c-span at, or go to c-span radio, serious xm radio 645, and on your smart speaker by saying play c-span radio. hear washington journal daily at 7:00 eastern. listen to house and senate proceedings, committee hearings, news conferences, and other public hearing events live throughout the day. for the best way to hear what's happening in washington with analysis of the day, catch washington today weekdays at 5:00 and 9:00 eastern. listen to c-span programs on c-span radio anytime, anywhere. c-span, democracy unfiltered. >> c-span, democracy unfiltered. we are funded by these television companies and more including sparklight. >> what is great internet? is it strong? is it fast? is it reliable?

at sparklight, we know connection goes way beyond technology. from monday morning meetings to phone and likes with friends and everything in between. the best connections are always there right when you need them. so how do you know it's great internet? because it works. we are sparklight, and we are always working for you. >> srklight supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. rnal" continues. host: we are joined by philip wallach, a senior fellow at the american enterprise institute and the author of the book why congress. welcome to the program. start by telling us about your background and your areas of expertise. guest: i'm a political scientist who studies american politics, particularly our constitutional system, our policymaking system and the separation of powers.

over the last seven or eight years i have mostly focused on studying congress because i am concerned that congress is in some ways the part of our government that is having the most trouble and because congress has troubles we get a lot of problems passing laws that are legitimate that the whole american people -- there is so much stress on a presidential elections and it strains our political system. host: you're a senior fellow at aei. does that mean you have a conservative point of view? guest: i think of myself as a center-right person. i am unusually concerned about process and the way we do things. not just a particular set of priorities. host: let's talk about the speech tonight the president will be giving. what are you looking for in terms of how president trump defines his role and his powers?

guest: i think president trump and this second term has been very clear he thinks he won a huge victory, a mandate from the american people and that gives him pretty much entitles them to do whatever he thinks is right. of course the president takes an oath to take care of that the laws are faithfully executed. sometimes president trump seems to think that when he finds laws inconvenient or bad they do not apply. i wonder if he will say anything on that score to reassure those of us who are worried they are playing fast and loose with the law in this new administration? i expect president trump to revert to form as a showman.

us who are worried they are playing fast and loose with the law in this new administration? i expect president trump to

revert to form as a showman. quoting on social media. i do consider myself successfully trolled. it did get a rise out of me. that is not the kind of country america is supposed to be. we are a country where the law is king. there is no other king. we do not elect a king. a president is bound to be an officer of the law. host: tell us about unitary executive theory. what does that mean and where does it come from? guest: there is a question about how the executive branch ought to be organized. we have literally millions of people who are employed in the executive branch of our government today. that is quite a contrast from the beginnings of our country where there were just a few hundred in 1789. the question is how much do we need to have it be so the

president as the boss at the top of this pyramid is literally responsible for everything that happens in the executive branch and has the ability to hire and fire as he sees fit? the unitary executive theory says the constitution makes the president's sole head of the executive branch and there is not room for independence within the executive branch. independent agencies, which we have had for many decades are suspicious. we think why are they independent? why don't the answer to the democratically elected president? president trump and his supporters have leaned very hard into the unitary executive theory to justify why the president needs to have direct control over every part of the government. they have taken it even farther in suggesting anything the president says goes. the unitary executive theory does not necessarily say.

host: philip wallach is our guest, author of the book "why congress?" if you would like to join our conversation. start calling you now. democrats (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, (202) 748-8002 and independents (202) 748-8002. where does that theory leave congress? guest: the executive branch is one thing and congress is another thing. congress is the article one branch of government. it does not get its power from the president, it gets its power from the people. congress is meant to be the preeminent branch of our government that makes the big decisions. they are the ones who make the law and the president is supposed to be executing the law. that ought to give congress pride of place. it is clear congress in recent years has marginalized itself.

members of congress, you will see them begging the president to do things. you could just make a law but instead you're going around the lawmaking process and sing the president is the one who is supposed to make all the policies and all of the decisions. as a member of congress the most effective thing i can do is bend to the presidency or. -- is bend the president's ear. that is a dangerous shift for congress that suggests it is subordinate. host: do you think the power of executive had already been expanding in the past, even before the current time? guest: i think it is a long upward trajectory. not always steady. after watergate congress eased back a lot of powers. there have been times in congress has shown it can stand up for itself. in the 21st century especially we have seen very assertive presidents. you had barack obama say when

congress is not doing what i want i have my pen and my phone and i can do a lot of policymaking just by those by ordering people to do things in the executive. trump has fit into this upward trajectory but i think it is fair to say the second trump administration is making the most aggressive claims of any administration we have ever seen. host: you published a commentary with the title "the rule of law has seen better days." explain what you mean by that and if you think there are laws being broken right now. guest: i think it is clear that there are. some of them are detailed, not likely to be things the ordinary american is experiencing directly. there is a question about the funding of research labs. congress clearly set out a formula that it wanted.

it had a disagreement with the first trump administration so it clearly put this into law. the second trump administration says sorry we are giving less for overhead, it does not matter that the losses otherwise. there are little things like that. that is an important policy but something most people will not notice. then there is the question of the civil service laws and how the federal employment is structured and what kind of procedures you have to go through to shut down an agency. usaid is established by law. the president has made it sound like nevertheless he can just disappear it. host: under unitary executive theory that all branch belongs to him so he could shut down agency if he chose to? guest: the president is charged with taking care that the laws are faithfully executed and those are good laws on the books. the president has to have direct lines of control through the executive branch under unitary executive theory. traditionally they do not have

the power to just disregard the law. another place where this will come up as this question of impoundment. when congress passes spending laws is the president required to spend up to the amount congress has said or does the president have an inherent power to say actually i don't want to spend as much on this, that is just a ceiling for how much i could spend? president nixon made some very aggressive claims about how he could impound funds if he thought the policy was bad. president trump seems to be moving in that direction although he has not formally made any claim of that yet. host: the impoundment control act of 19 requires the president to spend appropriated money uess he obtains congressional approval within 45 days not to disburse the funds. has that ever happened? guest: yes.

many presidents since the passage of that act have successfully gotten rescissions. you rescind the spending that was originally in the appropriations laws. it does require going to congress and working with members of congress to pass those bills. certainly easier for the president to just say i can do this on my own. since the big clashes with nixon in the 1970's no president has gone outside of that framework to say i have a strong impoundment power. president trump looks like he may. host: let's start with callers. mary on the republican line in texas. caller: go ahead -- hello. host: go ahead. caller: i am mary smith and i, from a long line of democrats and i voted for obama and biden but i had a friend who was very

politically astute or meet that biden was pro-abortion up to the ninth month and i'm a pro-life person so i made a 180 and became a republican. then i started watching newsmax and fox nation and i became a conservative republican and i will be watching the president tonight. i appreciate your show very much. host: here is carol in illinois. line for democrats. are you there? caller: thank you for taking my call. i am very concerned that all of our relatives died in the past to have our u.s. constitutional rights. congress is not stepping up and doing their job. what can we do to get congress up doing their job? instead of taking away from the people and giving it all to the

oligarchs. it does not hurt them but it hurts the american people. thank you very much. host: what do you think? guest: thanks for the question. there are some complicated reasons why congress is shirking its responsibilities in our time. part of it is the change in the media environment. members of congress can reach a huge crowd of people on social media and get rewards from those kinds of interactions, including funds from all around the country. that incentivizes them the sort of spectacle rather than the hard work of policymaking. i think a lot of our members of congress today need to remember their job is to be a lawmaker and really figure out how they can get together with all of the

other members who come from all around the country, work through the countries difficult problems and figure out compromises we can all live with. we and up with laws and policies that are broadly acceptable, and that can endure, that will not just snap back and forth when the control of the way has changes hands. the way we have it now where so many members of congress are just cheerleading orring the president depending whether their party is in control of it, we really get a whiplash. that is not healthy for our country. country. host: host: here is stephanie from south carolina. good morning. caller: i am a veteran and i'm calling because unconcerned about the documents seized by the fbi when they rated trump's house for the documents he stole. i'm reading in the washington

post, they are saying those documents were returned to his house. i'm wondering, who is keeping an eye on that, and why do those documents need to be at his house? i will be watching his speech tonight. i don't hear anybody reporting on this. and i will be watching his speech for clues as to why he needs those documents at his house. the same documents they stole before. thank you. host: not very related to the topic but do you have any comments? guest: i would say that i don't know so much about the details of where the documents are today. it does seem that the caller is right. the people have moved on from this issue. trump is the president, he has security clearance for anything and everything. i think it has become a nonissue. host: here is carol, republican in pennsylvania. caller: good morning. speaking to mr. wallick's point

of the whiplash, we need checks and balances in the congressional procedures. we have a seesaw effect that occurs when one party is in power. the fact that the other party has no rights to bring things to the floor is unhealthy. for congress. joe manchin has rightly said that 50% of the people are centrist. the way our system has evolved, it is going whiplash between radical left and radical right. guest: i think carol for that comment. i very much agree that the way we organize the procedures in both the house and the senate today really cuts down on our members ability to work things out and look for bipartisan

compromises where they can find them. we have very leader dominated institutions today, relative to most of the history of congress. the top partisan leaders, republicans in both chambers, have a very tight control over the agenda. and we have a very cramped lawmaking process. we don't often see good nose to the grind stone work in the committee's leading to bipartisan bills that then get brought to the floor where other members have a chance to offer amendments. that has become very uncommon in our time. and that process of lawmaking is good for building compromises that we can all live with. when we try to do everything through our top partisan leaders, they tend to think mostly about how things look for the next election. which again does not always motivate them to think about how

can we calm things down. host: supreme court justice sonya was speaking last month in florida and she was asked about the continued relevance of checks and balances and the power of congress to appropriate funding. i'm with you play portion and get your response. >> our founders believed that they have created -- and they have, created pretty incredible checks and balance systems. the woman who asked franklin, she said, do we have a monarchy or something else? and the response was the republic. our founders were hell-bent on ensuring we did not have a monarchy. the first way they thought of that was to give congress the power of the purse. and because that is an incredible power.

they gave the presidency the power of the military. and that means not just armed forces but law enforcement. which is an incredible obligation of a president. they gave the courts the power to ensure. and we have to do it by persuasion. we have to come in our opinions, make it clear to the society, to the presidents and congress, to the people that we are doing things based on law and the constitution as we are interpreting it fairly. so, our goodwill or our power is power of reason. and that is what most people would consider a soft power. but it is the most powerful of

all of it. because money can be taken away by congress. they can give it and they can take it away. our president has for years, and he or she could be removed. those things are ephemeral. in that sense of it. court decision stands, whether one particular person chooses to abide by that or not. it does not change the foundation that it is still a court order. that someone will respect at some point. host: what do you think? caller: i share the justice's love for that brand -- that benjamin franklin rotate -- quotation when asked what government have you made coming out of the constitutional amendment. he said a republican, if you can keep it.

it is always the responsibility of the american people. we the people, to make sure our government remains responsive to us and does not get out of our control. i think the justice did a good job outlining, i will say it is controversial. exactly where the executive power ends. and exactly how far court decisions can go. she suggested they are the most powerful thing until they are overturned. there is a view that has periodically popped up in american history called departmental is him that says actually, judges get to decide cases. and that's it. everyone else is bound.

they can keep pushing. i think you see some signs of the current trump administration has a few like that, it wants to very narrowly limit how it is going to read the supreme court's ruling. host: do you think the supreme court will ultimately decide all of these questions as far as the power of does come of their ability to fire federal workers, the power of the presidency? host: there are dozens of lawsuits that are currently pointing out. lawsuits play out over the course of months and years. host: we will leave this to take you live for remarks by officials in front of reporters. >> lives matter to the trump

administration p all lives matter to him. and he was focused on life. >> exactly how long -- [indiscernible] i have not met with hamas. my understanding is any discussions with hamas have been recent. not three-week as has been reported, but a couple of days. that is well within the gambit of the special envoy. that is his job. his job is to get these people home. we helped in that effort. i commend him for doing that. he cares about lives. as everybody should be. the hostage families are grateful for it and so is president trump. >> he said there is a framework

for ukraine. was an intercooled deal decided? >> i think zelenskyy has offered to sign it. we will see if he follows through. >> president trump posted writing of hello and goodbye. what does that mean exactly? can you tell us, how did he feel yesterday? >> i think he listened to nine human beings who have been held in captivity in some difficult circumstances.

they said but for him, they would not be there today for they were grateful for their families. in the jewish religion, you save a life, you save a thousand lives. they talked about how they have heard about his election. and they were uplifted. they were in these dark, dank cabins. they never felt like that appear they were elated. they knew that they were going to help him get rescued. for me and everyone who is in the oval office. caroline was there too. you can ask her. it was deeply moving. >> what about phase two of the deal? >> think that is the discussion. the discussion today, people

define it as an extension of phase one or phase two. i don't really care what we call it. what we call it is are we going to have a resolution? are we going to have a peace deal? will we have all of those hostages home which is the aim of the trump administration. and that is going to require humanitarian action on the part of thomas. it is time for them. >> if we don't make any progress after that, did we go back fighting. >> there definitely is such a date. i'm not at liberty to discuss. >> what do you mean by joint israeli actions? >> we are a guarantor of the process. it is the israelis who control

gaza today. it is the israelis and the counterparty is thomas. -- hamas. any action comes from the israelis. you heard the president say that he is giving the israelis anything they need. it is the israelis but with very strong fiscal and emotional support from the united states. >> can i ask you about the meeting with the ukrainians next week? is there anything that they can bring to the table that would allow [indiscernible] >> i think those are all decisions of the president. but i think he felt zelenskyy's letter was a very positive first step. there was an apology. there was an acknowledgment. the united states has done so much for the country of ukraine. and a sense of gratitude. i think that is the biggest deal. like, we have supported that country and i think it is

important when you support somebody, that that person comes back and acknowledges that and says, how do you -- how is it that we should be? it's not just some sort of unilateral way of processing. >> it's possible it could be resumed? >> we are going there to meet presumably. i think it will be a good meeting. i really do believe that. hopefully that will be a good signal to the russians. they have been proactive too and wanting to get something done here. i think that is what the president -- that is who he is. he is a peace through strength president. the best wars are the wars that never have to get fought. if we can solve this and not fight anymore and save lives, that is the aim of president trump. >> [indiscernible] >> i read this morning that there has -- there might be a suspension of it.

i'm really not sure about that. i'm not sure where we are with john ratcliffe and the dna, but i would think at some point, hopefully we get things back on track with the ukrainians and everything resumes. that is what i would hope for. >> [indiscernible] we heard from russia and they are waiting for the u.s. [indiscernible] do we have a timeline of when that will happen? >> we have been in discussions with the national security advisor this morning about who that main team will be. we have reached out to the russians. we will let the ukrainians know as well. before we get there, that will all be part of it. >> will the u.s. now engaged with any terrorist group that takes american hostages? >> i think if you are asking about the reachout that you read about, i think it was the responsibility of special envoy to actually have a conversation and see if anything can be achieved.

unfortunately, what we learned is hamas told us they were going to be thinking about it a certain way and they weren't. i think that is important information for us to have, and so came the tweak from the president, which is your behavior is unacceptable, you need to clean up your behavior and that is where we stand as a government. >> [indiscernible] >> i don't know whether it was a direct engagement or not. it could have been through a go-between. i just know the messaging was we want to see these hostages come home. we are not going to sit here, do nothing and tolerate these inhumane conditions. they have lived in a terrible situation. who keeps dead bodies? who does that? who keeps people chained up downstairs? who murders in front of other hostages? what has happened here is intolerable, and it is not one to be tolerated by president trump. >> are you saying that what has been [indiscernible]

or was there because on the allies? >> i was simply saying that i can't comment on specifically what was posited. >> a one month pause on long-range. do you think [indiscernible] >> we are talking to the french. i can't tell you what specific proposals have been put on the table. >> [indiscernible] >> i think the president has said that there is a path back. and president zelenskyy has demonstrated that he is intent on that good faith. he has apologized, he said he is grateful. he said he wants to work toward peace. by the way, that is ultimately the goal. president trump is an outcome oriented man. he wants a good outcome. a good outcome is peace, no more debt, and a better world.

>> [indiscernible] without going into those details, that you are still working off of that framework? are you negotiating that? >> the main 27th protocol is the framework. that whole deal was predicated based on that may 27 framework. what i said was that that deal presumed that it would take five years to reconstruct gaza. the saudi's, when they talked about normalization, we are working on a five-year program. gazans, thinking about coming back, thought they would go back to their home in five years. i simply am saying that is a delusion. and that we need to level set the facts so people can make proper decisions based on the realities. now you saw a wall street journal article 10 days ago that said, it is 15 to 20 years.

they are finally beginning to agree people don't belong back there. it is a really dangerous environment. the children, for anybody, all kinds of latent ways to get hurt there. we are level setting the facts. we understand what the conditions are. and we will make proper decisions, master planning, so forth and so on, for every stakeholders benefit. a lot of input. >> is the president see different priorities between returning the american hostages and the others from gaza? >> i think the president cares about all lives. of course, an american is going to be a priority. by the way, in alexander's case, this young man was injured. that is part of it too. we know that he is living in

extreme circumstances. but, i think the president cares equally about israelis as he would about a russian captive as he would about somebody from the philippines. we have gotten releases across the board because the president cares about saving lives. he is just a good human being and he knows he has the power to generate this type. >> is there any discussion about making weapons available to ukraine, making them less vulnerable because of missile strikes by russia, by drone strikes? is that a concern to the president? >> i don't understand the question. >> the question is about making defensive weapons available to ukraine? i realize there is a pause right now. >> we have been giving them plenty, but the largest discussion for us -- larger discussion for us is to get a peace deal done. we want to see peace.

we want to see peace in the middle east. i should say the president wants to see peace and we follow our commander in chief. we want to see peace in the middle east. we want to see it all over the world. and we think all of these conflicts can be settled and we are proving it every day. >> you are talking also with the iranians to bring -- >> i am not talking to the iranians directly and i have no knowledge of anyone in the u.s. government talking to them right now. >> [indiscernible] also to talk about the cease-fire. >> i was like visiting israel. >> are you planning? >> i think we are in conversations with the israelis every single day, there are stash they are our strategic partner. we view them as critical to the process. we think prime minister has done an exceptional job. i work directly with him every

single day. i basically commute to the middle east. that is my job for the president. >> [indiscernible] >> i think i'm going to be in four countries next week and we have to determine the sequencing of it. >> can you be real clear about, you talked about the u.s.-israel partnership, if it doesn't work out with hamas. does that mean military action? >> i can't say. i think it would be not tactical to discuss what that game plan is. >> [indiscernible] >> i think we want edon back but

we want everybody back. we want them all back. we estimate 22, maybe 24 live bodies. we want the bodies back too. these parents who know that their children are gone and their relatives are going, they need those bodies back. they need closure. they need to go and bury their children properly. we want the dead bodies back. we want to live bodies back. >> [indiscernible] do you think you can convince israel? >> i think israel feels as we do. israel feels they want to save lives. they do. and hopefully that's possible through dialogue. and that's the point. we are prepared to have dialogue. if the dialogue does not work, then the alternative is not such a good alternative for hamas. >> [indiscernible] >> i just finished reading it.

there are a lot of compelling futures. we need more discussion. but it is a good faith step from the egyptians. and i think the larger point is that president trump is now encouraging what he is talking about in gaza is now encouraging other people in the middle eastern world to present proactive proposals for what we might consider. and that's what we are doing. >> we are evaluating everything. it is early to comment. we had just gotten the proposal. >> [indiscernible] >> i never heard that. i heard nato. that is the discussion. again, i don't want to comment on the specifics. i think we are making -- we have got a lot of good buy in from the russians and a lot of good buy-in now from the ukrainians. and that is the most important

thing, to bring two sides together, to constantly narrow the gap. this is president trump's negotiating strategy let's narrow the gaps. then let's figure out how to finally finish it and bring the president. >> [indiscernible] >> of course he does. he had meetings with mccrone in the oval -- macron in the oval office. he is listening intently. they are stakeholders here. it's important to them, and it is important to him how they feel, so he is listening. first and foremost, we had to get to the ukrainians, get them back, get them back in a different place, and they are talking peace now. >> thank you, guys. he has been very generous with his time. i know everybody is very interested. we have to go inside. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you also much.

announcer: this afternoon, state department spokesperson tammy bruce wi hold her first press briefing with reporters. we will bring that to u live on c-span three. we will have a streaming on the free c-span now video app, and online at c-span.org. announcer: american history tv, saturdays on c-span two, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. this weekend, at 5:15 p.m. eastern, historian rebecca brenner graham talks about america's first female presidential cabinet member, labor secretary frances perkins, who worked to aid refugees fleeing nazi germany. at 7:00 p.m., watch american history tv series "first 100 days." as we look at the start of presidential terms. this week, we focus on the early months of president gerald

ford's term in 1974, including the spartan of former president richard nixon, who resigned from office during the watergate investigation. at 8:00 p.m. on lectures in history, georgetown university history professor derek gannon on the irish diaspora and the role of the united states during the troubles, and in the northern ireland peace process. at 9:30 p.m. eastern on the presidency, jame brat -- james bradley talks about his biography of our eighth president, the first in-depth look at the van buren presidency in decades. exploring the american story. watch american history tv, saturdays, on c-span two. find the full schedule on your program guide watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. >> mr. speaker, on this historic day, the house of representatives opens its proceedings with -- for the first time to televise coverage. announcer: in march of 1979,

c-span has been your unfiltered window into american democracy, bringing you direct, no spin coverage of congress, the supreme court, in the white house. >> is this mr. brian lamb? would you hold one moment for the president? announcer: it exists because of c-span founder brian lamb's vision and the cable industry's support, not government funding. this public service is not guaranteed. all this month in honor of founders day, your support is more important than ever. you can keep democracy unfiltered today and for future generations. >> to the american people, now is the time to tune into c-span. announcer: your gift today preserves open access to government and ensures the public stays informed. donate now at c-span.org/donate, or scan the code on your screen. every contribution matters. and thank you. >> w