 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 the 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 Alyssa Slotkin is an intelligence officer and represented Peter Meyer in the Army Reserves. So they bring that national security perspective. They're deeply tied to Michigan. Representative Meyer 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. 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 his 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. High-grade foods produced are beloved ballpark Franks, which were first served at Tiger Stadium. In the interest of full disclosure, let me also say that there are ties to the Ford School. Representative Meyers' 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. 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 U.S. 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? Maybe, Peter, you could start. Yeah. Well, thank you so much for having us here today, and 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 that 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 subbasement, and then we were wandering in the tunnels trying to figure out what parts of the complex were still secure, knowing that the canon complex had been evacuated, 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. 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 I literally, my mind clicked into, you know, 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, you know, 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, you know, 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, you know, wasn't, you know, 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 that they needed to get over quickly. 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 go through that. What do you make of the the reaction of the White House? And it sounds like, Alyssa, 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? It wasn't a tough conversation. I think, you know, we will have plenty of time for for lessons learned on preparedness leading up to that event, because anyone, of course, from Michigan would have known there was going to be violence on that day. In fact, I told my staff in 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, you know, in my own district in Lansing. But, you know, 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 uniform military helped clear peaceful protesters so that the president could have a photo op. They were lambasted for that. We had, you know, 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. 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, you know, constrained, excuse me, rules of engagement. So they were dealing with now sort of the pendulum swinging and everyone saying, come here, come here, come here. They were not mustard 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. 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 as a group across party lines? What were the conversations like while you were waiting for essentially a rescue? Yeah, it was definitely very much a bipartisan cross-partisan mix. You know, there was no distinction when you're evacuating. Actually, he was a representative, Dean Phillips, a 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 seeing the House Gallery. But I guess what was kind of 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? You know, I hear back the Cold War and OK, you got the Greenbrier and there's all these continuity of government operations. And, you know, I understand that there are scenarios where you don't necessarily want to brief what may be sort of a classified or kind of confidential plan ahead of time so that it doesn't leak. And what was most dispiriting was, you know, you have, you know, the vice, 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. And I mean, we were first in a random cafeteria with big windows looking out and having no I have knowing at the time that pipe bombs have been discovered and neutralized in adjacent buildings that, you know, shots had been fired and at least one person was shot and killed, you know, that that folks had stormed the Capitol and were in the cafeteria or wandering through tunnels. Several dozen, you know, 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 say, where the heck are we going right now? I'm not knowing if you'd turn a quarter and an encounter of folks who had gotten in unauthorized. So, you know, 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. Do you think that 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? 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, you know, retired general honoree 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, are hurt, are God forbid killed. And we need to understand how the succeeding like failures that took place 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. And, you know, to represent a slackens 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, you know, I think obviously it was a tragedy that five folks died and including the Capitol Police Officer, two more, you know, 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. I'm 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 outgunned. It's easy to imagine a scenario where not only, you know, where multiple, you know, if dozens, I mean potentially hundreds of people could have lost their lives that day. And including, you know, senior government officials, including, you know, those next three individuals in the presidential line of succession, there are scenarios, there are, you know, ways that that spins so dramatically out of control that, you know, we should be feeling very, we escaped what could have been 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're in 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, you know, we've been, you know, 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 isn't a massively complex investigation. The FBI is conducting, but we need to make sure that there is a full accounting. So it sounds like you all have not been briefed systematically, even on what happened that day, let alone the potential failures. 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. And, 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 the, you know, 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 uniform military around such a symbolic building. No one likes the fences, you know, no one likes all of that. But the truth is, I don't personally have a great handle on what capital 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, you know, similar folks to we saw in January 6th or another group, right. 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 secure, help secure the capital. We all want them to go home, but we need to understand the plan for securing the building after they depart. And Alyssa and I were out at FedEx Field thanking all the Michigan National Guardsmen and Air Guard who were out there and for the work that they did. And then 72 hours later, they get recalled back to the capital. So, I mean, there's, 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 capital police are going through an incredibly, you know, underlying leadership moment. But, but to Alyssa's point, I mean, the vulnerabilities that were exposed, others could take advantage of how there was not some, you know, additional provocative entities in that crowd. How other malign actors, international blind actors didn't see this as an opportunity. 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. 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 do be doing about the rise of white extremist, you know, nationalism, white supremacist organizations that were involved in this attack? How do we, how do we move forward on a national security basis, not just with respect to the capital but broader issues of domestic terrorism in the United States? Maybe Alyssa, you could start us out. Sure. 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 counter terrorism, which will be basically taking on domestic terrorism this year. And the truth is, I think, you know, the 9-11 era, those 20 years after 9-11 have officially been capped off, you know, 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, the problems it creates, even at the local level, which we're seeing now. So clearly, I think is really a risk to us moving forward and having the life we all want here. And 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 overreacting, right? We had been attacked. We had had this symbolic, you know, event, loss of life. And so, frankly, in those early days after 9-11, we made some bad decisions, right? We opened up Gitmo. We allowed detention, rendition, torture. We launched the war in Iraq on false pretenses. I mean, we reacted because we were emotional because we had been attacked. And Lord knows, I got into national security because of that emotion. But we can't do the same thing with domestic terrorism, particularly because it's so sensitive, right? Because freedom of speech issues are wound up in it. So we're going to be taking a look at it and looking at whether we need additional domestic terrorism laws, right? But also, it's 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, right? And making sure that we are appropriately resourced for the threat. You know, from, for Peter and I, you know, if you were like 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 a time when the FBI will say that they have more open domestic terrorism cases than they do foreign. So we've got to 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. And as Alyssa's on intelligence and counterterrorism as the lead, I'm the ranking member on oversight, management and accountability on Homeland Security. So, you know, there will definitely be some opportunities to be very mindful of where, you know, how do we get to the point where this threat was not adequately assessed? And to Alyssa's point, I'm also deeply concerned and want to make sure we don't overreact. 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. You know, we have legitimate authorities. We have law enforcement and investigative apparatuses. You know, we have the ability to deal with these threats 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, you know, cannot operate without some type of military or kind of lethal support. So, I think we need to, and then this is some of the conversations we've been having, be open to what might need to change. And then the other question is, is this a question of staffing? Is it a question of resources? Is it a question of focus and attention? You know, 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, you know, 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 fuller accounting. I don't want us to, in this immediate moment, overreact and potentially cause more damage. And we've seen with some of the, you know, it can be a very slippery slope on domestic terrorism, you know, at what point does First Amendment, you know, right to protest, right to engage in speech? Where does that transgress and at what point does the FBI start to go in? Because even if we look before the 9-11 era, going back to the civil rights movement, there were long-standing abuses of peaceful groups and the FBI, especially under J. Edgar Hoover, you know, infiltrating and recording and blackmailing, you know, individuals who were engaged in peaceful protest and expressing, you know, 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. It's really helpful. Let's spend just a little bit longer on this moment and then I'm going to 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 6, 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, you know, 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 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 Alyssa, that would be great. 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, you know, 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. I mean we don't have a strong track record of them, you know, historically there's only a handful, but where, you know, 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. It wasn't supporters of the former president that stormed the capital, it was BLM, it was ANTIFA, right? I mean the rapid proliferation of just absolutely unfounded ideas that were a means of denial, a means of avoiding accountability or, you know, trying to hang their hat on the smallest procedural grounds. To me, it was ultimately a question of, you know, is the Republican Party a party of rule of law, a party of holding leaders to a high standard? You know, I talked to people who, you know, when we were evacuated were, you know, strong believers that, you know, they lost complete confidence in the president were, you know, discussing the 25th amendment and whether or not they were able 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 and a lot of rhetoric from officials of my party who, you know, were openly condemning, you know, in the days that followed and then kind of backpedaled so hard the chain fell off the bicycle or chain fell off the sprocket and was dragging on the ground. I think when we slip into political violence that is a line that cannot be tolerated, that cannot be excused, that cannot be, you know, 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 November 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 capital granted he said march peacefully he also said fight or fighting 20 times and if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore, you know, you can try to score them out of the accountability question but at the end of the day when folks who are arrested at the capital 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 capital 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 trying to get a tax 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 gallo erected outside 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 the worst week of my life not because of what occurred, not just because what occurred at the capital 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 dangerous direction for the Republican party to go in and for the country to go in. I would just add you know 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 are going to be living with long beyond what happened in the Senate last week right and this is what makes it I think even harder as we go forward you know 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 and just in the past week right 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 is going to threaten violence that is a law enforcement issue that is no longer freedom of speech issue so I am going to 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 can not talk to each other it just 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 you know it concerns me where we will be in a couple of years and I think the phrase at time to heal is especially appropriate given the name of the school I was going to ask you a little bit about that Peter I want to touch on the themes that both of you have been raising because they're just so critical for the future of our country and maybe we'll start Peter with that last point your district doesn't fully align 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 I mean 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 that conservative legacy but to me it's it's the question of does and this gets kind of back to the Berkean sentiment is the role of a representative to you know pull the district or they're 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 I obviously voted my conscience it was 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 there's that those you know relationships can be mended and that we can respect differences and that's the opinion on that side but I strongly thought about Gerald Ford and frankly if I would have there was one of the argument that some folks were making that you know President Ford pardoned Richard Nixon you know that was how we move on and we need to unite we need to heal these divisions to me he part that I couldn't square that with voting 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 you know that was a way to move forward because that responsibility had been accepted by the guilty party and in this case not only the president accept no responsibility but there was no you can't move past something without working to by papering over the division right I mean 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 you know 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 Alyssa obviously you're you've been you won the first time you've been reelected 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 well it's true I mean there is a smaller group of us in Congress right now there 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 and so we're a smaller group but you know 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 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 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 and they just want to do well and have their kids do better 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 people 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's a great representation of a modern Republican I hope but in the meantime I think you can't close the door to other people and say well I didn't agree with that person a year ago so I'm just they're done I'm not going to ever keep the door open for them both Peter and I are members of the problem solvers caucus these are the Democrats and 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 to 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 that if you keep it open so that's what we're trying to implement at least in my district one of the things that resonated off of what Alyssa said was the idea of living every term as if it's your last right 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 that goes to show you the naivete of the moment but that sense of if your number one goal is how do I ensure my own re-election you're not 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 on the politics side that's something that you work on later right but it is what is in the best interest of the country not just in the best interest of furthering an individual career well I think that if we had this kind of perspective widely shared that both Alyssa and Peter you've expressed our country would certainly be in a much better a much stronger place 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 Alyssa we'll start with you and then go to Peter 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 you know work hard negotiate get a bill that independently stands on its own and goes through you know the house and the 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 way we should make big decisions is through a bill that we can debate and amend and and argue over I do think it's important that we get money out into the system especially for 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 so that's because 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 and but you know we got to deal with the problem so 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 it's a lot of money we've gotten pretty used to throwing out like 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 of dollars without actually diving into it and that's what I'm doing right now now and I mean 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 I mean it's a plural question if we look kind of 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 are GDP gap or 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 you know our elevated debt but I'm deeply frustrated by the budget reconciliation process which actually means that no Republican input is required whatsoever I think Alyssa and I were both on some efforts to carve out the most urgent and necessary components specifically money for vaccines for testing and for PPE and have that as a set aside because you know the shorter the more rapidly we can get vaccines out and in people's arms who want it and are eligible are going to be through the other end of this pandemic and the less need there will be for the never ending stimulus 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 is 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 items that are frankly not an immediate priority as the vaccinations are and the prior stimulus the COVID stimulus we had the 1.0 and 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 isn't the face of the message of unity that President Biden made nods to during his inaugural address 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 Alyssa if you could start us out Peter on long-term thinking about what the Michigan economy ought to look like and how we might get there sure well we still are a place that makes things and grows things and that's our specialty we're the best in the country at it and I think we saw during COVID when our company stepped up and we needed things like ventilators and masks and you know 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 I mean you know we were we were in demand because it turns out it's still important to make things I think we can bolster that sector and do that by strengthening by 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 is understands we can open up that market a little bit and enhance American manufacturing which is always going to be important but we also have to realize that you know time marches on and you know the announcement that GM made the other day of going to all electric vehicles I mean I'm a little biased because 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 I don't need to give that to Tesla you know let's be the ones that make that and kind of capitalize on our know-how on those industries and then I think we've learned a lot through the pandemic I mean I think everyone knows people who have come back home who have relocated temporarily people who have you know 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 right so if we're not the guy on the line we should be the guy making and fixing the robot I mean we are we have to adapt and I think we're well positioned to do it but it takes creativity and vision and I couldn't agree more I think for too long Michigan's losses have been you know 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 actually manufacturing sectors and we're dealing 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 and maybe there was a marginal gain in productivity or kind of cost decrease initially but very quickly that cost gets eroded by the additional risk that's added in so thinking strategically about how to onshore a lot of the you know medicinal pharmaceutical you know higher technological and other critical components for a supply chain is going to be a real opportunity especially for Michigan in the years to come but to Alyssa'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 lower cost of living and those the intersection of those two you know 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 you know I'm about to run and go tour a vaccine a mass vaccination site with the governor you know I can do both of those things in the span of two hours right because of zoom because of this rumble when Alyssa and I are back in DC for votes we can still be present in our community through you know kind of 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 this is point making sure we have a robust infrastructure to support that will be critical including a high speed internet access 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 the biggest you know existential threat that the world faces Peter maybe you could start us out your views on climate change and then Alyssa 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 you know I'm one of the president's executive orders that frustrated me so in excel pipeline you know 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 right 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 I'm firmly supportive and we are in a state that's defined by its natural resources I mean that the shape of our state is defined by the lakes all around us you know 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 yeah and I would just say I mean 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 right 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 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 in our you know 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 like the east or west coast they think it's this you know political thing and it's like no our local lakes river streams our way of life our great lakes people are pretty serious about protecting them and so I tend to focus on those issues where we have overlap because it's the way to have a real conversation about the environment but you know if we don't understand that environmental security is literally homeland security after Flint and having PFAS in our water like if you can't hand your child a glass of water without knowing that they might get a lifelong learning disability that is a direct threat to your family and so I 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 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 Alyssa and then Peter sure well I mean I've worked in Republican administration so I worked in the Bush White House I was assigned there I worked for senior Republican officials you know someone who I appreciated quite a bit was actually just more current is Brian Fitzpatrick he's a representative or Republican representative from Pennsylvania he cares deeply about things like PFAS and water he's one of the chairman of the bipartisan task forces on that and I think separate from from any one issue like just a decent person right I mean 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's going through this now you know everyone says they want to work across the aisle but it's hard work from times especially in this polarized environment you have to be committed to doing it and the way that you get through hard times like this is you just 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 I 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 and you know a lot of the folks that come to mind are freshman 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 I'll shift to the other body and just say I appreciate folks like Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema and how you have folks who are not afraid to buck their party are not afraid to make an popular 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 and a highly polarized time there are folks who gravitate and realize if somebody doesn't try to create some balance then we're all going to be out of whack and so I really respect those who are not afraid to take grief or are afraid to have their party and primary challengers thrown against them maybe I'm now psychologically revealing a little bit about myself and the current moment that I'm in but I do think that in sort of 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 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 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 Alyssa I mean 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 I mean 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 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 right 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 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 just doesn't 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 mean 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 so I am 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 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 thanks Michael, thanks Peter thanks Alyssa take care