Real Debate is Missing on Capitol Hill

 Kevin Kosar at The Hill:

Major debates on the floor of the Senate and House of Representatives are increasingly rare. This is not by accident.

Leaders in both chambers do all they can to prohibit arguing between legislators when bills are brought to a vote. The House precludes debate by adopting closed rules before voting on a bill. Said rules limit debate to mere minutes and forbid legislators from offering amendments. The Senate achieves much the same by operating under unanimous consent agreements, wherein the majority leader gets each senator to agree to not speak on the legislation to be voted upon, and to forgo the ability to offer amendments.

How it came to be that some of the most garrulous of all Americans — politicians — agreed not to debate is a long, complicated story.

Partly, it is an adaptation to the presence of television cameras. What person who has to run for reelection wants to admit that someone from the other party has a stronger point, and then, heaven forbid, accept a change to a bill?

Partly, the present situation also is an adaptation to the intense conflict between the political parties and attendant mutual distrust. Over the past 30 years, partisan control of the chambers has shifted back and forth between Democrats and Republicans at a rate not seen since the period immediately after the Civil War. Whomever is the majority wants to defend their majority and therefore views honest debate as threatening. The leader of the majority party does not want to have a vote on legislation fail, let amendments be offered, or even permit the expression of views for fear they might make his or her party look bad before the public eye. Party leaders’ desire to manage public opinion, which is a bit of a fool’s errand, trumps the responsibilities of governance.

Deliberating about Civil Asset Forfeiture

 From C-SPAN:

Britannica defines civil asset forfeiture as a “legal process that enables a government to seize property and other assets belonging to persons suspected of committing a crime.” This law enforcement tool has been used throughout United States history, dating back to the earliest days of the country and the nation’s foundation on English law. The Legal Information Institute at Cornell University describes the tool as having gained popularity during the Prohibition era, as the government sought to seize illegal alcohol and prevent further illicit production.

The tool once again grew in popularity through the 1980s’ War on Drugs. Legally, the tool was federally codified in the Comprehensive Crime Act of 1984, which allowed the government to “seize first, and defend the forfeiture in court later.” Since that decade, the use of the tool has been subject to robust debate regarding its appropriate use and potential safeguards. For example, the Department of Justice under the Obama Administration issued a 2015 order that eliminated most types of federal adoptions of state and local seizures. This order was then reversed by the Department of Justice in 2017 under the leadership of the Trump Administration.

Supporters of civil asset forfeiture describe its effectiveness in reducing potential crime and limiting the impact of organized crime groups. Opponents of the tool argue that law enforcement agencies have a clear bias and incentive to seize property, as law enforcement agencies are able to use the funds or proceeds from sales for regular operations. Regardless of perspective, the use of the tool has exponentially escalated since 2000.

This deliberation guides students through a review of both the historical and contemporary arguments for and against the use of the tool. After a careful review of multiple perspectives, students will determine whether federal, state, and local law enforcement officials should continue the practice of civil asset forfeiture.

Objectives and Outcomes

• Students will be able to describe key vocabulary terms and concepts associated with the debate surrounding the continued use of civil asset forfeiture.
• Students will be able to identify and explain aspects of the civil asset forfeiture debate including those of civil liberties, due process, criminal justice, and law enforcement.
• Students will be able to evaluate arguments relating to the continued use of civil asset forfeiture and formulate an opinion on this question.

Resources on Voting and Elections

C-SPAN Classroom: campaigns and elections

C-SPAN Classroom: political parties

National Archives

National Conference on State Legislatures

UCLA Online Campaign Literature Archive
DHS on Election Security

From Ballotpedia:

Our newest resource, which we developed just for the unique circumstances we're now in, is Ballotpedia Class, a three-part lecture series on government and civics. Students can participate in 45 minute lectures presented by Ballotpedia's subject matter experts, with time for questions. Our three classes are:

• April 16: The Difference Between the State and Federal Governments
• April 23: Introduction to Campaign Finance Law
• April 30: How States Select Their Supreme Court Justices

To share this learning opportunity with students, just send them the link to the registration form, where they can sign up for any or all the lectures.
Other educational resources we have include:

• Learning Journeys: short, 3-5 day email courses on political and civic topics that are filled with examples, quizzes, and additional readings
• Beyond the Headlines: a video series of brief, informative updates on a variety of political topics including Supreme Court rulings, the ballot initiative process, preemption, and more
• Ballotpedia Insights: a Q&A series with political and legal scholars, researchers, reporters, and subject matter experts. Our next session is April 28, and past sessions are archived on our YouTube channel

Classroom Deliberations

From C-SPAN:

de·lib·er·ate v.
:to think about or discuss issues and decisions carefully

Welcome to C-SPAN Classroom Deliberations! This website is designed to engage students in classroom deliberations about current issues being debated in the United States. Here you will find a set of C-SPAN primary source video clips and newspaper articles that concisely present the leading positions on each issue. Teachers will find handouts, current events, lesson plans, and deliberation strategies that make it easy to engage students in the issues. 

• Should the legislative filibuster rule be eliminated in the Senate?
• Is the president given too much power during national emergency declarations?
• What should the United States do to address issues along the U.S.-Mexico border?
• Should your state modify its voter registration laws and methods for submitting a ballot?
• What are ways for youth to engage in politics?
• What is the best approach to US foreign policy in the 21st century?
• What is "Fake News" and How Does It Impact Our Lives?
• Should the Electoral College Be Reformed?
• Sanctuary Cities and Federal Immigration Enforcement Efforts
• Should There Be Term Limits For Members of Congress?

C-SPAN Is 40

Forty years ago today, C-SPAN started live coverage of House floor proceedings. At NYT, Julia Jacobs interviews co-CEO Susan Swain:

The fact that people could actually see their elected representatives in their living room — and now on their phones — was a fundamental change. In the past, people might pull the lever every two years for their member of Congress and, if they were super engaged, might read a newsletter that came in the mail or go to an occasional town hall meeting.

This meant that any time you were interested, you could watch what your member of Congress had to say. Prior to television in Congress, the only time that members really got attention is if they had big names like Kennedy or if they did something outrageous, either positively or negatively, or if they were a member of the leadership.

...
C-Span’s relevance comes in the form of not only all of the events that we cover every day but within minutes after we televise them, they are digitized and stored on our video archives. It has 250,000 hours of political video that we’ve covered since 1987.

That means a member of Congress can pull a clip from their hearing and send it out to constituents. It also means that people on social media or late-night comedians have immediate access to this.

I think most people who are in their 20s or younger, if they have an experience with C-Span it is through social media, it is through the late-night comedians. The creation of our video library in 1987 was every bit as significant as the original creation of C-Span.

Body Language on the Senate Floor

David Dayen reports at The Intercept:

SOMETHING VERY UNUSUAL happened in the U.S. Senate today: a vote scheduled by the majority leader failed. The legislation would have repealed an Obama-era rule designed to prevent methane emissions from leaking out of drilling operations on public lands. Brought up under the Congressional Review Act, the resolution only needed 50 votes to pass the Senate, after already passing the House along party lines. But it failed 49-51.

McCain cast the decisive nay vote, perhaps a protest against the firing of FBI Director James Comey.

McCain’s conduct during the Senate vote also raises red flags. In the C-SPAN video of the vote, McCain can be seen in heated discussion with John Cornyn, R-Texas, the number two man in the Senate leadership, along with John Barrasso, R-Wyo., and an unidentified senator with his back to the camera. After yelling at them for close to a minute, McCain goes over to the Senate clerks and gives a thumbs down to record his vote. He then storms out of the chamber, as Cornyn raises his arms in mild protest.

McCain has a reputation for being a little, shall we say, vindictive. It’s not out of the question at all that he would torpedo this vote, regardless of his ideological preferences, because of a fit of pique about the FBI director he admires getting unceremoniously dumped.

The video (h/t CH):

Live-Streaming Committee Hearings

Social media and other forms of communication technology have enabled Congress to become much more transparent.  But there are gaps, as Rachel Leven writes at The Hill:

Almost a quarter of all House hearings are not live-streamed online, according to a new study.

The Sunlight Foundation found that 49 out of 200 hearings over 20 days were not live-streamed, while 91 hearings since Jan. 17 were not archived on committee websites.

This is despite a January 2011 House rule “requiring that video coverage of hearings be available online.”The foundation took Congress to task for failing to stream the hearings.

“The privately-run cable network C-SPAN cannot cover every hearing, and it’s unreasonable to expect people to travel to D.C. to be in attendance,” study authors Daniel Schuman and

Cassandra LaRussa wrote. “Combined with cutbacks in newsroom staffs around the country, less prominent issues are unlikely to be covered by local media.”

Most of the hearings that were not live-streamed were hearings of the House Appropriations Committee.

Forty-seven out of 49 hearings that were not live-streamed were associated with that committee and 74 of the 91 hearings not archived were by the spending panel.

A College Student, Opposition Research, and the Internet

Our chapter on mass media discusses the ways in which the mainstream media rely on opposition researchers. The Internet has now democratized "oppo."

Jason Zengerle writes at New York magazine:

On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog—or an opposition researcher. Consider Andrew Kaczynski. The 22-year-old spends most of his time pursuing a history major at St. John’s University. But when he’s not in class or studying, he holes up in his Briarwood studio apartment, plops down in front of his MacBook, and dives into C-SPAN’s extensive online archives. Kaczynski’s hobby is watching old political videos, the most memorable of which he uploads to his YouTube channel. It sounds harmless enough, unless you happen to be a 2012 Republican presidential candidate with a long video record. Then Kaczynski’s hobby can ruin your news cycle, or worse.

...

The damage wreaked by Kaczynski’s work points to an irony of politics in the Internet age. Technological advances have made political campaigns increasingly sophisticated in their methods, with “microtargeted” online ads and text-messaged announcements of ­running-mate selections. But those same advances have made it possible for such sophisticated plans to be easily upended. That’s because, thanks to the Internet, opposition research—long considered a dark art practiced only by hardened political operatives—can now be done, and done effectively, by amateurs. This presidential campaign is the first one since C-SPAN’s 2010 decision to put its more than 160,000 hours of old video footage online. With that huge cache of political material, all it takes to spread dirt is curiosity and endurance—and then a YouTube channel and a Twitter account.

What it doesn’t require is animus. Kaczynski describes himself as a moderate Republican.

Interviews with Gingrich

Over the years, C-SPAN has aired lengthy and detailed interviews with Newt Gingrich. Perhaps the most useful is a lengthy program that originally aired on July 30, 1999:

• On his rise to power
• On his years as a backbencher
• On his speakership

See the three-hour Gingrich special on January 2, 1995.

As he geared up to run for president, Steve Scully interviewed him on August 3, 2010:

See his reflections on the GOP, August 21, 1984:

C-SPAN Poll

A release from C-SPAN:

As the incoming leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives consider measures “making the House more transparent and accountable,” C-SPAN asked voters about what institutional changes might make Congress more accessible.

Penn Schoen Berland conducted a poll for C-SPAN, asking 1,200 Americans who voted in the 2010 mid-term elections about “possible institutional changes Congress could make to be more approachable to everyday people.”

The poll demonstrated that respondents were familiar with the workings of Congress. A third of respondents (34% -- an estimated 79 million adults) said they watched C-SPAN in the past year. Of those C-SPAN viewers, essentially seven in ten, 69% (an estimated 54 million adults) reported watching C-SPAN coverage of the House of Representatives.

Asked to express their interest in a list of ten potential changes that could increase Congressional accessibility, here are the top five that respondents said would be most useful for a “more responsive and open Congress,” ranked by popularity:

1) Use everyday language when talking about legislation (84% support)

2) Publish bills online (83% support)

3) Issue alerts when major votes are coming up (80% support)

4) Allow TV cameras to show the entire chamber (76% support)

5) Have actual policy debates where both sides speak (76% support)

Full results of survey here.

C-SPAN and Health Care Deliberations

At several points in our text, we discuss the role of C-SPAN in making policy deliberations more accessible.
Brian Lamb, founder and president of C-SPAN, has asked congressional leaders to open all important negotiations, including conference committee meetings, to the network's cameras.  According to The Politico, Speaker Nancy Pelosi dealt with the request at a press conference:

A reporter reminded the San Francisco Democrat that in 2008, then-candidate Obama opined that all such negotiations be open to C-SPAN cameras.  “There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail,” quipped Pelosi, who has no intention of making the deliberations public.  People familiar with Pelosi's thinking wasted little time in explaining precisely what she meant by a “number of things” – saying it reflected weeks of simmering tension on health care between two Democratic power players who have functioned largely in lock-step during Obama’s first year in office.

On August 21, 2008, candidate Obama made the following pledge:

"I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies -- they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process."