america and say shalom. thank you very much for the united states american army band. have a safe night. ♪

"washington journal," continues. host: our first guest of the morning is james wallner with the r street institute resident senior fellow and former senate aide. 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 anywhere. that is the gospel truth. and never goes anywhere. we sit here and everyone says how much they care and we have inflation for two years, we have some serious issues of how we have chipped into the social security amount of money because of inflation for two years. last year, i got 107 and usually i would get $22 or things like that. that is a huge problem for the future and no one talks about it. everyone says they care. thank you for listening. guest: i think that underscores the concerns that i see with the lame-duck. americans need to understand that they are not ruled by the people they choose every two

years in an election. we have a lot of things that happen between elections. in this country, the people themselves who are ultimately sovereign. they choose people to act on their behalf. politics is an activity we participate in. we don't go into a voting booth and do nothing for the next two years. there are lots of great examples of people who chose, even when the congress would not listen or society would not listen to them, they engage in acts of civil disobedience. if you think of the suffragette movement. if you think about dr. king and the civil rights movement. the montgomery bus boycott, that is a long time. it takes effort and you cannot just pick up the phone and call someone and asked them to do something and expect everything to go well.

when it does not, it's incumbent on all americans to do the things that we have seen in american history, nonviolent direct action, pleading and making your case to make sure that your government is taking your concerns to heart and acting in a way that you see fit. host: the caller had given her congress her grade. how will you grade the 117, and what highlights and low lights do take from that? guest: i am not too encouraged by the congress and that is not a change from past years. if we look overall, congress continues to struggle to find a way to legislate in this new environment. there struggling to tackle the issues that are of utmost concern of the american people. if you think about the dobbs decision which is a great

decision, there was one vote to codify roe v. wade ahead of the dobbs decision when the decision was leaked. they failed to get 60 votes, they dropped it. they dropped it as quickly as they could. they have not tried again. if we will call back to an earlier era, and 2003, 2004, when the congress was more productive. there was a nominee who was nominated for the circuit by george w. bush. republicans wanted to confirm him. they forced seven votes over a very long. of time. they held all line sessions, they really tried. then we look at the dobbs decision in the effort to codify roe. they had one vote, they

lost it and they could not be bothered to try again. we see this time and time again with democrats, republicans on a whole host of issues and we wonder why nothing happens. compromise doesn't happen it emerges out of a struggle when people try to debate and when different things the old to millie have to compromise along the way. host: next year, the house will be ruled by the republican party presumably kevin mccarthy will become speaker but he is facing issues with that. they have a new minority leader and a senate that his world by democrats. what do you think about this idea divided government and the quality of legislating on capitol hill? guest: it will change the discourse a little bit. i don't think the outcomes will be different. in 100 years you will have a hard time distinguishing the hundred 17 congress from the 118 congress. it is a step in the right direction fully to the extent

that we need more political conflict, within the house and senate. we need rank-and-file lawmakers to aggressively push to take power back from their leaders and to achieve their goals. when they do so, their constituents can take note and reward or punishment as they see fit in the next election. host: let's hear from kenneth in kentucky on the republican line. caller: good morning. how is her body going today? host: pretty good. caller: in my opinion, i think united states is gone. we don't have any congress. we got no military. i think we are already incompetent. i got no respect for the people of the united states right now as far as running the country. it is gone to the dogs and they

are can i have to do something to show people that what is going on in this united states. i really appreciate it and thank you and have a good day. host: what do you think about public perception as far as how it impacts what congress does? guest: kenneth makes an astute point with regards to congress. an institution only exists as long as we use it for the purposes is created. congress is a crucible of conflict. it's a place where we go to debate and argue. when we no longer use it for that purpose to achieve those outcomes and to achieve our goals, for all intents and purposes it's gone. it doesn't mean it can't come back tomorrow. lawmakers could wake up again to become lawmakers. until then, congress is not doing what it was ultimately designed to do as an institution.

host: you've written a couple of books on the side, you have the liberation. do you think it is still possible? guest: 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. there is no shadowy figure who is forcing everybody to do something. if you want to know why it is broken is because the members broke it. we think of deliberation and compromise when what we are thinking about is consensus. we don't like disagreement and we think disagreement is a bad thing and that it will prevent us from compromising. that is not how it works. before you can compromise you first have to disagree and have a difference of opinion. if we had a consensus we would not need congress. if we want deliberation, if we

want more compromise, more bar patterson ship, we have to embrace the outliers, the liberals and conservatives. we have to embrace political conflict and disagreement and see them as good things because that is how we got things like the civil rights act. that's how we got the voting rights act and that is how we did all the things that the congress did in the 60's and 70's when it had its most productive legislative. . host: the p you has laws that were enacted. there were 408 substandard bills, and 116 it's 213. the numbers go up and down but as far as passing laws, is that the number you look at the quality of laws that you look at? guest: i think you do a little bit of both. the number of laws that are not consequential or have broad,

widespread support. if you think about any kind of minor legislation. those numbers do matter. what has congress done via guns. they had a gun-control bill but that bill is like the civil rights act, not many people remember that act. it was the lowest common denominator. it didn't really change things much. if you look at guns, abortion, immigration, things that the top of the agenda right now. congress is not passing legislation to deal with that. they could pass a thousand laws but if it's not adjudicating in a way we can see, there are thousands of laws that don't mean much in the end. host: from lawrence in new york on the democrat line.

caller: my name is lawrence, i wanted to note that biden is doing his job. many people have complaints about him and i think he is doing his job. that is the number one job and highest point of stater office. host: that was lawrence in new york. mr. biden because of his senate career, what you think about his relation to congress with the experience he has in congress? guest: he is your quintessential legislator and senator. i worked in the senate when he was there. he had great relationships with democrats and republicans alike. i want to underscore a point that lawrence made which is often lost. the members of congress, people in the executive branch, they are doing a very difficult job. we may disagree with them are

like what they do all the time. our comments can get critical sometimes and perhaps nasty at times. it is important that we recognize that these are all americans, they are all doing what they think is best. they step into the arena in their own unique way and they are all good people and they are really trying. i disagree with what they do but i think it's important to keep that perspective in mind. host: from peter on the republican line. he's also a new york state. caller: good morning. i agree with everything you said. there is a big talk about there would be this big red wave and republicans did not do as well as they were saying. they were trying to blame and said they had backed candidates. the republican party no longer stands for anything. what have they done to prove to

the american people that they deserve to take power? in the senate, they should be trying to pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution and nobody is even talking about it. you require 60 votes to pass legislation out of the senate but yet you have 12, 15 republicans who vote along with the democrats. for instance, mr. mcconnell should turn around until president biden i am not going to work with you on any legislation until you secure the border. republicans can do that. unfortunately, republicans they hem and haw and they complain but when it comes time for them to act, they don't act and that is why they are doing so poorly. unless the republican party changes his tactics and actually shows people that they mean

business, they will stay in the minority. i believe mitch mcconnell wants to be in the minority. that's my opinion, sir. guest: it's important and you raise a great point here, mitch mcconnell doesn't call out mr. biden because he doesn't agree with a large part of his own party on immigration. in 2007 he supported immigration reform. they led an effort to defeat the bill that was supported by half of the party. it was supported by george w. bush and mitch mcconnell was frustrated on the final vote. you can look at all of that on the c-span library. he has his own policies and challenges to try to unify the party that does not agree on things like immigration. one other point you raised about the election and candidates.

i would encourage your viewers to resist the urge to have a one size but it's all explanation for something. there were great republican candidates that did good in some places in poorly and others. trump backed candidates did well in some areas and worse in others. we have to recognize that we don't have one republican party one democratic party. we have 50 democratic and republican party in all 50 states. until we recognize and see that nuance and diversity in the nation, i don't think we will understand it and continue to be perplexing used by it. host: you talked about the senate and your experience in the senate. what did you think about the decision for kyrsten sinema to become an independent? guest: at the end of the day, it will not change what happens inside the senate.

she a democrat but he caucuses within the party. if she decides not to caucus with the party we could see real differences. i don't think her becoming an independent will change how the senate operates in any many way of -- meaningful way. host: what you think about how cinema and mansion impact their parties? guest: when i worked in the senate you realized how difficult it is for one senator to do anything when people don't want to listen to you.

as long as it continues to operate by unanimous consent. we don't want to rules -- use the rules on the book, they use unanimous consent. if they don't want them to object or say no, they should not ask for their permission. there are rules on the books for them to go around and force them to vote one way or the other on the floor. they may lose some of those votes and they could win some of those foes. we have seen the leaders play hardball in the past. we have seen this in congress in pelosi, she forced the progressives to go along with the highway bill, other legislation. she called their love. schumer could have done the same with kyrsten sinema and joe manchin. we have to see what makes these two powerful is how the senate

is currently run by the two leaders. host: since you brought her up, house speaker nancy pelosi will just become a member of congress along with others. how much influence will she have on the workings of the democratic side? guest: i think she is a towering figure. she is an extraordinary leader. she has been, i don't agree with everything she's done from a policy perspective. i worked for republican colleagues during her tenure and we are on opposite side of things. but her skill as a leader has been incredible. if you look at harry reid with the affordable care act, those two leaders are why that became along the united states. it was not any special interest or president obama, it was their skillets leaders. it shows that republicans should take note and say, this is what effective leadership looks like

and we want very skilled leader so we could also achieve those goals. host: this is in pennsylvania, on the democrats line, hello. caller: i have a question for you. i know you are claiming a lame-duck session and we don't agree with making decisions in a lame-duck session. i don't agree that corporations are people. i just don't. i don't believe in citizens united. i think we need politicians and the american people have to be clear with who is funding them. that is what drives to decisions in congress is the money. you can even identify who is getting what most of the time. what is your opinion on that?

the supreme court making decisions that are more political in my lifetime, recently. what is your cure for these problems that were generated by the court in summer generated by the parties attacking the election process. guest: i think that's the big problem with the lame-duck. we all have different views, different concerns but ultimately we all have a right to see our representatives adjudicate those concerns and we should be able to call on them to do so and we should be able to see who makes decisions, what people ultimately decide and we should be able to hold our elected officials accountable. that is inherent in self-government. the problem is, among the american people in the representatives in congress, we have come to the point that if

you don't agree with i ultimately think is right, i will do everything that you don't have a right to participate in the process and aren't able to adjudicate your concerns and i will not vote because you may win. that is the common view and i think that kind of thinking is what leads to us making our decisions in congress and the lame-duck. after the american people vote. host: this is james wallner, he's here to talk about the 117 congress. this is bill from the maryland line. caller: i confess i turned in late but your guest, my attention. as a voter who is an independent but i usually vote republican, i live in a deep blue state of maryland.

i just look at what is going on and i see a uni-party. the big issue which is a fiscal concern, i am watching this country sink and debt. you have the entitlement programs of social security and medicare which have not been addressed since tip o'neill and ronald reagan addressed it. it seems to me that the politicians in this country are making decisions based on their own self-interest in their career politicians and what we need, we need citizen legislators who are not going to be voting in their own self-interest colluding with the opposition. as you said, it should be a crucible of conflict and instead i see a group of people who collude with each other so they can continue their careers as

politicians and get rich. they all come out of there as millionaires. i just want to get your thoughts on that point. host: thank you bill. guest: we should not be hard -- surprised to change the status quo. the party who supports it, they can lose the debate but it can be done. i think the american people have to feel empowered. right now, you see a lot of apathy and frustration. a sense of powerlessness in the population. that is very concerning because ultimately until that changes, congress will not change. if we look at the 1950's and 1960's, the status quo on issues like civil rights was extraordinarily powerful in the senate. in 1958 you had a number of

liberal senators who came and who did not continue to business as usual because their constituents push them. they said we will not tolerate you continuing business as usual and if you don't do what we will get someone else. they disrupted things and they forced votes. they went around regular order, we want to debate and we want to see action on things like civil rights. that is how you ultimately got the civil rights act of 64, the clean water act, the clean air act. a whole host of other things that the did. a whole host of things were because the american people demanded that their representatives go to washington's and adjudicate their concerns on their behalf. host: what is to think about the january 6 committee in light of the final hearing yesterday and the criminal recommendations they may? guest: i think we should applaud

congress anytime they try to act or size of oversight. -- exercise oversight. it's a good thing when congress wants to try to do something. that's a good thing in my book. you can resist it, and you can resist it inside congress. in regards to the substance, fewer should remember we had an unprecedented impeachment of a president who was not at office and during that trial when people justified why it was important to convict someone of an impeachment even though they were a private citizen we resolve that this was the only way to hold someone accountable. now we have people suggesting formal charges to the justice department and that underscores that there are other ways to punish citizens. you should not be impeaching

citizens because that is not in the constitution. if we look at the impeachment trial and juxtapose it to the january 6 hearing. one reason they wanted to convict the former president and that trial is because they wanted to ensure that he could not run again. it gives the senate the ability that an impeached official could run again. they did not prevail on that vote but ultimately, if you look at the january 6 committee efforts, it could be seen in a way to convict the president in the court of public opinion so that he cannot run again. it's important that we distinguish the legal implications and value them both independently. host: would it have been a different result if the original site of republicans wanted on the committee, would've made a difference?

guest: if that's finding a smoking gun or there's other evidence, may be more conflict does lead to that. it would've led to a better understanding of what happened because there would've been disagreement. anytime you have disagreement is it raises issues, invites people into the process. it gives them something to watch. it gives them a sense of engagement and helps to bring out information we otherwise would not see. it's important that any representatives participating on the republican side just go along with what the democrats wanted to do. out of conflict, disagreement we get a better understanding of the truth and reality in the realm. i am not sure there is a lot of support for that kind of process on the democratic side or republican supporters on the committee. host: let's hear from paul in

texas on the independent line. caller: good morning mr. wallner and i wanted thanks c-span for all they do. your thoughts on citizens united, the 2010 supreme court case that has allowed a flood of money to come in from corporate donors. what is your take? guest: there are a lot of different views on campaign finance. you and i may disagree on that. where do we disagree? the supreme court under the constitution that adjudicates disputes between individuals. it does not make policy, doesn't set law and it doesn't get to say what the constitution means with regards to congress and the president. we would not have the separation of powers, we would be ruled by nine individuals who wear robes to work. it's vital that it is healthy and strong but as long

as we continue to look to the supreme court to be the final arbiter on the most controversial decisions in american politics we will continue to be disgruntled and frustrated because the supreme court takes those issues out of politics and we can adjudicate them or debate them. we can debate these things because the supreme court has spoken and now the only way to get around that is to have a new supreme court. that undermines the supreme court makes it a weaker institution and harder for the supreme court to do the job it has to do under the constitution. host: the website is our street.org. james wallner from r street institute resident senior fellow