[music] Michael Barr: Welcome, everybody. I'm Michael  Barr, the Dean of the Gerald R. Ford School of   Public Policy. It's my pleasure to be here today  to host this conversation. This is part of our   Conversations Across Differences series, a series  the Ford School has been producing for the last   four years with politicians and policymakers  from across the ideological spectrum. This   event today is co-sponsored by the Gerald R.  Ford Presidential Foundation, the Domestic   Policy Corps student organization here at Ford,  and Detroit Public Television. We're grateful for   the support of this series, including a recent  generous gift from Tom Tuft which will help us   continue to bring essential conversations to our  community and the public. Today, we're joined   by two dynamic representatives, members of the  Problem Solvers Caucus, both have served in Iraq,   Representative Elissa Slotkin as an  intelligence officer, and Representative   Peter Meijer in the Army Reserves. So they  bring that national security perspective. MB: They're deeply tied to Michigan.  Representative Meijer was elected   this past November, so he's been in  Congress now for just over six weeks.   In addition to his tour in Iraq, he worked with  a veterans-based disaster response organization   and led humanitarian efforts in South Sudan  and the Philippines, as well as in New York   and Oklahoma after storms. He went on to run  an international NGO organization's advisory   operations in Southern Afghanistan. We know  of his family in Michigan for four generations   as the innovators who created a great food  retail business from humble beginnings in 1934. MB: Representative Slotkin, Democrat from the 8th  District, is serving her second term in Congress.   Before her election in 2018, she had been in  a series of senior National Security posts   at the CIA, Department of Defense, and in the  White House under both Presidents Bush and Obama,   including as Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense  for International Security Affairs. Her family has   also been in Michigan for many generations.  The family business has a food tie as well,   Hygrade Foods produced by our beloved Ball Park  Franks, which were first served at Tiger Stadium. MB: In the interest of full disclosure,  let me also say that there are   ties to the Ford School. Representative Meijer's  own father serves on the Ford School Committee,   and my son happens to work for  Representative Slotkin. Welcome,   both of you for this conversation. I'm really  looking forward to chatting with you today. MB: We have some really serious issues  we're grappling with right now as a country.   We've just seen an unprecedented violent  attack on the US Capitol on January 6th,   we saw the impeachment of President Trump and then  an impeachment trial in which he was acquitted.   These are really difficult issues that I know both  of you are grappling with very much. Let me just   start by asking, I don't know the answer to this,  were either of you up in the Capitol on January   6th, and what was that like on a personal  level? And maybe Peter, you could start. Peter Meijer: Yeah. Well, thank you so much for   having us here today. I'm pleased to join  my colleague, Representative Slotkin.   On January 6th, I was in the House gallery, so  in the House chambers watching the Electoral   College certification debate around Arizona taking  place, and we ended up getting barricaded inside   the gallery for about the first half an hour, the  folks, the armed group entered the Capitol after   about the 30-minute mark. Capitol police evacuated  us from the chambers, rushed us out, put us in an   elevator, hit the sub-basement, and then we were  wandering in the tunnels trying to figure out what   parts of the complex were still secure, knowing  that the Cannon Complex had been evacuated,   we made our way to a cafeteria and then later  to a committee hearing room where we were for   several hours until we were eventually allowed to  get back to other places in the Capitol complex. Elissa Slotkin: And for me, I was on my way to  the gallery, walking through those same tunnels,   going to the floor of the House, and when I  came to the staircase that would have led me   right up to the House floor, probably the first or  second stair, I could hear yelling and screaming   and breaking glass, and what I thought was  a flashbang, like a crowd control measure,   which was probably a gunshot, now that we sort of  know more of the facts of the day. And literally,   my mind clicked into prior training, which is just  get off the X, get off the X, get off the target,   get off the bull's eye, and I just hauled  myself back to my office and locked myself in.   Fellow Michigan Representative Andy Levin called  me, he couldn't get back to his office, so   he and his chief came and spent the next few  hours in my office where I spent the next   time, a couple of hours at least on the  phone with the senior ranks of the Pentagon,   making sure that they sent the National Guard  and making sure that they heard from someone who   wasn't... This wasn't my first rodeo of  a dangerous experience, but making sure   they understood that we had lost control of the  situation, there were weapons in the compound,   and that they needed to get over quickly. MB: It sounds like a completely  harrowing experience, and   I'm so sorry on behalf of the whole  country that either of you had to go   through that. What do you make of the reaction  of the White House? And it sounds like, Elissa,   you were on the phone with the Defense  Department, were they responsive in terms of   getting, and I know the National Guard eventually  came, but was that a tough conversation to have? ES: It wasn't a tough conversation. I think we  will have plenty of time for lessons learned on   unpreparedness leading up to that event, because  anyone, of course, from Michigan, would have known   there was gonna be violence on that day. In  fact, I'd told my staff in a written guidance,   no one is to come to the Capitol compound, I  just assumed the violence would be outside,   as we've seen similar things happen  in my own district in Lansing. But   I think context matters, and to be honest, the  senior ranks of the Pentagon were very chastened   after what happened with Lafayette Square in  June, where uniformed military helped clear   peaceful protesters so that the President could  have a photo op. They were lambasted for that.   We had helicopters, military helicopters involved  in crowd control by flying low over the city of   Washington, DC, and we know we had active-duty  troops just outside the bounds of the city. ES: So they were very cautious  leading up to this event   not to have a repeat situation where they were  accused of overly militarizing a situation,   and were very hesitant, and even the small  numbers that were called out ahead of time,   no weapons were authorized, they had really,  really conscribed, constrained, excuse me,   rules of engagement. So they were dealing with  now sort of the pendulum swinging and everyone's   saying, "Come here, come here, come here."  They were not mustered at a nearby armory,   they were not prepared. Now, the National Guard  needs to be called out by someone, they don't just   arrive on their own, so like I said, there'll be  lots of time for conversation. But I never was   under the impression that there was a problem,  a political problem, sending them after they   were requested, just that they weren't in place  to respond as quickly as we would have liked. MB: That's helpful. Peter, I wonder,  what were things like in terms of,   were you kind of canvassing with Republicans  during this time, or were you all jumbled   together as a group of cross-party lines? What  were the conversations like while you were   waiting for essentially a rescue? PM: Yeah, it was definitely very much a  bipartisan, cross-partisan mix. There was   no distinction when you were evacuating.  Actually, it was Representative Dean Phillips,   Democratic side of the aisle, he was taking  video and I hadn't seen it until I think Friday,   and I realized he was right behind me as we were  kind of fleeing the House gallery. But, well, I   guess what was kinda going through my mind, and  I think several of us had this conversation, was   you always kind of assume that there was a plan,  right? [chuckle] You hear about the Cold War,   and okay, you got the Greenbrier, and there's  all these continuity of government operations.   I understand that there are scenarios  where you don't necessarily want to brief   what may be sort of a classified or a confidential  plan ahead of time so that it doesn't leak. And   what was most dispiriting was you have the next  three people in the chain of command, right? In   the presidential line of succession, I should  say, all in the same building, and we're all   just forced to scatter. There was no secret bunker  somewhere that everyone goes and is secured in. PM: I mean, we were first in a random cafeteria  with big windows looking out and knowing at the   time that pipe bombs have been discovered and  neutralized in adjacent buildings, that shots   had been fired and at least one person was shot  and killed, that folks had stormed the Capitol and   we're in a cafeteria or wandering through tunnels,  several dozen. I think we had groups of 25 to 40   members kind of wandering through these tunnels,  Capitol Police sprinting in the other direction   and trying to flag them down and saying, "Where  the heck are we going right now?" Not knowing   if you turn a corner and encounter folks who  had gotten in unauthorized. So in the realm   of lessons learned, there are many, many, many  lessons, but I guess it was just that sense that   we had assumed that there was a plan, and  when push came to shove, there was nothing. MB: Do you guys think that  there should be a 9/11 kind of   commission to investigate what happened  at the Capitol that day? Is that   kind of the right next step in terms of trying  to figure out what reforms need to be done? ES: Yeah, and actually we had some movement  on that officially yesterday when the Speaker   of the House announced essentially  what is a 9/11-type style commission   with the retired General Honoré as the head  of it. So it is extremely important that   it be independent, it's extremely important for  all the reasons Peter just mentioned, right? For   a branch of government not to have a continuity  of operations, continuity of government plan.   We could have had what we literally call in  national security circles a decapitation event,   where the top leadership are wounded or hurt or  God forbid killed. And we need to understand how   the succeeding, like failures that took place  that day in preparation and in response.   So I'm glad that it's independent, it's now  been announced, I think it's still forming,   because I think we need accountability on  that kind of event in order to move forward. PM: And to Representative  Slotkin's point, I mean, 100%,   it has to be something that's beyond reproach,  that isn't viewed as a weaponized for political   ends entity, but I think, obviously, it was a  tragedy that that five folks died and including   a Capitol police officer, two more lost their  lives to suicide in the subsequent days.   It's important to remember that. It's  almost a miracle that it wasn't worse. ES: Correct. PM: Talking to some of the police officers who  were very conscious of the fact that they did   not... That if gunfire erupted, if they shot at  folks who were coming in, if an exchange occurred,   they were probably out-gunned. It's easy  to imagine a scenario where not only, where   multiple, dozens, I mean, potentially hundreds  of people could have lost their lives that day,   including senior government officials, including  those next three individuals in the presidential   line of succession. There are scenarios, there  are ways that that spins so dramatically out of   control that we should be feeling very... We  escaped what could have been much, much more   of a catastrophic event. And that's all the more  reason to make sure that we never allow anything   like this to occur again. We learn the right  lessons, we have accountability for what happened,   we clear some of the fog and uncertainty. I've  been incredibly disappointed that to this day,   apart from some of the things  presented in the impeachment trial,   unless I experienced it directly or read about  it on Twitter, I don't have any more information   than anybody else. And we've been... We're six  weeks out from this, just about, and it's still   a lot of unknowns and a lot of variables,  and obviously, this is a massively complex   investigation the FBI is conducting, but we need  to make sure that there is a full accounting. MB: So it sounds like you all have  not been briefed systematically even   on what happened that day, let  alone the potential failures. ES: No. I think we were given a security  briefing in the days after the attack,   literally a physical security briefing that laid  out some of the threat streams that continued   after the attack against elected officials, but we  haven't had, what I guess from my background, I'm   sure from Peter's background, would be a true sort  of update brief, after-action report, any of that.   And I know that this is feeding into a  conversation about what do we continue to do about   security now that the impeachment trial is over.  Obviously, no one likes having so many uniformed   military around such a symbolic building, no  one likes the fences, no one likes all of that,   but the truth is, I don't personally have a  great handle on what Capitol Police's plan   is to secure us going forward, to ensure  that we wouldn't have some sort of breach,   and whether that's the similar folks that we  saw on January 6th or another group, right? ES: And I think it exposed vulnerabilities that  had clearly long been there, but you can imagine   lawmakers want to make sure that before all  that security dissipates, and that includes   the Michigan National Guard who were pulled back  to go help secure the Capitol. We all want them   to go home, but we need to understand the plan  for securing the building after they depart. PM: And Elissa and I were out at FedExField  thanking all the Michigan National Guardsmen   and Air Guard who were out there and  for the work that they did, and then,   what, 72 hours later, they got recalled  back to the Capitol. So it's clear,   and we've seen this in some of the resignations  and the statements of no confidence by some of   their members that the Capitol Police are going  through an incredibly trying leadership moment.   But to Elissa's point, I mean, the vulnerabilities  that were exposed, others could take advantage of.   How there was not some additional  provocative entities in that crowd,   how other malign actors, international malign  actors didn't see this as an opportunity?   I mean, as I said before, it is so easy  to imagine how this spins dramatically   and catastrophically out of control, and that's  all the more reason that we have to make sure   that we have a full accounting, we learn every  lesson and we apply the right ones going forward. MB: Let's talk more broadly about the  domestic terrorist threat in the United   States. Some people think that's the  biggest threat we're currently facing.   What should we be doing about it? What  should we be doing about the rise of   white extremist nationalism, white supremacist  organizations that were involved in this attack?   How do we move forward on a national security  basis, not just with respect to the Capitol, but   broader issues of domestic terrorism in the United  States? Maybe, Elissa, you could start us out. ES: Sure. Well, this is some of the bread and  butter that I know Peter and I will be working   on this year. I just became the Chairwoman of the  Subcommittee on Intel and Counterterrorism, which   will be basically taking on domestic terrorism  this year. And the truth is, I think the 9/11 era,   those 20 years after 9/11, have officially  been capped off, where the greatest threats   are external to the United States, where we're  looking at terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS   and others, and lone wolves who are associated  with them here in the United States, I think   the division between us as Americans is the single  greatest national security threat. And I mean that   not in terms of just physical security, but our  inability to govern because of that division,   that the problems it creates even at the local  level, which which we're seeing now. So clearly,   I think it's really a risk to us moving  forward and having the life we all want here. ES: But it's important to learn some of the  lessons from the 20 years of the 9/11 era   and not repeat, frankly, some of the mistakes.  Some of those mistakes involved over-reacting,   we had been attacked, we'd had the symbolic event  loss of life, and so frankly, in those early days   after 9/11, we made some bad decisions, we  opened up Gitmo, we allowed detention, rendition,   torture, we launched the war in Iraq on false  pretenses, we reacted because we were emotional   'cause we had been attacked and Lord knows, I got  international security because of that emotion,   but we can't do the same thing with domestic  terrorism, particularly 'cause it's so sensitive,   because freedom of speech  issues are wound up in it. ES: So we're gonna be taking a look  at it and looking at whether we need   additional domestic terrorism laws, but also at  some of the things that, frankly, we can be doing   to affirmatively educate people, right? I'm  really into mandatory Holocaust education   across the country, so people understand  the symbols that we saw out on the lawn   of the Capitol as I walked through that morning,  and making sure that we are appropriately   resourced for the threat. For Peter and I, if  you were really a up-and-coming national security   type in the 9/11 era, you focused on external  terrorist groups. The resources, the support,   the interest in domestic terrorism wasn't really  the hot place to go in national security, and so   we've under-resourced it, and that's at a time  when the FBI will say that they have more open   domestic terrorism cases than they do foreign, o  we've gotta be resourced to the threat, and those   are some of the things we'll be looking at. And  Peter's a member of the committee, which is great. PM: And as Elissa's on Intelligence  and Counter-Terrorism as the lead,   I'm the ranking member on Oversight, Management  and Accountability on Homeland Security,   so there'll definitely be some opportunities to be  very mindful of how do we get to the point where   this threat was not adequately assessed. And to  Elissa's point, I'm also deeply concerned and   want to make sure we don't over-react,  we don't infringe on civil liberties.   The biggest difference between domestic terrorism  and international terrorism is within the confines   of our country, our government has a monopoly of  violence, we have legitimate authorities, we have   law enforcement and investigative apparatuses,  we have the ability to deal with these acts   through appropriate criminal mechanisms. We don't  have those by and large overseas, that's what   makes international terrorism so hard is you have  areas that are non-permissive, where our forces,   our law enforcement cannot operate without  some type of military or lethal support. PM: So I think we need to... And this is  some of the conversations we've been having,   be open to what might need to change, but  my bigger question is, is this a question   of staffing, is it a question of resources,  is it a question of focus and attention, or   is it a question of permissions and having  the statutory grounding to go after and   ensure that those who are seeking to sow  political violence don't find opportunities.   That's something that's going to be coming out,  I should hope, of the 9/11-style commission   of the independent investigation that  will have that more full accounting.   I don't want us to, in this immediate moment,  over-react and potentially cause more damage. PM: And we've seen with some of the... It could  be a very slippery slope on domestic terrorism,   at what point does First Amendment right to  protest, right to engage in speech, where does   that transgress and at what point does the FBI  start to go in? 'Cause even if we look before the   9/11 era, going back to the Civil Rights Movement,  there were long-standing abuses of peaceful groups   in the FBI, especially under J Edgar Hoover,  infiltrating and recording and blackmailing   individuals who were engaged in peaceful  protest and expressing their political beliefs   that didn't cross into violence, didn't reach that  level. So we need to strike that right balance,   or else I don't think we'll be ultimately putting  the country into the direction it needs to go. MB: That's really helpful. Let's spend just a  little bit longer on this moment, and then I'm   gonna broaden to some other topics. Obviously,  we just came out of an impeachment trial,   President Trump was acquitted, although  there were 57 members of the Senate   who voted to convict President Trump  of inciting the riot on the Capitol   on January 6th, including seven Republicans. Both  of you voted to impeach. Peter, you were more   alone on your side, not fully alone, but more  alone in your side in doing that, and I know   have been criticized strongly from a number  of Republicans for that stance. I wonder if   both of you could just say a little bit about  your decision with respect to impeachment,   and then maybe more critically, what does the  acquittal mean for the health of our democracy,   the future of our institutions? How worried should  we be about... Not just the, again, the particular   moments of January 6, but more broadly, the  strength of our institutions, our democratic   institutions? So maybe Peter, if you could start  us out and then Elissa, that would be great. PM: Yeah, well, I was one of  10 Republicans in the House   to vote for impeachment. This was a vote that was  a vote of conscience, and when I say that, I don't   just mean we were voting with our conscience, I  mean this was not what's called a whipped vote, so   leadership and the whip team weren't going around  and saying, we recommend you vote this way, it was   up to each individual member and that's...  I don't think we've ever had an impeachment,   we don't have a strong track record of them,  historically, only, there's only a handful,   but where this... At least in the party of the  President, where that was not a whipped vote,   which doesn't mean there weren't tremendous  consequences, especially at the local level, and   folks feeling deeply frustrated, but in the days  leading up to it, I had a number of conversations   with folks back in the district, and to me, the  most striking and frankly terrifying element of   some of those conversations were the people  who immediately shifted to a denial mode. PM: It wasn't supporters of the former  President that stormed the Capitol,   it was BLM, it was Antifa, I mean, the rapid  proliferation of just absolutely unfounded ideas   that were a means of denial, a means of avoiding  accountability or trying to hang their hat on the   smallest procedural grounds. To me, it was  ultimately a question of, is the Republican   Party a party of rule of law, a party of holding  leaders to a high standard? I talk to people who,   when we were evacuated, were strong believers,  that they've lost complete confidence in the   President, were discussing the 25th Amendment  and whether or not to openly support that,   and then a week later vote to acquit. So you can  see how this kind of reversion back to a pretty   unsustainable mean occurs, and I think we've seen  the same in a lot of rhetoric from officials of   my party who were openly condemning in the days  that followed, and then kind of back-pedaled so   hard the chain fell off the bicycle or chain fell  off the sprocket and was dragging on the ground. PM: So I think when we slip into  political violence, that is a line   that cannot be tolerated, that cannot be  excused, that cannot be treated with kid gloves,   and we saw that if it wasn't for the President  propagating and insisting that this had been a   landslide election victory on November 3rd that  was stolen from him, and that January 6th was the   day to stop that steal, without those two...  The violence of the Capitol never happened.   Without encouraging more folks to come on  January 6th, we wouldn't have had the...   Not only encouraging them to come, but in  that speech, telling them go to the Capitol.   Granted, he said, march peacefully. He  also said, fight or fighting 20 times.   And if you don't fight like hell,  you're not gonna have a country anymore. PM: You can try to squirm out  of the accountability question,   but at the end of the day, the folks who were  arrested at the Capitol, they were doing what   they felt Donald Trump wanted them to do.  And if he was disappointed or horrified   at what had occurred at the Capitol in those  immediate moments, he wouldn't have... He would   have been reacting immediately to shut that down,  to tell people to go away. It took him hours.   He was still trying to get Senators to delay, he  was still tweeting attacks at the Vice President   while the Vice President and his wife and his  daughter were in the building, and people who were   roaming the hallways were chanting, "Hang Mike  Pence," and there was a gallow erected outside. PM: So to me, it was an unconscionable dereliction  of duty, it disqualified him from that office,   he abandoned his oath of office. And I will  be very honest, in the days leading up to it,   it was the worst week of my life, not because of  what occurred, not just because of what occurred   at the Capitol, but knowing that this was a  decision that would deeply disappoint so many   folks in my district, but at the end of the day,  if the Republican Party is one that coddles QAnon,   that gives into the darkest and most feverish  corners of the online fringe, that is a   sad and dangerous direction for the Republican  Party to go in and for the country to go in. ES: And I would just add, when you work  alongside the military, you are taught   that leadership climate is set from the top,  and watching, frankly, the years of messaging   to the President's followers using his mantle at  the White House to set a tone of permissiveness   around hate and violence, that is the legacy  we're gonna be living with long beyond what   happened in the Senate last week, and this is what  makes it, I think, even harder as we go forward.   Peter made a decision that risked his career.  When I was going through the first impeachment,   people told me, that's the end of your career. And  I think it's critical that people be willing to   stand up for what they believe in, but now  the work of trying to bring the country back   together in some form or fashion really begins  when the cameras turn off on Capitol Hill. ES: And just in the past week, in my own district,  we've had pastors and church services Zoom-bombed   by the KKK and people threatening to rape  and kill our pastors, people Zoom-bombing   our city council meetings, kids bullied at  school because of their political views.   It has seeped into the fabric of our lives, and I  think it is extremely important as we go forward   that we try and reset that red line around  threatening or inciting or using violence   in politics. That goes nowhere good,  that goes nowhere good for any side,   and we have to be just absolutely vigilant  that if someone's going to threaten violence,   that is a law enforcement issue, that  is no longer a freedom of speech issue. ES: So I am gonna try and figure out,  frankly, what my role is in helping to bring   our communities back together, because leadership  got us into this and it will take leadership to   get us out. That's complicated, but if  anyone thinks that kind of like we can   separate into two Americas, we cannot talk to  each other... That doesn't work here in Michigan,   that's not who we are, it's not our state. And my  neighbors are devoted Trump voters, my in-laws.   So this is something that I think Michigan has a  special role in helping the country think through   how we move forward and how we heal, because  we have to keep that on the agenda, or else   it concerns me where we'll  be in a couple of years. PM: And I think the phrase a time  to heal is especially appropriate   given the name of the school. MB: I was gonna ask you a little bit about that,  Peter. So I want to touch on the themes that both   of you have been raising, 'cause they're just  so critical for the future of our country. And   maybe we'll start, Peter, with that last  point. Your district isn't fully aligned   with President Ford's former district, but  it's got certainly quite a lot of overlap.   What does it mean to you to have the legacy  of President Ford as part of your legacy? PM: When I was running my campaign, my motto  was to return strong, stable and effective   representation of West Michigan and fulfill the  legacy of Gerald Ford, Paul Henry and Vern Ehlers.   That's an open question whether  or not the Republican Party   is still one that nods to that legacy,  that conservative legacy. But to me,   it's the question of does... And then this  gets kind of back to the Burkean sentiment,   is the role of a representative to pull the  district or their half of that district and   do what a majority of them want at any one time  or, as is my belief, is it to exercise judgment,   judgment that will be held to account on those  two-year cycles, but with the understanding that   what might be that incredibly intense emotion  in that moment may age in a different way. PM: I obviously voted my conscience.  It was a difficult vote. I've been on,   I think I'm on my second county GOP censure, and  continue to talk to constituents and hope that   that those relationships can be mended and that we  can respect differences of opinion on that side.   But I've strongly thought about Gerald  Ford and, frankly, if I would have...   That was one of the argument that some folks were  making that President Ford pardoned Richard Nixon,   that was how we move on and we need to  unite, we need to heal these divisions.   To me, I couldn't square that with not voting for  the article of impeachment that was presented,   because in the case of the Ford pardon,   it came after Nixon resigned, it came  after Nixon accepted responsibility. PM: That was a way to move forward because   that responsibility had been  accepted by the guilty party.   And in this case, not only did the President  accept no responsibility, but there was no...   You can't move past something without  working to... By papering over the division.   That wound will remain open, it will never heal  unless you confront the reality, unless you demand   accountability, and I don't want us to wind  up in the same spot in another two years,   four years, six years. I don't want us to  wind up in a scenario where political violence   is not fully held to account. And so that's  why I thought that this district and where I   hope that West Michigan and Michigan as a whole  can be a place where tough decisions are made,   where we don't just take the  easier, the popular way out,   but do what's right and necessary for the  long term and the good of the country. MB: Elissa, obviously, you've been... You won  the first time, you've been re-elected a second   time in a district that traditionally is  quite Republican. You ran as a Democrat,   and you're obviously... You speak in terms that  I think many of your constituents might not   agree with all the time. How do you think about  these questions of reaching across the aisle,   having conversations across the differences we all  have, and taking that special role of Michigan,   as you said, seriously, to be a model for  the country. How do we do that together? ES: Well, it's true, there is a smaller group  of us in Congress right now, I think there are   seven of us Democrats who represent Trump voting  districts, Trump 2020 districts. And I think I'm   the last Democrat in Congress right now who  represents a district that went for Romney,   Trump and Trump, and... So we're a smaller  group, but when I was making decisions,   when Trump's first impeachment happened, you have  to get comfortable with the fact that you may   not be re-elected and that some things are more  important than you keeping a job, and you have to   have faith in people, right, you take a leap of  faith that people want people representing them   who have integrity. And they may not agree with  everything you believe in, but they respect you   for being transparent about how you make decisions  and for then going with what you believe in. ES: And I made that gamble and the voters answered  that in the affirmative, and to me, Michigan is   a good place to try and bring integrity back into  politics, because I still believe the average   Michigander can't stand the violence, can't stand  the vitriol. They just want government to work,   they're pragmatic people that get up every day and  they have stuff in their lives that annoys them,   and they have stuff that they love, and they just  want to do well and have their kids do better. ES: So if you believe in that, as I do, then  you can take votes that are difficult, and I   think... Listen, I'm a Democrat who, my father  was a devoted Republican. I believe that we are   a better country when we have a Republican Party  of empathy, where we have legitimate ideological   differences about the role of government in our  lives, and we push and pull against each other,   but we all believe in making the country  a better place and have a shared vision of   what that is. So I desperately want my peers in  the Republican Party to figure out where they're   going as a party, and obviously Peter is a great  representation of a modern Republican, I hope. ES: But in the meantime, I think you can't close  the door to other people, you can't say, "Well,   I didn't agree with that person a year ago, so  I'm just... They're done. I'm not gonna ever   keep the door open for them." Both Peter and  I are members of the Problem Solvers Caucus,   these are the Democrats and the Republicans  who desperately believe in bipartisanship and   in getting things done. We've had some difficult  conversations since the attack on the Capitol,   it has not always been easy, but I think we feel  that it is important that we show to the country   that you can still disagree without it being  so angry and vitriolic. So setting an example   and then, frankly, just realizing that  people can always come in the door,   if you keep it open. So that's what we're  trying to implement, at least in my district. PM: One of the things that resonated  off of what Elissa said was   the idea of serving every term as if it's  your last. And I think the problem that   I've seen... And granted, I've been  in the role for all of six weeks,   but I saw this in some of the difficult votes, not  only on the 13th with impeachment, but on the 6th,   and the conversations leading up to it  about certification, which at the time   I thought that that would be... That certifying  the election would be an act of political suicide,   so I was pretty... It goes to show you  the naivete of the pre-January 6th moment. PM: But that sense of, if your number one  goal is how do I ensure my own re-election,   you're going to be looking at every issue from a  point of self-preservation rather than fidelity   to the oath of office that you've taken. And to  me that's something I never want to forget, it's   what is the appropriate policy? What  needs to be done? The politics side,   that's something that you work on later, but it  is what is in the best interest of the country,   not just in the best interest of  furthering an individual career. MB: Well, I think that if we had this kind  of perspective widely shared, that both   Elissa and Peter you've expressed, our country  would certainly be in a much better, a much   stronger place. We're gonna go to  audience questions in just a moment.   I thought I might pick, before we do, just one  or two substantive areas to think about. So   one of them obviously that is pending right now  is the stimulus bill, or the relief package,   that President Biden has put forward. I wonder  if each of you could offer your perspectives   on whether we're on the right track with that  approach, are there things you'd like to see done   differently in it, and maybe again, Elissa,  we'll start with you and then go to Peter. ES: Sure. Well, it's a little wonky, but  we are passing this bill, we're on a course   right now to pass the next COVID bill through  a wonky process called budget reconciliation.   And instead of doing what we've done for  the last five bills of work hard, negotiate,   get a bill that independently stands on its own  and goes through the House and Senate and over   to the White House, we are putting it into a  budget reconciliation process, which basically,   I don't love. I'll be honest, I don't love. It  wasn't my preference, and I still am holding   out hope that we could have an independent  COVID bill, because I think that's the way   we should make big decisions, is through a bill  that we can debate and amend and argue over. ES: I do think it's important that  we get money out into the system,   especially for vaccine distribution, I'm sure  for Peter it's the same thing, it's the number   one thing people are asking me about is how come  there feels like there's differences in who gets   the vaccine based on where you live, and all  this stuff. That's 'cause we have scarcity,   we don't have enough supply, and people are  frustrated. So we need to get money out,   no matter what. I don't love the method,  but we gotta deal with the problem, so   frankly, the number... I tend to be a little  bit more on the fiscal conservative side when   it comes to being a Democrat, so I want to  understand and unpack all of those numbers. ES: It's a lot of money, we've gotten pretty  used to throwing out trillions of dollars,   and I still do believe we have to think about,  overall, the debt. Now, we're spending right now   because we need to be spending, but I think we  shouldn't get too comfortable passing trillions   and trillions of dollars without actually diving  into it, and that's what I'm doing right now. PM: The question is, well, where  does the $1.9 trillion come from?   And the best as I can tell, that's the highest  number that you can claim without saying it's   in the "trillions" of dollars. It's a plural  question. If we look... Two recent things,   one, under President Obama, the recession era  stimulus was $800 billion, and we're already   upwards of $3 trillion that we've been spending.  So there's this ultimate question of how are   we arriving at the numbers? What is the right  number? I'm deeply worried about the inflationary   consequences we may be facing. I think some of  the economist estimates that our GDP gap, or   our GDP loss, relative to expectations, may be in  the magnitude of $800 billion to $1 trillion. And   if we are tripling or quadrupling that in terms  of deficit spending we're adding to the economy,   that could have some very unforeseen macroeconomic  consequences, in addition to our elevated debt. PM: But I'm deeply frustrated by the budget  reconciliation process. It essentially means that   no Republican input is required whatsoever. I  think Elissa and I were both on some efforts to   carve out the most urgent necessary components,  specifically money for vaccines, for testing,   and for PPE, and have that as a set-aside,  because the more rapidly we can get vaccines   out and in people's arms who want it, and are  eligible, the faster we're gonna be through the   other end of this pandemic, and the less need  there will be for the never-ending stimulus. PM: I'd also like to see the direct cash payments  cleaved off as well. I have yet to hear a   compelling argument about why a $15 minimum wage  increase should be in a COVID stimulus package,   that seems like a separate legislative  item, and especially worrisome for our   restaurant and hospitality industry that are  already getting hammered by the pandemic. I think   the hospitality industry's off anywhere from 40%  to 50% negative declines in revenue year on year.   So I'm optimistic that we can find a  more expedited way to get support to   people and to support the vaccination  process that allows us to separate,   you know, items that are frankly not an  immediate priority, as the vaccinations are. PM: And the prior stimulus package, the  COVID stimulus we had, the 1.0, the 2.0,   the CARES Act, those are overwhelmingly bipartisan  initiatives. So going down a path to make the next   American rescue plan inherently partisan  spits in the face of the message of unity   that President Biden made nods  to during his inaugural address. MB: Let me shift focus from the immediate  economic needs that you all just discussed   with respect to the stimulus, and ask you to  share with our viewers your thoughts when you   think about the long-term health of the state  of Michigan in particular, and how you imagine   us with a different kind of economy in the next  decades than the one we have now, which is still   not where it used to be and not where I  think anybody wants it to be. So maybe   Elissa, if you could start us out and then  we'll go to Peter, on long-term thinking   about what the Michigan economy ought  to look like and how we might get there. ES: Sure. Well, we still are a place that makes  things and grow things, and that's our specialty,   we're the best in the country at it, and I think  we saw during COVID when our companies stepped up   and we needed things like ventilators and masks,  and we had the manufacturing base to actually   answer the call in a way that a lot of my peers  from other states were like, "Can I get some of   your ventilators?" We were in demand, because it  turns out it's still important to make things. ES: I think we can bolster that sector and do that  by strengthening buy American requirements, by   making sure that if you're using taxpayer dollars  to buy stuff for the Centers for Disease Control,   that should be mostly American stuff. And I think  the Biden Administration understands we can open   up that market a little bit and enhance American  manufacturing, which is always gonna be important.   But we also have to realize that time marches  on, and the announcement that GM made the other   day of going to all-electric vehicles, I'm a  little biased 'cause I represent Lake Orion,   which is where we're making a lot of  these electric vehicles, but if the   country is in some ways moving towards electric  vehicles, let's be the one to make them, right? ES: I don't need to give that to Tesla, let's  be the ones that make that and capitalize on   our know-how on those industries. And then I think  we've learned a lot through the pandemic. I think   everyone knows people who have come back home,  who have relocated temporarily, people who have   fancy jobs in Silicon Valley are able to do them  at a fraction of the cost of living and have the   great Michigan life that everyone enjoys. I think  letting our small towns have a piece of that pie   so that anyone, as long as they have  broadband, which we should talk about, anybody   can participate in that economy and keep that  know-how, that engine, going here in Michigan.   And we all know that in the manufacturing  sector there are fewer and fewer jobs,   but we also have the biggest robotics  community in the country, so if we're not   the guy on the line, we should be the guy  making and fixing the robot. We have to adapt,   and I think we're well-positioned to do  it, but it takes creativity and vision. PM: And I couldn't agree more. I think  for too long Michigan's losses have been   the gains that have been seen overseas, by a place  that a lot of our jobs have been outsourced to.   COVID showed us the fragility of our international  supply chains and [] ____ manufacturing sectors,   and we're dealing this right now with chip makers,  supporting our autonomous and electric vehicles   and just our vehicles more broadly, how the  more outsourced some of those components are. PM: And maybe there was a marginal gain in  productivity or a cost decrease initially,   but very quickly that cost gets eroded by the  additional risk that's added in. So thinking   strategically about how to on-shore a  lot of the medicinal, pharmaceutical,   higher technological and other critical  components of our supply chain is going to be   a real opportunity, especially for Michigan,  in the years to come. But To Elissa's point on   our cities and towns and our state in general, I  want New York, and this is me being very selfish,   but I want New York and California and  Illinois, I want their losses to be our gains.   We have a higher quality of [] ____ lower cost  of living, and the intersection of those two,   especially in a world where a significant amount  of work will continue to be remote, and frankly, I   hope that the conversation  we're having right now... PM: I'm about to run and go tour a vaccine...  A mass vaccination site with the Governor.   I can do both of those things  in the span of two hours,   right, because of Zoom, because of this remote  work. When Elissa and I are back in DC for votes,   we can still be present in our community through  remote systems. And so the more we adapt to that,   the more opportunities to decentralize a lot  of the employment that we've seen historically,   and the more that I think Michigan can gain.  But, to Elissa's point, making sure we have   a robust infrastructure to support that will be  critical, including high speed Internet access. MB: The next set of questions from the  audience are around climate change,   which both of you touched on in different ways  in your remarks, but I wonder if you could   tell us what you think, again, both Michigan  needs to do and the United States needs to do,   and the world needs to do, with respect  to the problem of climate change, which   so many people are worried is the biggest  existential threat that the world faces.   Peter, maybe you could start us out, your  views on climate change, and then Elissa. PM: I think climate change is  real, I think it's a problem,   and I think it's something that we need to  act in a thoughtful and serious way towards.   One of the President's executive orders that  frustrated me was shutting down the Keystone   XL pipeline. We need to recognize that the more  we can shift production to renewables the better,   but we're always going to need some form of  on-demand energy generation, whether that's   nuclear, whether that's natural gas, that's  going to have to be the case, and that we can't   flip a switch. We have existing systems, we  have existing infrastructure that we need   to be doing what we can to pave the way to the  future, but that that's also going to take time. PM: I'm firmly supportive, and we are in a  state that's defined by its natural resources,   I mean, the shape of our state is defined by the  lakes all around us. We have the third largest   fishery industry, protecting the environment,  preventing the worst impacts of climate change,   and beginning to peel back the path that  we're on is essential for our economy,   it's essential for our future,  and it's going to ultimately be   a far lower cost in the long term  than continuing to neglect this issue. ES: Yeah, and I would just say, listen, I  come from a national security background,   and when I was at the Pentagon we co-authored  the first study of how climate change should   be viewed as a national security issue.  And again, when you're in the intelligence   community or the military, you're planning. If  something even has a 10% chance of happening,   you're planning against that threat, so prudent  planning obviously should be accelerated and   taken extremely seriously when it  comes to mitigating climate change. ES: I think we have to acknowledge that that means  doing something about carbon and fossil fuels,   we can't do it at the expense of collapsing our  economy, but we can have serious conversations   about how we lower the carbon coming out of our  state, out of our country. I think we should have   those conversations. The good news is I think the  environment, as Peter mentioned, is one of the   most bipartisan issues in the state of Michigan.  It always seems to surprise people from the East   or West Coast, they think it's this political  thing, and it's like, "No, our local lakes,   rivers, streams, our way of life, our Great Lakes,  people are pretty serious about protecting them." ES: And so I tend to focus on those issues where  we have overlap 'cause it's the way to havfe a   real conversation about the environment, but if  we don't understand that environmental security   is literally Homeland Security, after Flint  and having PFAS in our water, if you can't hand   your child a glass of water without knowing that  they might get a life-long learning disability,   that is a direct threat to your family. And so I'm   for reframing the issue and being more muscular  about it. Protecting your local watershed,   protecting the water that comes out of your tap,  that's what you should be doing as a citizen,   protecting your family. So I think reframing  the issue and then keeping it something that   we all focus on, I think is kind of the  way that I engage in environmental issues. MB: That's great. We're getting  close to the top of our time here,   but we have a set of questions that are  returning to the theme about conversations   across difference from the beginning.  And one question from the audience is:   "Present company aside, could each of you  name a political figure of the opposite party   who you admire and say a little bit about  why?" And maybe Elissa and then Peter. ES: Sure. Well, I've worked in Republican  administrations, so I worked in the Bush   White House, I was assigned there. I  worked for senior Republican officials.   Someone who I appreciated quite a bit was,  actually just more current, is Brian Fitzpatrick,   he's a Representative, a Republican Representative  from Pennsylvania. He cares deeply about things   like PFAS and water, he's one of the chairmen  of the bipartisan task forces on that,   and I think separate from any one issue, he's just  a decent person. We've had issues where we don't   agree, we've had issues where we agree, but you  can tell pretty quickly when you come to Congress,   and I'm sure Peter is going through this now,  everyone says they want to work across the aisle,   but it's hard work sometimes, especially  in this polarized environment. ES: You have to be committed to doing it, and  the way that you get through hard times like this   is you just... You be a human being, and  say like, "Hey, I don't agree with you,   here's where I'm coming from, this is tearing  my town apart and we can't go on this way,"   and having another human being say, "I hear you,  that's not... I didn't think about it that way."   And it is... Brian has been  one of a number of folks who   we don't always agree, but he's a human  being, and when he lost his older brother   last term, we were able to comfort him as human  beings because we saw each other and dealt with   each other that way, and we need more of  that in Congress, desperately, right now. PM: And a lot of the folks that come to mind  are freshmen, and some of them come from very   blue districts, and so I don't want to  throw them under the bus by getting a   compliment from a Republican. So I'll shift  to the other body and just say I appreciate   folks like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema,  and how you have folks who are not afraid   to buck their party, are not afraid to make an  unpopular vote. I think we've seen in many bodies,   and you see it on the Supreme Court,  you see it in our houses of government,   how in a trying time, in a highly polarized  time, there are folks who gravitate and   realize if somebody doesn't try to create some  balance then we're all gonna be out of whack. PM: And so I really respect those who are  not afraid to take grief, aren't afraid to   have their party and primary challengers thrown  against them. Maybe I'm now psychologically   revealing a little bit about myself  in the current moment that I'm in, but   I do think that in the long arc of history,  history looks kinder on those who stand up   for what they believe in than those who  just try to not wind up in the minority. MB: So we have only a minute left, and the last  question is pretty complicated, but I'll try it.   One thing our students are worried about is when  people call for civility, they mean sit down and   shut up, don't say what your... Don't speak up for  injustice, in the way, Peter, that you were just   describing. How do you wrestle with this question  of how to be strong in your principles and stand   up for what you believe in for justice, but also  reach out that hand to people who disagree with   you? And again, we only have a minute left, so  give it your best shot. Peter and then Elissa. PM: I think it's being honest. And being honest,  you can tell a very hard truth without being   impolite. And I think folks deserve  that, they don't deserve to be...   You disrespect, you patronize somebody when  you tell them what you think they want to hear   rather than what they need to hear. And I think  that can be a problem with rising generations,   is assuming something that's uncomfortable  is negative rather than something that's   uncomfortable might be exactly the  conversation that needs to happen. ES: Yeah, I don't see it as calling for civility  means backing off the strength and passion of your   argument. I actually see it as the opposite.  It gives you the tools to actually have that,   frankly, moral high ground. If someone is  threatening violence and is heckling and is   angry and is crossing all kinds of civility  lines, and you respond in kind, what have you done   to help the cause? I mean, you've all solidified  your feelings that you don't trust the other side. ES: But you can have a passionate,  strong argument without it being nasty,   and I would argue that it's more effective.  And I don't consider myself a shrinking violet,   and I have had threats and things hurled against  me for a long time now, and it doesn't empower you   to sink to that level. And the truth is, I think  some of the greatest leaders in our country have   been the ones that have said... I think of Martin  Luther King, I know it's trite, but honestly, the   man lived in the segregated South, and he figured  out a way to keep his heart open to other people,   and he did more to transform our country  and civil rights than any other human being. ES: So it's not always easy, it's sometimes  deeply uncomfortable to have conversations   with people who you really don't agree with, God  knows, I know, but if you just respond in kind,   you're just... That's not demonstrating leadership  and it doesn't get you where you want to go. MB: Well, this has been an amazing conversation.  I wish it could go on for hours longer, but you   all have both been generous with your time. I  really appreciated the openness towards each other   and towards opposing views, and the courageous  stance you both have taken in different aspects   of your work, so on behalf of the Ford School  and the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation   and our wonderful student sponsors,  thank you so much for joining us today. ES: Thanks, Michael. Thanks, Peter. PM: Thanks, Elissa. MB: Take care.