the senate ever worry about making members take a tough vote? >> of course they do. they are in the job because they got elected to the job. we certainly try and be mindful. you brought up the tarp vote and bonnie frank i handling all those bills. 40 days before a national election in 2008. in the senate side, i knew about what everybody was. we were going to win fairly easily. ted kennedy was sick and not voting that day. i went around republicans and democrats were up in 40 days and said listen, i have the votes to carry this. if you want to vote no, these

were members who were going to vote yes, then you can feel free to do so. if i thought i needed your vote, wotell you. in some cases they were a democratic colleague who already voted no. very unpopular to vote no in those days. not a single person i offered that to ticket. -- that to took it. one public and carly got a great sw what is the problem? i have to face a constituent in the mormon. who the hell are you going tox face in the morning? he said the mirror. [laughter] he said, i think it is the right thing to do. lost his seat, did. but it is worthwhile occasional here with talk of how great -- how bad things are. sometimes people rally to the

moment. not every vote is like what we are talking about. yes, it is a problem, and leadership expects to provide some cover for members in tough situations. they do it all the time? no. but from time to time? absolutely. >> it just seems like it has become -- >> i am talking 12 years ago now, but nonetheless. . but it was a time when people could have easily, particularly that close to the national election. as a result of no politically the people did vote yes for it, so many lost their seats because of that single vote. >> we yes, he lost in a runoff, my race was decided not month later by 312 votes. i would have gotten six or 7% conservatives, i got maybe 60%. it had an impact. but i would cast the same vote. >> i traveled -- >> we do not want to make it

sound like every vote they are running for the hills. >> i want to suppo norm was saying, at some point you just have to decide. not just about leadership. it has always been the case that if you getrepresent constituentr a whole state or a district in washington, you are going to have to decide some mix ofting s and advocating their interests. and they sent you there because they think you will be what is right in your mind. and when i wrotehe two-state solution act, and after the last little war, which unfortunately is nothing compared to now, i had so many of my democratic colleagues come up to me and say, i read your bill. first of all, if anybody ever says they read your bill, that makes my day. wow, fantastic. they said that is fantastic, really smart policy, and of course i am not supporting it.

and they did not even have to say why, because aipac would come afterhem if they supported this bill to try to push the israelis i to figure ow to make peace with each other so we could stop this endless cycle of violence. and they came after me with millions of dollars of dark money in the next election. i don't regret doing that. i feel like i had to do it. it was the right thing to do. now, it's complicated, because it was redistricting. chigan lost a seat anyhow. that -- seat in the house. that happens every 10 years, incumbents are mushed together. so it is not as simple as saying that was the cause. but it has increased the fear people have, and of course this time aipac says they are going to spend $100 million in this cycle, an inconceivable amount of money. and most of the money they are

raising from republican billion. so it is a very difficult thing. >> the january 6 situation, and the ones like fred and liz cheney and adam kinzinger, sometimes you have to vote against your constituents to do what is right too. so, you have that situation. >> and most did not survive. >> there are not many. so you have to do that too. therefore, you have to follow the rule of law. if y aot willing to do that, they are not paying you enough to violate the law. >> the question on the hastert rule, i always thought it was a silly thing, personally. i can point to several votes. told the majority to pass the bill. ini cannot tell you homie times i voted for a debt ceiling or a continued resolution with

29 to 85 votes of republicans and a whole bunch of democrats. so they imposed the hastert rule until they didn't, which was all the time. i would argue the spirit of hastert rule was never violated, because there was always the majority of people who supported what we were doing, just not a majority voting for what wresere case. it is one of those things they would go out there all the time, but i thought it was meaningless. >> it is kind of spreading though, because i will say that we actually looked at the senate vote this week on the package in terms of what the split was in the senate. it was, but the previousd vote had not been the hastert rule, which of course they want to come up with a known name for the senate. but we did look at it and■ mcconnell was kind of downplaying it, but he was happy he got a majority of his members

after what had gone on. >> we are supposed to break for lunch but i want to give an opportunity to three of our attendees who are probably as knowledgeable about congress as an e3 living human beings -- as any three living human beings in washington. is there some question that you would like to ask or a comment that you would like to make? and if so, could you go to that microphone which is right over there? and please -- [laughter] this is the aforementioned norm of the american enterprise institute, has been studying congress for a very long time. >> i came here in 1969, and ot her than chris, who came here as an infant, i think i have more immersion in this institution then anyone else here.

first, i want to say we talked about the schedule before. mark russell use to end his shows by saying i want to say to my audience what members of every wednesday night. have a nice weekend. [laughter] one of the things that i pushed for decades was to change the schedule to five days a week from 9:00 a.m. monday to 5:00 p.m. friday, three weeks on and week off. and during those three weeks, no fundraising, which didn't get very far. means you still have 15 days a month left to do the fundraising. but of course that was to come even more dominant. i want to raise a couple of larger issues. one, whive had this set of problems. the tribalism that newt gingrich really generated hasmetastasizey

as a whole. it was accelerated by trump. but keep in mind, we have a larger set of structural issues that go well beyond any of the current things that are going to be a crisis of legitimacy in our political system. we are the point where 70% of americans live in 15 cities. 50% live in eight states. the electoral college is increasingly goi tstances wheree and the outcome does not reflect that. 30% of americans will elect 70 senators, and they are not representative of the diversity of the country or the economic dynamism of the country. and over time, we started by talking about how we have a system of voters elect their representatives. that is not the case anymore. and we're seeing people vote. and if it does not get reflected in the outcome. that is true of the house of

course, with the gerrymandering but also with the natural patterns. we're going to have to confront this. it is very■a hard to deal with e senate, because you need a constitutional amendment. but i would make a pitch for the fair representation act introduced by don buyer and a ire for the house, first of all, redistricting in all the states also, would bring us back to having the ability to do multimember districts, which just requires repealing in 1957 3(law, and combining it with rank-choice voting. illinois in its legislature for decades leading up to the 1960'd voters could have three votes for one, two for one, one for another, or one for each. then you have a wider pool of candidates, including by the way, more groups in the society that are underrepresented. it also means we are not going

to move to the extreme, because of those second and third place votes. when they did away with it without even thinking about it, they are not as tribal lysed as any other. there are structural things we can do that can create mo varied districts, more heterogeneous districts, candid. and i would add to that, enlarge the house, which has been basically fixed since 1910. it was done x>to keep those immigrants coming in through ellis island, and those former slaveholder families vi north, having representation. if we added 150 members to the house, you could have a different kind of history, and and you would get more and better representation. so we have big cultural problems, but there are structural ways in which we could ameliorate this. n÷and i'm sure we will talk more

about this this afternoon. >> thank you, norm. lane is a resident scholar at the workings is a fusion and -- at the brookings institution. and vice president's office during the clinton administration. >> i'll make three points very quickly. one is to chris's comments about relationships. i'd recommend a book called the georgetown ladies social club by richard hyman, published in 2003. a fabulous social history of an era, probably your father's era, chris, where families lived in washington, rich socialites had dinner parties that were focused around pieces of legislation. who sat next torepublicans and e

invited to the parties. the women were very much involved in a two second track in congress. women did not work. it was a different era. mostly men. the wives did not work, but as most political wives are, they were deeply involved in their husband's work. so you had a social life that was very robust, run by six or seven women with a lot of money, but lots of other women were participating in this. that brought out those relationships. you did not have to go to build those relationships. second is a little more sensitive. i mostly spent time in the executive branch and written about the execi don't think mans understand just complicated

the modern federal government is, and how much is kept from congress. kept from congress. therefore, really undermining the ability of congress to do executive level oversight. we have whatscientists call firm oversight. really, really bad and then congress jumps in. but other than that, i will tell you, i have heard it m distinguished members of these it could have branch, talk abou. oh, yes sir, that's rely idea. and they are lying. ok? they are lying. just trying to get out of that hearing and not let the complexities and the situation get there. what has congress done during this time? cut the congressional research service. cut all of the institutional support that would help make

r place. finally, on the electoral colleg■e, norm has a great idea. it is really getting to be a crisis. and we did a piece while ago the in the brookings archives showing how, at the turn of the last century, the distribution of the american population was such that having two senators for every state, requiring one congressperson for every state, it was not a bad idea. it did create distortions. but theul density are really dramatic. and the short answer that i always give when people say, well, what is wrong with the electoral college? i say, the agricultural revolution, basically. the middle of the country produces food for the entire world, but nobody else lives

there. and we are really not representing modern america. so, i would say those three things are things to bear in mind as we go forward. >>ll, i'm probably going to get this wrong, but for many years was republican staff director, or close to being staff director of the senate budget committee. >> thank you. senate staffer, first of all, for many years. and i have very much enjoyed the entire conversation this morning. i just have a couple comments. first of all in theenate, there was a discussion about having devices on the floor of the house. to my knowledge, senator, you yeah, but they bring them out you're not supposed to. >> the press can't. but the senate does. although some of them cannot work them. [laughter]

just a hint. >> lindsey still has a flip phone. >> i'm taken about dealing with policy staff. i was a policy person. and there is this recent survey that really bothered me. your staffers believe polarization and rhetoric are gt anything done. -- the conclusion was a significant number of staffers from both parties, of republicans are considering leaving congress due to the heated rhetoric from the other party. significantly, more republicans,

60% than democrats are considering leaving congress due to the heated rhetoric from the party. we have a problem on the republican side. you are going to lose good staff. i had a couple of quick reports] >> don't get carried away>>. [laughter] >> -- all of you would be required to do your own taxes with no accountants. and finally this idea of adding members, i'm fine with thatt mod be thinking about a dormitory

tv

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Washington 9, Hastert 7, Ukraine 4, Us 4, Charlie 3, Chris 3, Philadelphia 2, Germany 2, America 2, House 2, Aipac 2, Eric Cantor 2, Nancy Pelosi 2, Mitch Mcconnell 1, Laura Ingraham 1, Pelosi 1, Maga 1, American 1, Bundestag 1, Donna 1

Notes

This material may be protected by copyright law (Title 17 U.S. Code).

info Stream Only