>> pakistan's foreign minister joins the atlantic council in conversation about the government's foreign policy goals. the future of the pakistan relationship and his countries plan to address climate change and economic challenges, live today at 4:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. you can also watch on our video app, or online at c-span.org. announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies and more, including wow. >> the world has changed, today i fast reliable internet connection is something no one can live without, so wow is there for our customers. speed, reliability and choice.

>> wow supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. ♪ >> our first guest of the morning is james walter -- wallner. thank you for joining us today. guest: thank you for having me. host: a little bit about the r street institute, how do you describe it? guest: it's a public policy organization, unlike anything i have seen in two decades working in washington dc. it's a think tank that thinks outside the box. it is looking for real solutions to real problems that we currently confront today. host: to get a little clarification, you formally worked in the senate working with various members of congress.

can you give us an encapsulation of who you worked with them what you did? guest: i work for a variety of senators from jeff sessions to pat toomey who gave his farewell address last week in the united states senate. and mike lee, i was the executive director of the steering committee it was a great honor to work in that fabulous institution. host: part of your work is taking a look at the effects of congress. you wrote a piece taking a look at the lame-duck congress. you call it a threat to democracy. can you talk about what's for the song? guest: in the lead up to the election, there has been a lot of talk about election deniers and discussion about threats to americans democracy and is helpful for americans, regardless to be concerned about their government. they want to make it better however they may see fit.

with regard to the lame-duck, it was concerning to me because we have a congress and the standard practice is to wait until after americans vote. wait until after they cast their ballots to make important decisions. congress intentionally waited until after the election so that it could make decisions with members who are retiring and not seeking to come back in january, who can no longer be a held accountable. or members that could be on the ballots two years from now. americans love a hard time remembering what took place over the weeks of december following that election. that is by definition, a threat to democracy because it undermines that voters ability to hold elected officials accountable for decisions they make on their behalf. host: if people were voted out of office, they are technically still in office. what's wrong with them making

these kinds of decisions? guest: they still have time in their term. the ratification of 2013, lame-duck could last until march to the upcoming year, in this case march 2023. the 20th amendment tried to lame lame-duck section -- try to and lame-duck sections. it was for congress to address emergencies and that is how they use those sessions. the real problem is that members are purposefully, intentionally waiting until after the people vote to make decisions. they are not doing it because it's an emergency. they don't do it because they ran out of time, they are doing it intentionally because it is easier to pass big controversial bills and the dead of night with no one looking when you have the

holidays bearing down on you and you're not worried about people going to the polls in the days to cast ballots. host: our guest is with us until 845 time, giving us the highs and lows of the 117th congress. you can call us republicans (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000, independents (202) 748-8002, you can text us at (202) 748-8003.you talk about pg in these lame-duck sessions where we are butting up against the deadline for funding. would you cite that as an example of waiting, especially

for this congress to take on something this big? guest: congress voted on an omnibus package. i doubt anyone has had the chance to read it and they have waited until the last possible minute. they have had a whole year to complete work on this. you should have the stuff done by the end of september. congress does not meet its deadline. it doesn't mediate because it is not trying to meet there deadline. this is the way that they have decided to do business over the last 20 years or so. when you have a $1.7 bill that is thousands of pages long released in the dead of night and they are going to vote on it and get it to the presidents desk in a mad rest to get home for the holidays, it's hard to identify who the players are in

this debate. it's hard to identify what is in that bill. it's hard to keep people accountable and influence the process if you don't like what is in that bill you want something else in that bill. here we see representative government breaking down in front of us. what's striking is that it is so routine that both democrats and republicans do it and no one seems to care. host: some republicans, kevin mccarthy made the case. let's wait till then until we make those kinds of decisions, is that a sound argument? guest: if you just took over the house of representatives and you will have more leverage in the new congress if you have a majority and makes no sense for you to go along with the big omnibus when you could pass another continuing resolution and delay it into the new congress. congress loves passing

continuing resolutions when they think they will have an easier time doing something in the future. i don't think the republican leader mccarthy, the anticipated speaker of the next congress, he is not doing this from a concern of democracy. he has in the past supported spending packages in the lame-duck before. he has supported other landmark legislation and lame-duck's before. we have to look at his effort and call to delay this as an effort to get a better deal in the new congress. there is nothing wrong with that and that has happened in the past. it doesn't speak to the problem with representative government that the lame-duck currently represents. host: many legislators have said on this program that they were called to regular order when it comes to passing these budget bills. why has that been unable to happen? guest: it's important for your

viewers to point out that regular order is simply one way that bills go on their way to become law. you have committee hearings, the debate things, members have a chance to weigh in on it and ultimately congress passes a bill. there are lots of different ways for a bill to become a law. what we should look at is what level of engagement are the lawmakers -- what will bc? rank-and-file lawmakers want to go along with passing something as quickly as possible. if there is a widespread agreement on something, that they simply don't need all of this extra time and all of these extra steps. the problem right now, the reason we don't see regular order is that the two parties are divided internally. the two parties are divided

internally and they don't like showcasing those division. they like to keep bottled up. they are lawmakers, leaders to control the process, negotiate these agreements behind closed doors. if you put them on the floor they feel jammed. they have to go along with this even though they may not want to and they can speak out of both sides of their mouth. that is why we don't see a lot of regular order these days in the united states senate. the house has a better time controlling the legislative process. it's a lot harder in the senate to keep members from offering amendments that could reveal divisions in the republican and democratic parties. host: if you want to ask him about how congress works, it is (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats and (202) 748-8002 for independents

and others. we will hear first from lisa from minnesota. caller: good morning. my question is, with respect to amy coney barrett after voting had already started in the senate confirmed her, she had a party with trumbo for ginsberg was buried in they denied merrick garland to even meet with senators. the majority of the american people said they did not want her appointment or anyone appointed until after the presidential election that was ongoing. how does he respond to that? guest: i think you are correct to be concerned about the state of the confirmation process.

i would direct you to article two of section two that gives the president the joint responsibility to nominate and appoint or confirm a supreme court justice. the senate has its own independent role and he gets to decide, whoever's in control of the senate, how they want to use that role. how they want to use that power. the senate is within his right to not hold hearings are not allowed boats and other senators get to push back on that. you mentioned merrick garland, they decided to not hold a hearing to become a supreme court justice. democrats could've voted on that. they could've forced republicans to take a stand and the people would've had a chance to weigh in more aggressively. they chose not to. that really highlights a big source of dysfunction in the united states senate today with the confirmation process. both lawmakers on the right and left seem to be more interested

in using the senate as a sounding board and media platform so that they can make statements that appeal to the people and make forward leaning public addresses instead of rolling up their sleeves, looking themselves in the mirror and i will hustle and scrape and do everything i can to prevail to get my nominee confirmed. to get my bill passed or get a vote on my amendment. we don't see that anymore. we see a drive-by vote and lots of talking points, lots of ads and other things. we see very little action in the united states senate today and that speaks to his dysfunction. host: from san diego california, on the republican line, this is roberta. caller: to begin with, i am an active person and trying to make a difference in things and i sit here and watch people in congress not want to take your phone calls. they say you are not a my district i don't want to hear it.

you can call a congressional office, if they don't take what you have to say with any meeting it all, it never goes anyw >> we.

we need more disagreement and fighting within congress. we need rank-and-file lawmakers to more aggressively take power back from their leaders and to ultimately tried to achieve their goals. when they do so, their constituents can take no. -- note. >> letter from kenneth in kentucky, republican line. >> good morning. in my opinion, we do not have no congress, we don't have no military. i think we are already in communism. i do not have no respect for the people of the united states right now running the country.

it has gone to the dogs and they will have to do something to show that what is going on is the united states. thank you. have a good day. >> mr. warner, what do you think about public perception? >> i think kevin makes a very astute point. congress is a crucible of conflict. it is a place we go to fight, disagree and argue. when we no longer use it for that purpose, it is going. it does not mean it cannot come back tomorrow if lawmakers wake up and to use congress as of this crucible of congress. until then, congress is not doing what it was designed to do

as an institution. >> do you think it is still possible? >> there will always be decisions made behind closed doors. the key difference is the degree to which the rank-and-file lawmakers are able to participate in the process. they are doing it to themselves. if you want to know why congress is broken, it is because its members have broken it. we do not like disagreement. we think disagreement is a bad thing and will prevent us from compromising. but that is not how it works. before you can compromise you have to first disagree and have a difference of opinion. if we had a consensus on things, we would not need congress. if we want to see more

bipartisanship, we have to embrace the outliers, the liberals and conservatives. we have to embrace the idea political conflict. we have to see them as good things. that is how we got the civil rights hats -- act. >> if you go back to 89 or 90, there was 408 distinctive bills. the numbers go up and down. as far as passing laws, is that the number you look at or the quality? >> i think you have to do a little bit of both. there are some