c-span and c-span2, also on c-span now, our free mobile video app or online at www.c-span.org. >> this morning, we'll talk with news handles and take viewers calls. and american university center for congressional and presidential studies director david barker previews for divided government. after that, american enterprise institute senior fellow philip wallach talks about the history of divided government in his upcoming book "why congress?" take part in the conversation. call us or send a text message, facebook comment or a tweet. "washington journal" starts now. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] ♪ host: good morning, it's tuesday, january 2, 2023. less than 30 hours from now, the new 118th congress will convene

on capitol hill and this year, it's not just a day for formalities as the question of who will become the next speaker of the house has yet to be decided. so this morning, we're looking ahead to tomorrow and the next two years of the 118th congress. we want to know what expectations you have for this group of members as they get set take the reins of the legislative branch. phone lines, split as usual this morning. democrats is 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. good tuesday morning. you can go ahead and start calling now as we show you a snapshot of what the 118th congress will look like after

members are sworn in tomorrow. starting in the house, there will be 222 republicans, one vacancy yet to be filled. 24 members of the new house will be freshmen members. 49 republicans to 48 democrats in the senate. three independents that are expected to caucus with democrats. the 118th congress includes 149 women, 97 veterans, 18 members born in a different country, five with native-american ancestry and america's opinions on the incoming congress is decidedly mixed. this from an npr cbs news hour mas tional poll. 58% of americans he no confidence that democrats and republicans in the n cgress will work together in a bipartisan w or the next two years. e proposition of americans with that view, more than doubled since 2008.

474% of americans say that -- 74% of americans say that it is more important to comprosend find solutions rather than stand on their principles. this is what they want from members of congress. and this morning, we want to know what your expectations are for this 118th congress. again, here's how you can join the conversation. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. and independents, it's 202-748-8002. having this conversation in the first hour of the "washington journal" today. give us a call and let us know what your expectations are. on that idea of compromise in the next congress, it was something that senate majority leader chuck schumer spoke about as he looked ahead. here's what he had to say about compromise when it comes to republicans and when it comes to as he calls it, maga republicans. >> not all the republicans are maga. and the maga are the loudest and they try to push the party

furthest to the right. bit there's a large chunk of republicans, perhaps the majority, in the house and the senate, who are not maga and this election shows and i've talked to them, that following maga is like thelma and louis going over a cliff and that's what we saw in the election and i intend to reach out both in the senate and even in the house to some of the more mainstream republicans and say let's work together. there are a whole lot of issues we can work together on. i believe these two years, the next two years, we had a huge two years to follow it's going to be a lot productive than what people think and not just on appointments. as the debt ceiling, it's got to be done in a bipartisan way. it always is. a party that tries to hold up the government and demands

something in return is going to lose. host: senate majority leader chuck schumer. he will be the senate majority leader again in the 118th congress. his idea of compromise. we're asking you what your expectations are in the days and months and years hayden the next two years of the 118th congress congress. here's some of your comments from social media already this morning. donna writes in the expectation is hunter biden's last hop 24/7. derek calling it an expectation of a clown show and nothing that they ran up. park saying i'm expecting nothing from this new congress. let us know what you think. again, democrats, 202-748-8000, republicans, 202-748-8001, and independents, 202-748-8002. jim, a republican out of troy, ohio, up first this tuesday morning. jim, what are you expecting from

the 118th congress? caller: well, first of all, i just like to say that for democrats should not be too upset with the republicans because they're voting with them and i don't see why there's a problem there because, and i think that the new freshman coming in that they're going to sway over and they're going to be able to just run things in a democratic manner. and chuck schumer's right that he will get all of those and that's the way it's going to be ran. host: so, jim, you think the incoming freshmen members are more likely to be able to compromise or work together than existing members or veteran members? is that what you're saying? caller: well, i think they'll compromise in the way that they just have recently.

the republicans, if you noticed have gone ahead and they've put in the honest bill and the gay marriage bill and they've gone with the democrats on everything. so i don't understand what the problem is. and i think the new freshmen are going to do likewise. host: and jim, compromise. a good thing? should members be standing more on principles and refusing to compromise? where do you fall on that spectrum? caller: well, again, i think they should compromise. but again, i think they're just going to turn democrat. host: that's jim in ohio this morning. line for independents. this les out of the land of 10,000 lakes, minneapolis. good morning. caller: good morning. you know, i think what's needed in this congress is -- you know, back in 1976, the reagan administration repealed the

fairness doctrine. and what the fairness doctrine did was ensure that you had public affairs directors throughout broadcast media where they would -- you literally had a self-vetting mechanism when you dealt with controversial ideas. and when -- and as implied in the black liberation struggle, we were working to get out the truth about egypt, white slavery from the slavic nation and that kind of things. and because they didn't want that to be discussed with america at large, they repealed the fairness doctrine which open the door for all kinds of unvetted extreme issues which make this dichotomy exist today where on the one hand, you've got the liberals who are far,

far left and you've got the g.o.p. who are far, far right. and the average white january 6 person, for example, knew that in 1619, whites and blacks were afraid of being slaved. and a lot of these who are white people, they don't understand it. so you need to think about -- host: your expectation for congress have more focus on the news media and how we talk about these issues of public policy? caller: well, there's certainly a need for congress to focus on how we discuss these issues. and i agree. i suppose, yeah. the news media itself would have that self-focusing mechanism

that the fairness doctrine provided but congress is the one who has to put the measure in place. broadcast media is going all of our houses. every house in america gets this information. host: this is john in texas, democrat. good morning. what are your expectations for the 118th congress? caller: well, i don't want them to cut social security, i can tell you that. and i don't want to waste any time on this hunter biden laptop. the f.b.i.'s already looked at it. i don't think i have too much -- i think this is going to be pretty unproductive for the next two years. we had a huge blue wave to get this thing straightened out. host: that's john in texas. here's one more post from social media this morning. this from kathy from our facebook page. i hope the focus is to stop

spending so much money. this is bill in pittsburgh, pennsylvania, republican. what's your expectation for the 118th congress? caller: well, i think the country is pretty evenly divided under political views. both sides of the aisle need to focus on china. china's just waiting to pounce. they know how vulnerable we are right at this moment. something's got to be done with our foreign policy towards china. host: and bill, sings you bring up foreign policy, what do you expect this new congress, republican controlled in the house, democrats in the senate. what do you think this new congress will do when it comes to ukraine and the ongoing russian invasion of ukraine? caller: it's going to be the status quo. nothing's going to change. too evenly divide. host: you think they'll keep spending money to ukraine?

caller: i believe so. the main thing is china though. they need to focus on china. because china's just sitting back, watching us destroy ourselves. host: that's bill out of pittsburgh. here's how you can join the conversation this morning. 202-748-8000 for democrats to call in. 202-748-8001 for republicans to call in. independents, it's 202-748-8002. also keep a close eye on our social media pages as well to get your thoughts on this quick question this morning. what are your expectations for the 118th congress? michael saying the biggest thing to watch is how well, the two houses of congress interact. and this from mary saying the expectation is not waste time and taxpayers money, investigating fake scandals. join in on social media or give us a call this morning. as you keep calling in, i do want to come back to the issue of the leadership of the house

of representatives and that question that will be decided less than 30 hours from now. it's going to be one of the first actions of the new house, although the vote could take a while. it's the vote for house speaker. and kevin mccarthy, the current leader of republicans in the house, trying to take over that speaker spot. here's the story about the latest from yesterday. mccarthy relentz on some key conservative demands but uncertainty remains over his bid for speaker. kevin mccarthy, the politico notes made his biggest concession so far to the band of conservative standing in his way to the path of speaker. it is not clear if it will enough to clinch the gavel. in a lengthy conference call, mccarthy and his team informed members he would lower the members to attempt a deposing speaker, change that some lawmakers could weaken their leadership team.

if adopted, fiveill force a vote of no confidence in their leader. it is a long good time demand. that tweet is part of a broad slate of republican rule changes that the mccarthy leadership team unveiled on sunday. the new rules will be one of the new rules of the republican majority later this week. first, republicans have to elect their speaker and his slim margin for error has embold on the push for reform. that's one of the first action of the new house to elect speaker after the houses convene and this is how it will go.

they can be nominated by their leader and the respective partie members and members elect both by calling the last me of their choice when their name is called and a membecavote for any individual. a person must receive a majority of votes cast by members for a person by name. and the majority of votes cast, the roll call is repeated and repeated again until a speaker is elected. so a lot of discussion about kevin mccarthy's chances and a lot of discussion about who else could possibly be speaker if kevin mccarthy can't get a majority of vote in the new house. and so proposals out there for who else could be speaker. here's one of them from the opinion pages of the "washington times" today. gingrich for house speaker writes jeffrey shapiro. he's a former washington prosecutor and served as senior u.s. official from 2017 to 2021.

he's on the editorial board of the "washington times." he says it's time to ignite another republican revolution. he writes in his piece today. since mr. gingrich's departure from congress in 1998, he's continued to rise in the ranks of the conservative movement not as an elective official but as a voice of reason. in an era where younger representatives are straying from decorum, he offers a refresher of much-needed stability and a return to decorum. he's the adult in the room. he writes if the idea of mr. gingrich returning as house speaker seems a bit half-baked, imagine for a moment how it feels to wake up on wednesday, january 4 and know that the house of representatives is once again under the leadership of one of history's most brilliant and effective republicans. jeffrey scott shapiro writing in the pages of today's "washington times." something to watch for tomorrow. it's going to be a five-hour "washington journal" tomorrow

starting at 7:00 a.m. and taking you up to the moment where the house of representatives is convened and we'll take you to the house floor on c-span and the senate floor on c-span2. so stay with us tomorrow. we'll have cameras up on capitol hill. we'll be talking about the makeup of the new congress, talking to reporters about some of the biggest issues that the new congress is facing. and of course, one of those big issues that congress is facing and seems to have faced for many congresses now is the issue of immigration and the border. it's a topic that's likely to come up again in the new congress. senator james lankford, the republican from oklahoma spoke recently about why congress can't seem to act on this issue of immigration. he talked about the need for perhaps a new deadline on that issue. here's some of his comments recently. >> everyone sees the problem on immigration. everyone sees it. the issue is how do we solve it?

the biggest challenge is getting everybody in the room, talking the issues, getting to a resolution and solving it. the second problem is there's no deadline. so congress seems to function best on a deadline. watch what's happening on the floor today and you'll see suddenly there's a deadline happening and so congress seems to be getting busy on things. for immigration, there's no deadline. that's why president trump saying -- it created a deadline. we had three bills that came up in the senate and none of them got 60 votes. we're about to start conference and the court pulled it away and said we want to look at daca. as soon as it happened, deadline went away, congress stopped working on it. we have a new deadline now. and i think it's going to push congress on both sides of the hill to be able to talk about ok, what are we going to do? how are we going to resolve these issues? and so my hope is that we'll have serious substantive

dialogue about how we're going to resolve the immigration issue rather than a bill being floated at different times. but there's no groundwork that's been done. there's no preparation that's been done for it. what's happen agent the border can't continue. it just can't. host: senator james lankford, the republican from oklahoma recently speaking about the issue of immigration. we're talking this morning about your expectations for the 118th congress. what do you want them to tackle? do you think they'll be able to work across the aisle in such a closely split house and senate? let us know what you think. 202-748-8000 for democrats to call. in republicans, it's 202-748-8001. independents, it's 202-748-8002. this is tim, democrat. good morning. what's your expectations? caller: hello, jon. i would expect the congress to start acting like adults and get things done and stop embarrassing us on the world stage.

now that the orange god is out of the white house, i would expect them to start making our government work for the people again. host: and tim, what's the best thing they could do to make the government work for the people? caller: well, start hanging out with each other. start going to dinner. like old schoolboys did, you know? back in the 1980's, we move meed country forward. and just got up every day and went to work and made our lives better. god bless america, man. i love you, jon. i love you, guys. host: that's tim in arkansas. this is jerry in barton, north carolina. good morning. you're next. jerry, are you with us? caller: yes. host: go ahead, ma'am. caller: i'm sorry that it has to come to this kind of mess. the scary situation here. you have these five top guys

many mccarthy, jordan, cruz and holly. it says they have been duped but won't admit it. i hope that they don't go along with all these trump actions and stuff. it would ruin america. we need our democracy. too many people have died trying to keep our white house and our country free. and it's even said for trump. this man has it all and he wasted it on corruption. it's sad to see that too. but we are going to keep our -- everything is going to be better. it'll work out. truth always prevails. host: that's jerry in north carolina. back to minnesota. this is lester, republican. good morning. what's your expectations for the new congress? caller: but i hope that they get together and we start looking at

north korea and china. we have to come together -- and the democrats got to quit this anti-trump thing. i think they want to do is anti-trump or anti-republican in this country. if we don't get together, we better start learning to speak chinese or korean. and that's all i got to say, ok? host: lester in minnesota. this is sam out of indiana, independent. sam, what's your expectations for the new congress? caller: oh, i don't think much will get done. it's going to be investigation. it's tit for tat. there was the hillary investigation for years.

the trump investigation for four years. and now, they're talking about biden investigations. they need to get to work for the people. we've been fighting immigration for years and years. what's the big problem? let's post the national guard or something there and get this straightened out because this has been going on for 40 years. as far as mccarthy, he is waving back and forth. so you don't know which direction he's going in. i just think it's going to be a total mess just like it was before when they were fighting. so, that's about it for me. host: that's sam in indiana. a few more social media comments. jason writing in this morning on twitter. my expectations are low and i

anticipate g.o.p. circus investigations into hunter biden and his laptop, the batched afghanistan withdraw and the d.o.j. the g.o.p. may get to the bottom of what really happened at benghazi. and this is mark saying hopefully congress will abolish daylight savings time. bill writes from new york is to guarantee no one is mistreated and to pay their debts. if in the united states is a monetary sovereignty, they can produce as much money as they need. so why are we not paying against what is owed to american descendents of slavery? we've done it for other things. a few more of your comm from social media. you can jo u that way or on the phone. it's 202-748-8000 for democrats. and republicans, it's 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. what are your expectations for

the 118th congress? the "new york times" taking a survey of outgoing members when it comes to the expectation of deal making on capitol hill. retirees from congress saying that this new congress less likely to make deals. this is emily cochran's article in today's "new york times," focusing on the nearly half dozen senators and close to three dozen house lawmakers who voluntarily left capitol hill at the end of the 117th congress without the legislative savvy senators of patrick leahy or roy blunt. lawmakers and aides fear that even the basics of governor will be unattainable. she wrotes there are far more members here who are engaged in performance arts and performance arts only now and day have no interest in governing. that was representative of

kentucky, the departmenting democratic chairman of the house budget committee the next two years are going to be brutally painful and they're going to be painful for the country. there are unwritten rules that apply quite different than they are today says mr. leahy, voting his farewell speech. he writes senator didn't engage in scorched-earth politics because they knew they would return to a senate that only worked if you found and stood on common ground. he spoke about the years forging friendships and relationships. i feel those days may be gone but i pray just temporarily, he said because if we don't start working together more, we don't know and respect each other, the world's greatest body will sink slowly into irrelevance. asking you this morning. what are your expectations are for the 118th congress? less than 30 hours is when the

118th will convene. this is don from ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning. host: go ahead. caller: all right. i like to see congress work on daca. and also, i like to see the house of speaker gingrich. i don't think mccarthy has the gonads to do it. and i think jim jordan needs to go back and sit down. hunter biden had too many aberrations in america to deal with. thank you. host: before you go, as a democrat, you would be ok if newt gingrich won a speaker election and came back. why is that? i think we lost the caller. brenda is in re seen, wisconsin.

good morning. you're next. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: my expectations for the 2023 congress would be that they will wake up and they will bring god and common sense back and that they will focus on developing a greater democracy and shoring up all of the unprecedented -- we've had a whole lot of unprecedented situations and it is my expectation that congress will focus on shoring those things up and governing with common sense. and i thank you. host: brenda in wisconsin. this is niña in florida. good morning. you're next. caller: good morning.

how are you? >> i'm doing well. caller: happy new year. host: happy new year, niña. caller: i have a trivial thing. the senate, when i watch c-span, they take forever to do one vote and the house has a time voting, and i think the senate would get more done if they would have timed voting and get their act together. host: and niña, what more would you want them to do if they're getting more done, what issues should they be taking up in that new time that they find? caller: i think they should do what the votes put them in the to do. everybody calls and complains but these are the same people that keep voting the same people in. so they need to be held their feet to the fire. we need to start writing letters and make phone calls and stuff like that to let them know that we're watching them. host: what's an issue you would write a letter on, niña?

caller: i would write a letter on crime and immigration and i think those are the two main things right now. it seems like i'm a democrat but it seems like they're not listening to us with the border thing and we see them on tv but they say the border's not open. i understand helping people but families and children should come in, not grown men that can work for themselves somewhere. we need to go back to like ellis island. we need to build and let them go to work like we did back 100 years ago. host: this is crystal out of west palm beach, florida. good warning. caller: good morning.

happy new year. i look at congress like a abusive family, where i think the right wing part of the house will be supportive of right-wing israel, and it is going to enable them to hurt palestinians and expand them to the west bank. i think the foreign policy issues will be addressed while the internal family matters at home will go north. host: that is crystal in florida. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. having this conversation in this first hour of the washington journal today, the question: what are your expectations for the 188th congress? a few more social media comments

and tweets. this is larry the a text this morning from south carolina. saying, i would expect a new speaker would appoint republicans and two right-leaning, democrats that investigate the hunter biden fiasco. the expectation for a blue wave and 2024. this is danny in missouri, the 118th should focus on advancing human rights, monetary policy and insuring and progressing technology achievements. and infrastructure, as well. one more from dennis in michigan. it would be futile to think anyone -- anything would change all. why would it? all the same exact players playing the same exact game. year after year after year after year. nancy pelosi, the outgoing speaker in a different role, stepping down from that position. as leader of the democratic party. jeffries will be the leader of

the democratic party in the 118th. the washington post today taking a focus on nancy pelosi's 20 years in leadership in double track this morning, there paper focusing on her words and some of the biggest issues over the years. this is just one part of that story from paul canaan at the washington post, calling it the biggest thing i have ever done in congress. pelosi recently were flooded on the passage of the affordable care act. she writes she is most closely tied to, muscling it over the finishing line but it is indicative of a larger theme of her career, winning the vote. many, if not most historians he writes believes her to be the most powerful speaker in the history of the chamber or her ability to wrangle her caucus to vote how she needs them. several moments in her tenure, he writes from her boat against the iraq war to boats approving a wall street bailout that had failed once and moving forward

several pieces of president biden's agenda. paul kane writing about the career of nancy pelosi in today's washington post. it was on the sunday shows yesterday that house majority leader hoyer went on cnn and was asked about his partnership over the years with nancy pelosi in the democratic party leadership. this is the outgoing majority leader from yesterday. [video clip] >> the other story about the pelosi-hoyer relationship, it is a complicated one. >> [laughter] >> you ran against each other in 2001. she endorsed your opponent in your race for leader in two thousand six. how would you describe that relationship? >> i think we have a respectful relationship. i think we have a businesslike relationship. i like nancy. i had manner -- ed meyer nancy rightly. she is an extraordinary human

being. she is invaluable, she has extort nary energy. -- extraordinary energy. i think she is probably the most effective political leader i have worked with. i was obviously disappointed when i was running for majority leader and she supported my opponent pretty strongly, as you recall. i won, as you recall. >> if there was no nancy pelosi in the picture, would you have liked to be speaker? >> sure. [laughter] what politician in the house of representatives would not like to have been the speaker? of course i would. i remarked to him reporter, i said -- one reporter, i said i am not sure i could have done a better job than nancy, maybe not

as good of a job as anc. host: hoyer on the state of the union, that interview airing yesterday. take your phone calls this morning, the question, what is your expectation for the 118th congress? this is chris in washington. republican. go ahead. caller: can you hear me ok? host: yes, sir. caller: one of the callers before mentioned we better learn chinese. i do not think that is too far off the point. the integrity of our elections matters. i hope that is brought up quite a bit. i listen to a lot of the debate that happens on the floor, i am excited to see the republicans lead it or a change. our social media networks have been asked to testify in the past as to what we should be doing, and china is winning that race, too.

tiktok has so much of the market share, it is incredible. the last big topic i hope that is brought up before it is too late is, there is a race to the moon. literally. china has plans, here while we are distracted with ms. piggy liz cheney leading the january 6 committee. china has plans to lay claim a part of the moon. i hope we get serious about national security. i hope we impress the american public that the republicans have plans. i think that is about i would like -- all i would like to say this moring. tomorrow's five hour episode should be great. host: you're talking about getting serious about national security. do you think the war in ukraine has forced this congress to get serious about national security? caller: in the whole scope, i

think there is a lot of political donations and money laundering that has to do with national security. some of our politicians have to be reprimanded for that. i think any time there is lying, even santos who got elected, he lied. he may have lied about his sexual orientation to get elected and be in popularity. needs to be consequences for all types of lies. i would say, yes. it does have to do with money and national security, they go together. i think ukraine is a separate point. yes, i would answer that with. host: a story from nbc2 -- nbc news yesterday, the headline about george santos, the incoming freshman from new york. republican. george santos will have to consider resigning, that is retiring congressman kevin brady of texas, a republican speaking about santos saying that will

take huge steps to regain public trust. this is troubling and so anyways, he has lied repeatedly, focusing on that freshman who has become in recent weeks one of the most well-known freshman in the country in the wake of revelations about his background and inconsistencies in his background that he stated on the campaign trail. this is diane in ann arbor, michigan. good morning. what is your expectation for the next congress? caller: good morning. i hear that the congress coming in to session is going to further distract us from the real fear of russia, meaning putin. i think they are aligning with the views of, democracy is not important.

the reason i fear russia, putin, is -- in the 1960's, i attended school. we had what we called drills, bomb drills. we, as a second and third graders, had to hide under our desks in preparation for when cruise job said, where you stood, we will bury you. was capable of sending missiles, we did not have the sophisticated surveillance that we do now. we did not know when the bombs would be sent. it was a scary time for children. our parents dug bomb shelters. it sounds bizarre now, but they did. my father did. where we would go down and hide 48 hours until the initial radiation settled. this is what we lived like. i do not think that has ever stopped. i think putin is resurrecting

that. it scares me to death. i, for my children and grandchildren, i think the gop does not value democracy. like zelenskyy said, the money you send us is not charity. it is an investment in democracy. i have spoken to conservatives. they do not favor supporting ukraine with money. average people walking the streets, this is the gop's attack on ukraine. who knows? maybe they want to soften up ukraine for putin. it just puts him in a good light with him. i fear that we will get to the point where, if trump was in office, putin is going to forever be in office -- will rule the world together. you make a threat to either of them or do not cooperate, they've got plenty of missiles to send. host: diane in ann arbor.

staying in michigan, this is ken. independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say my expectations as for the swamp to keep bubbling. my hopes would be, we could correct one of these wrongs that has been perpetuated on the american people by electing donald trump as speaker of the house and hitting rid of the two in their right now -- getting rid of the two in their right now. thank you. host: liverpool, new york. this is jerry. you are next. what is your expectation for the next congress? caller: good morning. i would love to see the money flowing to ukraine stopping immediately. we have people in our country suffering. we have energy prices going sky high. we have a congress that has increased their pay.

local issues increase their pay. the corruption is clearly seen throughout the united states. the media keeps pushing that narrative that nothing is wrong. it is a disgusting time, to say the least. host: that is jerry in new york. speaking of the media, either a very specific coincidence, or perhaps not a coincidence. to front page stories in the new york times and washington post today, both focusing profile pieces on the republican from new york. she will serve on her second term as house conference chair in the new congress. the number four role in the gop. this is the headline from the front page of the washington post. the impenetrable armor of elise stefanik, her claim to the rates of gop leadership and embrace of trump has come at a personal cost that has heart fund -- hardened her. ruby kramer with that story for

the washington post. it is several pages long. although the story in the new york times is even longer, four pages inside and starting on the front page. this is the headline on the front page of the new york times. i am ultra- maga, the in bench and -- the invention of police stefanik -- elise stefanik. that one, four pages long inside with multiple photo spread. two every big profile pieces on the number four among house republicans, elise stefanik. this is brett in michigan. democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i have low expectations for the congress. low expectations for the continuation of life on planet earth. election deniers, climate deniers, relied a -- were laterally -- reality deniers.

let's start with george santos, whose election to the venerable house of representatives is unsurprising. he will be seated beside such powering intellects as lauren boebert, who dropped out of high school, had a child, worked at mcdonald's and got her ged in 2020 before her primary. since she was in the food industry, you might excuse her for wanting killing by chinese dumpling, but congratulations, colorado and new york. this is nothing new, not a new low. after all, donald trump demonstrated any liar can get elected. santos, a gross fabrication of his resume has earned him a right to be sat in that liars of the house. he will no doubt, learn a more nuanced approaches from master practitioners like kevin mccarthy, jim jordan, the sexual predator, matt gaetz, and

marjorie taylor greene of space laser fame. where she walks to the podium amid cries of putin, putin, putin. you can imagine a pyramid representing the hierarchy of the american parties, the foundation would be the maga base, where trump's word is gospel and the likes of qanon and alex jones are revered profits. these believers are deluded and arranged, take your pick. they go through the armpits of the internet looking for their next child trafficking pizza chain. to prove their conspiracy theories, some tragedy they can use to demonize immigrants and weaponize hate. somewhere, not our above now, you have jim jordan, matt gaetz level of liars, the wrestling state coach, when his wrestlers complained about being sexually abused by teen dr. strauss.

host: fair to say, you are not optimistic. caller: no, i am pessimistic. the quality of people we have in there. host: when was the last time you felt optimistic about a new congress or what congress could do? do you remember? caller: the last time, probably when clinton got elected and they made some progress about the federal deficit. to the opposition of every republican in the congress. so, that is the last time we ever did anything about the debt , the money we spend and all republicans beat their chest about. that is the last time i had any optimism.

host: that is a print out of quincy, michigan. the u.s. debt, according to u.s. debt clock.org and c-span for viewers familiar with this website, 31 trillion, 400 61 billion, $763 million and counting. that works out to about $94,000 per citizen in this country. this is thomas out of north carolina. republican. you are next. what is your expectations for the 188th? you with us, thomas? caller: yes, i am here. can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: i want to see the republicans investigate joe biden. he said he knew nothing about hunter biden's deals with these other countries. there we have 20 to 30 pictures of him standing next to these leaders. how about the border? they say the border is closed.

the border is not closed. washing -- watch the news. i want to see them investigate the terrible withdrawal from afghanistan. the three main things is the border. they claim is closed, they must be blind. i want to see investigate joe biden, said he knew nothing about his son's dealings in these other countries. there is pictures of joe biden with all these leaders that hunter biden was getting paid from. host: thomas in north carolina. this is ed out of west virginia. independent. caller: good morning. they can't even get along, it hasn't started yet. the democrats used to have two parties, the dixie democrats and the democrats. the republicans has got two different groups. i do not look for to go on. i really do not. i will be 88 in three weeks.

i would sure like to see it go back to the good old days. i cannot remember them. thank you for taking my call. host: bethlehem, pennsylvania. larry, you are next. caller: [laughter] it is going to be hard to follow crank. if you want to understand what is going on in this country, replay what crank said -- frank said and play what the gentleman after him said. you get what you work for, you get what you want. my question is this, santos. can't he be recalled? that is all i want to know. if he can be recalled or not. but, for all your listeners, i think if you played frank again and then the gentleman, the caller right after him. if you have any common sense and decency, you could see where your vote should be. host: larry in ends vania.

this is joel in arkansas. good morning. caller: hello? host: go ahead, sir. caller: good morning. thank god, north carolina -- that guy from north carolina stole my thunder. he stepped all over me this morning. host: go ahead with your thoughts, joel. caller: ok. i do not look for the food prices to go down. i do not look for the fuel costs to go down. joe biden, when he took office, he kept all his promises that day. he stood there and signed these new things, and we are paying the price now. i'm going to -- hunter biden will not be charged with anything. host: less than 10 minutes left

in this first segment of the washington journal, asking you what your expectations are for the 118th congress. they meet tomorrow. you can watch all of it, including the five hours leading up to it, huron c-span at noon. we will take you to the house of representatives and c-span2 will take you to the senate, gavel-to-gavel coverage on the c-span networks. to this question of what your expectations are, a few more comments from our text messaging service. dave, i am optimistic joe manchin will become a republican and stop all things biden and socialist spending. this is from arkansas, i would urge and expect my congress to start acting like adults and get done. stop acting like children on the junior high playground. enough. james in south dakota, i expect more tribalism. i am dreading having to see kevin mccarthy more show what a spineless coward he is after january the sixth and speaking

juary 6, a story in today's washington post about the former chief of the capitol police. that would be the chief who was in charge on january the sixth, steven sund's is his name. he is coming out with a new book this week, courage under fire. it is set to be published tuesday. here is the story about it today in a new first-hand account of the frantic efforts of capitol police officers to protect congress and themselves from a armed mob on generally sixth, 2021, the department's former chief blames failures for allowing the melee. the federal governments of multibillion-dollar security network built after 9/11 to gather intelligence that could warn us of a looming attack provided no shield on january 6, the former police chief writes in his book. the fbi, the department of homeland security, his own agencies intelligence unit had been alerted weeks earlier to chatter about right-wing extremists arming for a attack

on the capital that day. he writes in his book, they didn't take basic steps to assess those plots or sound an alarm. senior military leaders citing political or tactical worries, delayed sending help. he wrote in his book, it could easily happen again. many factors that left the capital vulnerable remain unfixed. that is the lead from today's story about it. that book, set to publish tuesday. on c-span's book tv on sunday, you can watch a interview with steven sund's about that book sitting down with c-span's book tv. this is melissa in new york, independent. the question, what is your expectation for the 118th congress? caller: i have to tell you first, thank you for taking my call. secondly, if you had a iq minimum for callers, a lotta people would not get through. [laughter] host: rather than insulting the callers, what do you think? caller: [laughter]

i do not think i have a high expectations for the congress. with the fighting going on with the republican party, the changes we have between manchin, i think if you also look at tulsi gabbard's, she has changed her attitudes on certain things. she's to be democratic, she has gone more conservative in some of her views. i think is going to be interesting to see where their votes go. i know that a lot of republicans are paying attention to my new show. drag queen scoria hours -- story hours, there are international security issues, those are a bit of a concern to me. i am not keeping my expectations high on this paradigm optimistic about the diversity we have. we have the first gen z congress member in alejandra frost. i am sorry, maxwell frost.

i am hopeful for that. it is good to see the younger generations become more interested and involved in politics. host: you talked about diversity. 395 members of the 118th, white. 60 black, 18 asian, five middle eastern. five indigenous americans. what does that tell you about congress? caller: it is becoming more diverse every year. that is what is making me hopeful. last year, they were saying it was the most racially diverse ever. now, they are saying the same thing again this year because it is becoming more. we are getting more people who are minorities involved in politics because of what they are seeing in the world around them. host: one more on this stat. at least 18 members of the 118th congress emigrated to the u.s. 13 democrats, five republicans coming from countries like mexico, india, south korea, the

dominican republican, cuba, japan, guatemala, peru. caller: absolutely. it is good to have that diversity, where they are coming from other countries but are assimilating into this country. it is creating the melting pot that our country has always been. host: thanks for the call. a lot more of those type of stats during our five hour show tomorrow as we give you the pregame on the 118th congress. starts at 7:00 a.m., goes until noon when the new congress convenes. we will take you to the house on c-span, the senate on c-span2. debbie, florida. republican. you are next. caller: hello. host: go ahead. caller: yes, my expectations right now is to make sure that the congress holds biden and

pelosi and the democrats responsible for the big lies they tell. everybody wants to point a finger at trump about a big lie. look at the big lie on cnn and biden. nobody wants to come on this show or any other show like cnn and talk about those big lies. how does the democrats escape from all the lies they have told? then, they want to talk about democracy. how can you have democracy in the united states when you have interference in our elections that is been proven since twitter -- tweeter has been taken over? why have other broadcasting news networks, putting this on their, where the americans can understand what is really going on where they can vote properly? cnn and all the other liberal

news do not want to put that out there, they do not want to put big lies out there about biden. every time his mouth opens. host: you are talking about the twitter file stories? caller: yes, sir. that is spacs. it is written, it is recording. why does these liberals continue to want to protect biden and pelosi and the democrats? you talk about trump being a big liar, biden is a bigger liar. host: that is debbie in florida. this is manwell in denver, colorado. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for letting me talk. that lady before me, i feel bad for her. she is so passionate with her anger. anger over what? we are all americans, this is one country. the man from michigan spoke, i thought he was great. he said everything so clear and concise. people, stop fighting with each

other. we are one country, we are one people. you've got to stop listening to these outlets that keep telling you they demonize people. is there a problem at the border? of course there is. can we talk -- taken all people? no. do we have to divide them where some nut puts us against them? no. this is what happens to religion. these people have to stop the demonization of other people. this is what happened in pre-fascist germany. look for truth. that is the biggest problem the media today. i am sorry that truth and fact has a liberal bias for those who don't want to accept it but there is only one truth of fact and lease try to understand each other. thank you. host: good morning, independent. what is your expectation -- caller: good morning. my expectation is for the

democrats and the republicans to start working together for the betterment of the people of this country. it's time for congress to start working for the people instead of the people working for the congress. thank you very much. host: our last color in the first hour of this washington journal. and next to get people dig into the history of the prospects for this upcoming 118th congress. david barker of the american university center for studies and later, we will be joined by the american enterprise and two. stick around, we will be right back. >> the 118th congress continues on tuesday for the first time in two years.

they will return to washington as a divided government. republicans control the house of representatives while democrats regain control of the senate by a slim majority. the average age of 47 compared to 58 in the previous session. this congress will be more diverse with a record number of women of color. the election for new speaker of the house, and new leaders. watch the opening day of the 100 18th congress tuesday at noon eastern live on c-span and c-span2, also on c-span now, the free mobile video app or online at c-span.org. >> a well-known opinion writer and graduate of cornell law school.

she was born in long branch new jersey and grew up 25 miles outside of city at columbia high school in maplewood new jersey. mr. chang spent almost two decades in china where he practiced international law. in the past 20 years he has appeared regularly in the american media. he was the author of the coming collapse of china in 2001. we discussed with him if he is still sticking by that prediction. >> author gordon chang on this episode of notes plus. but notes plus is available on the c-span now at or wherever you get your podcasts. >> middle and high school students, it is time to get your phones and start recording for your chance to win $100,000 in total cash rises for the grand prize of $10,000 by entering c-span student campaign documentary contest this year's

competition, we are asking students to picture yourself as a newly elected member of congress and tell us what your top priority would be and why. make a video showing the importance of the issues from opposing and supporting points of view. don't be afraid to take risks. there is still time to get started. the deadline for entries january 20, 2023. for tips on how to get started, visit our website. washington journal continues. host: our conversation now on the 118th congress, we are joined by david harper, center of congressional and presidential studies, and they seem to be two schools of thought about the productivity of congress. some view it as a recipe for gridlock and others see it as a dynamic that offers opportunities for areas of

compromise. which school of thought do you fall into? guest: well in theory, it could be or should be an opportunity for compromise but over the course of the past four years or so, it really hasn't in. especially over the course of the past 20 years, a more closely divided congress in terms of differences between democrats and republicans. i can explain that, if you'd like. the reasoning for that. when the minority part is the majority party in the next

election, they tend to realize that it is not going to take much for them to be in the majority again and so they certainly don't want to do anything that enables the majority party to look like they are doing well or succeed because their odds of coming the majority are slim. host: so if compromise happens, the thought is that the majority party get credit for that compromise? guest: that is the way it goes. right now buying in particular, even though it is congress passing legislation, he would be the one who would be signing it, and that tends to give credit to his party and they don't want to do anything that increases the odds of him getting elected and taking more members of congress with him. host: who is the last president that didn't lose the house during their time in office? guest: you'd have to go back a

long way. it would be johnson, i believe. i have to think about that and double check. it has been extremely rare for that to occur. it has been the case in every election save just a couple that a president's party loses seats in the midterm. exceptions to that were bush in 2002 and clinton in 1998. the bush example was mainly attributable to the effect that was still going on following 9/11. in this case, the president's

party only lost a few seats. host: is the typical norm to announce your intent for investigations before the new congress is even seated? we are talking already about investigations of hunter biden, about the afghanistan pullout, the department of homeland security. is that unusual? guest: yes, but not anymore. if you go back, it certainly would be unusual. but if you look back at just past few, we've seen a steady ratcheting up of investigations. if you go back to the republicans, they decided early on that they were going to investigate clinton for whitewater, investigating which one, the monica lewinsky scandal.

democrats have been investigatory toward president bush, certainly the republicans were interested in investigating obama. there wasn't much to investigate. and under trump, of course, there was a steady stream of investigations. what this is now is retaliatory. when our guy was president, you guys never stopped investigating even after he left office, you guys can stop investigating, so now we have ever chance, we are going to do the same thing. i expect this to be a steady pattern moving forward, i think. when almost any president is going to be under threat of impeachment. host: before the 118th congress

convenes, we are talking about what a divided government look. david barker is our guest, the director of american center for congressional and mental dottie's. if you want to join the conversation, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. he is with us until take: 40 5 a.m. third time this morning. a little bit more about the center if you don't mind. what specifically you studied, and how you did it. guest: sure. the operation is to strengthen the democratic square through recent -- recent programs and investment. we research a lot of different scholars, we provide funding and other resources. one of them being compromised.

programs, as i said, we have a lot of different training programs. that is the program for negotiation, also a longtime staffer. and we host a lot of events where we have speakers with the guidelines on democracy. we have politicians, scholars, journalists, all of the thought leaders who we bring in to talk about these challenging times and what they might do to address those challenges. host: i wonder if you've ever studied what joe manchin, the

west virginia democrat did for the 117th congress. a single member of the senate. do you think that happens again in the 118th, or do you think other members of the united states senate are looking at his example and might find a way to do the same thing in the next congress? guest: the difference is that republicans control the house now. there's only so much the democrats can do to get the house is going to pass legislation that the democrats want. when they have unified control of government, which they did for the last two years, the most powerful man in washington, he

was the democrat, the determining factor to what they could get done. that gave them an awful lot of negotiating leverage. and it turned out that congress wasn't, in fact, quite predictive, especially such recent congresses in the past 20 years. democrats are frustrated with him a lot of time, and his insistence on getting a few more republican votes. host: several callers already, let's get to a few of them. michelle is a democrat calling for marilyn. >> either. professor barker, -- hi there.

professor barker led myself and a group of students studying law back in 2018. it is so great to see him on this morning. guest: good to see you. caller: yes. bald looks great on you, just wanted to say. you'd be happy to know that i am now a lobbyist in d.c. for government relations. this upcoming congress, i'm a little bit apprehensive because the last congress, you know the margins were so close. it was really a very productive congress and we got a lot of bipartisan deals done and whatnot. and i'm really concerned that this coming on is just going to be a circus, unfortunately. so what do you think for lobbyists like myself? what do you think the prospect for the next two years?

host: stay on the line for a second, i'm going to let david barker answer your question first. guest: i think that you have a right to be apprehensive. i don't think of the prospects are very good. you are correct that despite the margins being close in the last few years and despite all of the polarization, it was a productive congress, i was just saying that a second ago. but the republicans in charge of the house now, especially given that the speaker of the house, i don't know how long he is going to last for even is. in the first place, kevin mccarthy is going to be very beholden to the conservative wing, the inner chamber. that is a simple as raising the debt ceiling in a few weeks, because he knows that the first time he is going to be removed

as speaker. he isn't going to do anything to make it look like he is cooperating with ivan and the democrats. unfortunately, i think we can expect not a lot to get done. host: i can't pass up an opportunity when a former student calls in. what is the best thing that david barker ever taught you? caller: [laughter] i think the best thing he taught me was that when you are trying to follow your dreams in politics or anything else in life, staying committed to your goals is the most important thing. being smart enough to attend american university is another one because it is a great institution. i got my masters degree from there a couple of years ago. i'm very grateful for his leadership of the institution and the great time we had in 2018.

>> thanks for the call this morning. we are going to head from maryland all the way out to the last frontier. this is alaska. mike, independent, thanks for getting up pretty early. color: yes, good morning guys. my question is simple. i want to know where the 118th congress investigates the dossier used against president trump during his term in the white house that was perpetrated on him by supposedly hillary clinton and obama. will there be an investigation to find out and get to the bottom of this once and for all? caller: i'm sorry, investigation of democrats who were investigating trump?

i didn't catch that at first. obviously that is highly controversial over time and the caller's right to point that out, and i understand that the question is a good one. it is hard to say. this congress and this house would be inclined to do something like that, i believe. but they may have bigger fish to for a, in their view. rather than going back and revisiting questions pertaining to trump, i think they are probably going to be more inclined to focus on hunter biden because they get more mileage out of that. but it is a good question, and who knows? host: democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. i am the quite excited to hear the rest of what professor barker has to say.

i'm in agreement with him on pretty much everything he is talking about but i'm whited or optimistic and he is. -- quite a bit more optimistic. i think that the upcoming republican control of congress is going to be such a clown show and airing of the worst of the republican extremists that the whole country is going to kind of have to wake up and see that something drastic is going to need to happen and i'm hoping that more people look at rank-choice voting like we had in alaska and i'm sure the republicans are upset. rank-choice voting basically took out sarah palin. but what i'm hearing in all the previous calls from the republican side, they are

talking about hunter biden, and it is going to be a republican extremist dream, what is going to happen in the republican-controlled house. there is going to be a country aghast and it is going to really just spill out the extremists and i think it is going to motivate the rest of us to do something. everyone talks about term limits, but i don't think term limits are the answer. i think the answer really is term limits along with rank-choice voting and i interested to hear your opinion on that. thank you. guest: you are right that rank-choice voting has a lot of momentum hide it right now to be successful. the goal is to hopefully

discourage victories by more extreme candidates. if anybody watching doesn't understand what it is, instead of just taking the favorite candidate, at the name suggests, you actually rank them. if nobody gets a majority, you go again and the candidate gets more votes as others are eliminated. who actually care about trying to get peoples second, third votes. you're going to tend to be more reasonable, you're going to tend to be more moderate, you are not going to tend to make as extreme types of statements. we are seeing some places increasingly embracing

rank-choice voting, so there is some real momentum there. i think there is some real potential of the course of the next 20, 30 years. we could use it as a tool to address this polarization that we all see and experience. host: won election that is decidedly not rank-choice voting that we will see tomorrow is the option first group that house i want to just go over what the rules are answered of preparing viewers from what we see tomorrow. the speaker is not requireto be a member of the house. caidates have to be nominated by mber of the house. and the members vote by calling out the last names of their choice when their name is called on the floor. members can vote for any individual, not just a member of

the house. the person has to receive a majority of the votes cast by members or a person by name and if no candidate receives a majority of votes cast, the vote call is repeated and repeated and repeated until a speaker is found. explain the intricacies of that and why it can be anybody, not just a member of the house. guest: you described it pretty well there. typically it would be anybody, not just a member of the house. but we haven't seen that, we don't expect to see that. it doesn't have to be a member of a majority party, either. they can vote for nancy pelosi or hakeem jeffries. in practice, it is going to be a republican and in all likelihood, it will wind up being kevin mccarthy.

there are a lot of backroom deals that have been going on, concessions made alluding to that recently. he has conceded to change the rules for something called the motion to vacate which is specifically the number of people who have to call for his removal in order for it to be a floor vote on that. moving forward, the threshold has as few as five members of the majority party just to call for mccarthy today removed as speaker, that would likely happen. but it is an extremely low threshold. what it means is that pete is beholden to anybody specifically, lgbt in the house,

-- host: why does that not make an beholden to moderates who want more compromise, who could make that motion if they thought he wasn't compromising enough? guest: in theory, that is true. in practice, it is not what is expected to happen because moderates may want, frankly, more civility in the house. not someone who tends to pound their fist on the table and demand to get their way. we want compromise, want more moderation. they are not likely to be so obstinate in terms of demanding. but it is a good question. in theory, that could be the case as well. but what people anticipate to

happen if the freedom caucus -- that is what it used to be called, i'm not sure if that is really quite an accurate term anymore. really, the more maga-oriented members of the house to keep a close watch on mccarthy and punish him for doing anything that seems like it might be too conciliatory. the first is going to be in just a couple weeks. host: about 20 minutes left with david barker this morning. american university, the center for presidential studies taking your phone call before the 118th congress convenes. this is robert and chester, virginia. good morning. caller: you know, everyone -- not everyone, but a lot of

people said stuff going on now, mccarthy is going to win. well, i'd like to see the justice department enforcing the 14th amendment for anybody participating in this election. i'd like to see that happen. i would vote for him. i want to see the republicans get back in there and straighten some of this stuff up but number one, he participated in the insurrection. host: who is a republican that you would like to see the party? caller: well, i really don't have anybody. i don't want somebody that participated in the insurrection. host: i'll have you jump in there on the shadow of january 6

in the 118th congress. that committee, what happens in the 118th? guest: i think it is pretty much going to be the end of that investigation. we will see if the justice department actually moves forward with particular charges. i think that is likely to happen with regards to former president trump. i don't think anything like that is likely to happen regarding other members of congress for holding them in contempt. i think there is some evidence that members could talk about who may have been involved with certain phone calls and back and forth with the white house.

but again, the justice department could charge them. the january 6 investigation, that was done not by accident and they think that they're trying to build as tight a case as they possibly could against him specifically. i think that is with the focus is going to be. congress is going to be with the justice department. host: william, pennsylvania, republican you are next. caller: yeah, just one question to ask this person. january 6 committee was so lopsided.

do you want to say something about this, why they are doing that? guest: i misunderstood the question, could you repeated? caller: yes, i absolutely can. january 6 committee. you go to trial, and those two persons on the committee start a jury. they should have been removed because they have bias. guest: i appreciate that. kevin mccarthy refused to allow republicans to participate in that process. liz cheney and adam kinzinger wound up basically becoming the republican party by choosing to participate on that committee. there could have been more

republicans but they didn't want to participate. the two that did, it practically ended their careers in congress. host: west virginia, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning, happy new year. i have a couple questions and a couple points. an earlier caller mentioned, and i agree, it is pretty sad that the house republican control is probably going to result in a much things that we've known since 2018 already. but nonetheless, republicans are upset because they were allowed to use that for social media.

i'm not questioning some things about hunter biden, but russian propaganda. my point is this. you should have answered improperly. he was appointed by trump and are already to investigate the steel dossier. he had three cases. and they were disproven, essentially. a lot of the steel dossier presented to trump and the trump campaign and republicans just don't want to hear that. but those trials, that vindication venture and crusade that trump set them upon did not prove out. because much of what was within the steel dossier was strange,

questionable evidence that ship -- that did share connections and members of the trump campaign connections to russian agents. guest: those are good points that the caller made, and the same is true with regard to the collusion a couple years ago during the trump campaign and the russian government which was taken by many people to be vindictive toward trump and the republicans but if you read the report, it revealed conduct suggestive of some kind of --

i'm not sure that is necessarily the correct term, and maybe it is, but that was a clear, full-blown republic. -- conspiracy on the part of the republican campaign working with the russian government to hack into the dnc. again, the softer term is collusion between the russians and the trump campaign. communication, certainly that led people to question or wonder what exactly happened. we will never know because there was no clear, absolute evidence one way or the other, but to suggest that the mueller report or any of these other investigations vindicated trump and the republicans on that is inaccurate. host: a question from political homeless tony on twitter.

the idea of pursuing and prosecuting a former president any concerns with professor barker? guest: not really. i mean, nobody can be above the law. just because you were president or our president or some future president made the in office, no american can be above the law. some people feel like it was a mistake for ford to pardon nixon back in the 1970's following watergate. and he did so to try to be healing, to try to move on, to not continue rehashing those things and did not try to be overly divisive for what at the

time was perhaps viewed as being unnecessary. if you go all the way back to the civil war, decisions were made did not go after some former confederates. there were good reasons to do that. that has their history. but when certain things are so flagrant, if the justice department concludes that they are overwhelming in this particular instance were guarding trump and january 6, or other matters, not only is it not bad for the country to pursue those things, but it is probably healthy. host: david barker, professor

and director of the american university of congressional and presidential studies. author and editor of several books. explain with the politics of truth that polarized america is. guest: sure, that is a volume that my colleague here at american university and i wrote together. a lot of scholars, a lot of journalists, a lot of practitioners from around the country to talk for a couple of days about what is this situation that we got here in terms of misinformation, in terms of polarization? we have this tendency in the united states on both the left and the right to perhaps be

overly heuristic about how correct we are. we think that the facts are on our side when in reality, is a lot murkier and a lot grayer. the causes of it, the consequences of the. we can proceed to try to improve the situation and windup putting together a book that has many chapters, many authors, but always different titles. i encourage everybody out there to pick up a copy if you think you will enjoy it. host: ocean isle beach north carolina, independent, good morning. caller: good morning. the professor basically said better that i could exactly what my thoughts are. we have both sides going at each other. we act like little children at the playground.

just because you got 60% of the vote, there's 40% of the people still in your district. what a senator votes for in kentucky also affects the people of california, florida, alaska. we just need to come together. a house divided shall not stand. it has to stop. safe schools, safe border, jobs, a self-sustaining nation that we are kind of moving were manufacturing is what we need here but not to forget about the rest of the world. the pragmatic approach to government, i appreciate you showing up. exactly what he just said, about that new book, it is what we need to do.

we are going down the wrong path. thank you for taking my call. guest: i appreciate those sentiments as well and i think they are shared by most americans, frankly. and we see some of that. just a couple of months ago, in case after case, the voters were showing that they were a little bit fed up with some of the extremism, a little bit fed up with the anger and the combativeness, the incendiary language and behavior that has become the norm, the election denial and other antidemocratic types of movements.

the average american is reasonable. the average american doesn't hate the people on the others the average american would like for us to find more common ground as we try to move forward and live in this country together. there are several aspects of our system, about our culture and our media that pull us in different directions. but that doesn't necessarily have to be the way it is forever. there are some encouraging signs in terms of the movement toward rank-choice voting and many others. the media outlet might change social media.

the country has recovered before and i think that again, in 2023, i see some signs of optimism moving forward. host: this is jerry, republican, good morning. caller: yes, good morning. i hear these people always talk about they want congress to pass legislation, passed legislation. don't they realize that every time they passed legislation that is money out of our pockets? the one thing i would like to see from this republican house is i would like to see a subpoena of nancy pelosi's phone records and text messages in the weeks before and leading up to january 6. i think a lot of americans would

be very surprised and very shocked about what they find. we still have a communist president, communist senate. that is one thing i would like to see. host: what do you want to follow up on? guest: i don't have any great responses to those comments. the investigatory congress, i don't think that anything will be off the table for them. host: time for maybe one or two calls. this is ginger in kentucky, go ahead. caller: the discussion about how anyone could be the speaker of the house even though they weren't elected i think would be

kind of disingenuous to the voting public for anyone to come in. the question, is that written in our constitution? i want to hear your comment on that. if the republicans cannot decide on a speaker, i think it is going to make america look like the laughingstock when they don't have their business in order. thank you. host: mr. barker? guest: yes, that is in the constitution that it is part of the rules. it is really a technicality. while in theory someone who is not a member of congress could be speaker, we are not going to see that for precisely the reasons that the caller suggested. that would be undemocratic in many respects and it wouldn't be

politically popular so i think that the caller can rest assured that they don't have to worry about that. host: steven mnuchin, would you ask the professor if you think that all district house should be drawn by independent commission like she can without help? guest: -- like michigan. guest: i think that would help. unfortunately right now, there's states disproportionately that tend to be democratic states so you've got some disparity there in terms of the enthusiasm on both sides of the aisle for independently-drawn districts. i would say that if we were trying to do something like that and completely eliminate the problems associated with gerrymandering, it wouldn't

solve all our problems. the biggest reasons why districts tend to favor one party of the other is the way people sort themselves into neighborhoods in the u.s. increasingly over the course of the past 50 years, we've seen a trend toward people just tending to flock together politically because our politics has become so culture-based in the way that it is based on our identities. race, gender, sexuality, religion, taste. people who share those kind of characteristics tend to stay close to each other. so districts tend to be comprised of people who are heavily blue or heavily red and we can improve that at the

margins by getting rid of gerrymandering but it would only be an improvement at the margins. host:host: last call is from tim, west virginia republican. caller: i had a question on the senate side about the bill that just passed link to the house. there was 19 republicans that voted for it including from west virginia. i was wondering, when her term comes up in 2024, if the people will remember that she voted for the bill, will that hurt her, or possibly help her? thank you for your question. guest: again, you may think this

is unfortunate, but voters do not tend to punish or reward members of congress. they tend to believe that they will be punished for rewarded, but the political science on this indicates it is pretty rare, actually. it has to be an extremely high bill in the house to come very close to the next election. there has to be a lot of consistent media coverage for a member to be either punished or rewarded. it is well over 90%. she is probably going to be safe , tend to get reelected. how well they are known in the

districts. casework or constituency service. my guess is that is going to be the case. host: david barker is director of the center for congressional and presidential studies. thanks so much for the time this morning. we will chat with you again in 2023. guest: thanks so much, i really enjoyed it. host: philip wallace will join us to discuss the history of divided government and his upcoming book, why congress? stick around, we will be right back.

>> the opening of the 118th congress is january 3 with many new members swearing in. get to know your representative or senator by pre-ordering your copy of the congressional directory. if your access to the federal government with contact information for every house and senate member, important information on congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state government every purchase will support a operation at c-spanshop.org. >> middle and high school students, it is time to get your phones and start recording for your chance to win $100,000 in total cash rises by entering

c-span's student documentary contest. we are asking students to picture yourself as a newly elected member of congress and tell us what your top priority would be ny. create a five to six minute video showing the importance of your issue from supporting and opposing points of view. don't be afraid to take risks. there is still time to get started. the deadline for entry is january 20, 2023. for tips on how to get d, visit our website. >> listening to programs on c-span or c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker play c-span radio and listen to washington journal at 7:00 eastern. important congressional hearings and other affairs throughout the day.

text for a fast-paced report on the stories of the day. listen to c-span anytime. just tell your smart speaker to play c-span radio. announcer: washington journal continues. host: the day before the beginning of the 118th congress, we are joined by the author of the forthcoming book "why congress" said to be released this spring from oxford university press. explain first the title of your book. there is no? in the title. -- there is no question mark in the title. guest: so many people are so skeptical of the institution at this point. and have framework, congress is absolutely vital to a representative democracy functioning well. it has to be a place where we go to work through some of the

nations thorniest problems. the book is really to give that big picture justification, to look at some instances in the past where it really worked well, and helping the nation through its most difficult problems rather than exacerbating them as so many people feel it does today. host: go back to the original "why congress." what was the reason? why did we vest legislative powers with this branch of government? guest: it is a really long prehistory for legislative government. i do a little bit of going back to mid-evil england to think about why parliament emerged in the first place. it was not an intentional founding. but the government emerged because it was useful for

helping the english people work through some difficult problems, useful for the kings to look different voices have a say in working out these problems rather than just trying to dictate everything. in american history, the colonial assembly kind of began as the most important places for making decisions by virtue of the fact that the king was across the ocean. by the time the independent legislature just seemed naturally to be the site of government. certainly will be established for constitution, we were doing it in part to get a stronger executive ranch, a stronger congress. the articles of confederation were too weak for many of the difficult problems of the 1780's. congress, it is the first bridge

for a reason. the framers just assumed that it was going to be the center of decision-making. host: the center of decision-making made up by people whose expertise is vote-getting/ these are experts at pacific issues that the country is facing. guest: right. it seemed like a pretty different thing. it was considered rather untoward to go out seeking votes actively. it was considered an aristocracy of merit. the members of the community are the ones that you send to washington, the trusted members of the community. they had to meet with the trusted representatives from all the other sections of the country. that was really the vision. figuring out ways that we could have trusted representatives work out these problems is really a central tap check -- challenge of our time because so many people have so much distrust for the institution today. host: when are those times in

modern history that you think congress worked really well? guest: one chapter of the book is about world war ii. when people talk about american policy during world war ii, most people dry blank. what did congress really do? what it shows is that there are a lot of really good challenges on the home front. by turning the american economy into a giant war machine. congress really was the place where we figured out how to work through these difficulties. the massive inflation, the rationing. that is really something in the bones of america, the need to see what the government is doing as fair. not just as right or wrong, but fair.

congress was the one religious worker the difficult issues. our going to deal with the challenges caused the inflation? how are we going to make sure that the military isn't heading war profiteering? they therefore got the american people to trust the war effort much more. host: and how were they able to do that? guest: right. ". that is the central virtue of multiple congress. congress has many members and they can openly fight with each other. sometimes that sounds scary to people. sounds like everyone should just figure out a way to get along. we are all americans, we should somehow come together. but congress lets people fight out in the open.

listen to what they are saying and take each other seriously. that kind of open deliberation, you might think in the middle of work time, we get rid of that. we get rid of that, but no, that is what we were fighting a war for, to stay a free country. practicing free politics helped us. completely different from how the soviet union was figuring out a way through, you know, where there was massive repression. it was -- worked for them but we are glad it was not our way. our way is to practice free politics, even in the most difficult times. host: "click is what made congress work so well in world war ii. is it not open conflict in that building these days? guest: it is very much not open. we have heavily structured partisan conflict today. we have leaders in both parties,

in recent years, who have had a strong grip on the agenda and a really strong grip on members of their party saying, we need to pull together and toe the party line. that is how we will frame the next election for us. we he did not work across party lines much because mainly we need to focus on making the other party look bad. and you have seen a pretty much in the house. they used to be open rules for debating legislation and those have pretty much disappeared. everything that comes to the floor is tightly managed by their leadership, often put together by leadership rather than in the committees. that limits the sense we are having an open debate where people can create unpredictable coalitions, right? strange bedfellows, politics makes strange bedfellows -- a key value of congress, but it

has not been doing that in recent years. really, you just, on the most important things you see the republicans sticking together and democrats sticking together. host: explain regular order and when was the last time we had a regular order. guest: it is the idea that legislation ought to be carefully worked up through deliberation and committees, then brought to the floor and debated more on the floor with a chance of members to offer amendments. then final you voted upon by the whole chamber. and, you know, the details are debatable, but we have seen a gradual decline of regular order in both chambers. we have seen more and more bills, instead, worked out by the leadership. and then brought to votes with little opportunity for real debate or amendment the

disadvantages, -- and the disadvantages are we do not get that same sense of open deliberation. we may miss things because they do not get a chance to percolate through the system. and it changes the incentives for members. if you are a backbencher, there was a sense that you could have a real impact on legislation through my committee work. i should become a policy expert, and i will have a chance to be truly impactful that way. now, if you have a sense a bill will never come to the floor anyway, that it will just go through the speaker's office, then you think, well, my committee work does not seem so important. and really the only way i can make an impact is to go on social media in to try to raise my national profile, working

outside of the legislative process instead. so that is one of the central dilemmas of our congress today. host: let me go to page 171 of yourook. descriptions of our congress as completely dysfunctional are hyperbolic. matt iglesias has dubbed it a seet congress because of how little press coverage it receives committees do not deliberate. statues are still worked up. and there are on theus. and problems get solved with relatively little drama. most of the hundreds of laws that congress passes each year continue to be bipartisan. guest: that is important. the less it gets media coverage, the more likely it is that secret congress gets to work its magic and workup bills that will not ever getting a lot of media attention. you will see them getting passed on c-span, of course, but from

the major media outlets, they'll mostly get ignored or backpage coverage or whatever. we do not have a completely dysfunctional congress. it's a little bit of a well-kept secret that there's plenty of things that get worked through, veterans issues for example. a lot of legislation trying to make the va health system work well, that stuff still works -- the committees are functioning in a bipartisan manner. so, in terms of the hyper partisanship, things could be worse. and certainly the last congress, the 117th congress, showed ability to work out bipartisan compromises, mostly originating in the senate. but things took a bit of a turn for the better in the last congress. host: philip wallach iour guest, the book is "why congress."

no question on that title. it's "why congress." he is taking your questions and comments. you can do so on the phone lines. democrats at 202-748-8000. republicans at 202-748-8001. independents at 202-748-8002. i want to come back to the folks who are working behind the scenes on the bill. a newspaper on capitol hill had a list each year, i do not know if they have done it recently, but there were courses in congress -- were courses in congress versus the show horses. what are those in congressional terms? guest: it is an old term. it has been kicked around since the middle of the 20th-century the century, probably longer than that. and the idea is that there are some members who want to put their heads down and work on the details of legislation. and really get in the

nitty-gritty. and they are not always the ones trying to get on tv. they are not always the ones with ambitions to be president someday. they want to represent their constituents. they want to become policy matter specialists. and they want to have an impact in that way. those are the work horses. the show horses are the ones who see their time in congress as a way to get more famous, as a way of establishing a national brand for themselves. who aren't always thinking about their own state or district, first or foremost. the way congress has evolved, it has really favored the show horses. fundraising has become much more nationally oriented. a lot of members are raising money from all over the country, rather than just from folks in

their district. that means they need to create something that appeals to people across the country, rather than a am doing a good job representing my district. as i said before about the committees, it is a big difference that the work horse'' main avenue for impact used to be the committee. and they have much less sense in recent years that the investment in that work will pay off. so part of the point in my book is a call to the work horses to say that you can organize on behalf of the ability of work horses to have an impact. you can make congress work differently than it has today. it has worked differently in the past. host: it could jupiter for the hill, on this program in the past, herote a column at the end of 2021, and the title "the

last of the work horses." "bob dole was the last of the were courses -- work horses. when bob michael ran against -- he was dubbed the work horse versus the show horse. they tend to stumble when it comes to their tv appearances but they shine when it comes to producing legislative compliments. dole had a sharp wit. he was good at putting deals together and making the government work effectively, which endeared him to the few who care about that kind of thing." he talked about dole as the last of the work horses. are there any still on capitol hill and who are they? guest: there are. they are not the most famous members, generally. they are the people making the committees hum along. certainly, it is a well-known thing that the appropriations

committees remain extremely influential. so, one thing to do if you want to be a work horse and create a career on capitol hill where your influence is going to accrue over the years, is to try to get yourself onto the appropriations committee or armed services committee, also, a plays like that where eventually you will be a subcommittee chairman or ranking member. there is a lot of important work that gets done there, where you will end up allocating billions of dollars, right? how many people can say they do that at their job? so, if people want to know who the work horses are, they should look at the chart for the appropriations committee. that makes a big difference. sometimes we see that there are three parties, appropriators, immigrants into republicans because they have set a culture of their own -- democrats and

republicans, because they have set a culture of their own. they take pride in their responsibly as stewards of the public. host: philip wallach is a senior fellow at the american enterprise institute. we are talking about his book "why congress." we have plenty of calls for you. this is joe for democrats. good morning. caller: happy new year, john. happy new year, philip. host: what is your question or comment? caller: we are talking about the book, "why congress." partisan politics, it seems to me it has been a bigger problem in the last half a dozen years, and it seems to continue. when i think about when we vote for in the senate and president, everybody gets to vote. you walk in, make a vote, you do

not have to share who you voted for. i realize that congressmen and his senate representatives are elected by constituents who are supposed to represent the towns, cities, the states they come from. but what happens is you have hundreds of senators and member trying to get the same thing passed. it seems to get caught up in partisan politics. the other part i noticed is many times when a big bill comes up, 100% of republicans will vote one way and 100% of the democrats will vote another way. i know they could not possibly all believe in their party line, but they seem to vote their party line because they feel like they have to, because the leader of the party says you have to vote this way. or republicans, they are all scared donald trump will trash their reputation and they will not get reelected. why not introduce an opportunity, maybe not on all

bills, but big bills, or 25% of each party can vote anonymously. not the same 25%, it would change each vote, but that would allow politicians to vote their conscience or what is good for america, not just their party leader or their individual constituents. that way more legislation would get through, i think. my guess is both impeachments against donald trump, plenty of republicans knew he was guilty and they probably would've voted for impeachment, and we would not be dealing with the mess we are still dealing with. i'm just wondering about your thoughts on my suggestion. host: we will take your suggestion. guest: it is an insightful question. i think that you are -- that your basic claim that members would vote instinctively if it is anonymous is totally fair. that being said, representative

government is all about accountability to the voters in the end. and that means if voters do not know how their representatives are even voting, that's sort of a basic accountability problem or deficit built into the system. so, you know, we have to consider that value as well as we think about the where this institution operates. now before the mid 1970's, a lot of what the house did was consider things in the committee of the whole, which is a way that the house can reorganize itself to operate in an informal manner. and the committee used to vote a lot without recording who loaded how. -- voted how. so important decision to get made without members' names attached to their votes. advocates of open government, of

sunshine as an antidote to corruption, thought that was terrible. they thought that this is an outrage. we need to be able to hold representatives accountable. so they pushed to get rid of that. and the house got rid of that. this was in the mid-70's. since the advent of electronic voting, also around that time, it's very easy to keep? everybody's vote and attach it to their name. it does not cost time anymore. they used to have to take roll calls by voice. it was a much more laborious process. so, i think that it is quite a cultural norm at this point to have everybody's name attached to their vote. i do think that most americans share your sensibility, enough for there to be a real push for that change.

most people feel like they need to hold their representatives accountable. so i will leave it at that. host: david on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. if i sound like i have a cold it is because i do. my question is about the $1.7 trillion spending package just recently passed, but nobody read. can republicans, if they take over the house, refuse to fund it? can they say we are not going to borrow money for the junk in it. we are not going to fund it. we will fund but we need to to run the government and that is it. if you go in a grocery store with your kids and they throw stuff in the cart, you put it back on the shelf if you cannot afford to pay for things. guest: the bill is now law. so the money is appropriated. it's more like you already

checked out from the store and there is not a clear return policy. they could pass another law to try to claw back some of the money, but it would be highly irregular. and i do not expect that to happen. i think the most important focus is to look to the next appropriations a cycle. we do this every year. if republicans are determined to spend less, they have got control of the house now. they can drive a hard bargain with their counterparts in the senate and for the president biden and his administration. and they can look to reduce spending going forward. i think that is much more likely. host: once we get into the cycle of big omnibus bills at the end of the funding deadline and up against a government shutdown, when did we get away from that regular order of appropriations process and why? guest: it is not like we crossed

a bridge one year to another. it's been a gradual evolution roughly from the mid-80's to the present. yeah, as you said, we are very dependent on omnibus bills that come up against the end of the session or against people's christmas breaks, the ultimate leverage here on capitol hill. and -- host: would the early congresses know what an omnibus bill was? guest: yes, it might be easier to pass two issues together instead of separately, that is your basic bargaining. but the idea you want everything together into put it into this must pass a thing where the government shuts down if you do not pass it, that is much more modern. we did not have government shutdowns until the 1980's. there was a different interpretation of the spending

law before that where the government carried on as if nothing was happening, if the appropriated money did not come in on schedule. so, the modern extended government shutdowns create the leverage for these must pass bills. and, yeah, more and more leaders have found it convenient to operate by dumping things in there operate by dumping things. the caller mentioned, how could anybody have time to read it? all of the different parts of the bill did not come out of nowhere. they worked through committees. some were well known. some may have come out of nowhere. and it is hard to monitor such a giant bill. but, you know, the members in the end, it is up to them. they can vote down bills. if they say, we cannot legislate

in this way anymore, i will only vote for things if they are not packaged into monstrosities, then we could see a new paradigm emerge. it's up to the members. it's not like it was a straight party line vote. we had significant bipartisan support, especially in the senate, for that bill. that is the way things work today. people have grown accustomed to it on the hill, even if citizens find it unreasonable. we'll see if they change course. host: this is bill, an independent. caller: how are you? i have a question about the oath of office that elected officials take. i would like to know, is there any history as to what happens to folks who violate that oath of office, the both to the constitution? and is there any way the supreme court would ever get involved with something like that,

especially with all of the corruption and all the things coming out? just from the hunter biden laptop this could be very interesting. host: let me read the oath of office that members take. this from the senate website. "i solemnly swear or affirm i will defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic. that i will bear allegiance to the same. that i take this obligation freely without mental reservation or purpose of evasion. and i will faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which i am about to enter, so help me god." guest: that comes straight out of the constitution. it's been there all along. and the caller from new jersey asked, you know, if somebody violates that oath, could the judiciary step in and do something about it? the short answer is no.

each chamber is able to police itself. the constitution says it's the judge of its own rules, who gets to be a member or not. so, each chamber has the ability to expel members with a two thirds vote of the membership, if i'm not mistaken. and they can throw members out. and create a vacancy. that will have to be dealt with by the district or state, according to established law. but that is for the legislators themselves. that is one of these instances where, you know, the separation of powers in each branch to control its own affairs to some degree and it gives each branch a check over the other branches. in this case it is members of congress policing themselves.

they have to decide if violations of the oath are serious enough to warrant expulsion. host: about 40 minutes until the end of our program. philip wallach is sticking around with us to answer questions as we talk about congress ahead of the convening of the 118th congress, tomorrow, and in just about 27 hours. if you want to join the conversation, democrats should call 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. host: barbara in massachusetts, a democrat. good morning. caller: just a spectacular program this morning. this guest and professor barker before him have been awesome. have them back together sometime. they have been fabulous. there was a caller, the man with a 25% solution -- i want to

offer a tweak to his solution. he is suggesting that 25% of the 435 congresspeople get the opportunity on a rotating basis to have their votes be anonymous. so then the objection to that, what he spelled out, what if we have the 25% solution but then after they voted anonymously, the 25%, if they wanted they could go on the record and declare their vote. as he intelligently said, the caller, we have been told repeatedly that there were senators who would have voted for the trumpet impeachment if it had been anonymous. then this 25% on each individual vote could either come forward and say what they did or remain anonymous every time. so that way we could get this kind of conscience vote in there, yet break the stranglehold of the partisan

nose counters. i hope that makes that clear. and i to say one more thing, just give me a second. everybody knows making a mountain out of a mobile, making a big issue out of a small issue. the reverse is making a small issue out of a big issue. so, i think where we are at right now is we have solved a lot of our problems and we are down to the really, really hard ones, like abortion, the climate, the budget. so, i am thinking that we should have, as we say in judaism, some compassion that we are dealing with the most difficult challenging issues. and that we do have a congress that just passed the most incredible things like the chips act. and other big pieces of legislation that went through on climate, just unprecedented. so the show horses have had their day, but the work forces

are still getting it done. with creative thinkers like these guests you have, your host and myself, we could create some new memes. thank you so much. guest: thank you, barbara. so, i'm interested that barbara brought back joe from massachusetts's idea about the 25% who get the anonymously. the 25% seems peculiar to me. not sure why you would have only a portion get to exercise this privilege at any given time. but in any case, i think that the basic issues still remain -- do voters deserve to know how their representatives vote or don't they? i think that most americans' instinct would become a yes they do.

barbara put in a bad word for partisan nose counters. i understand that, i certainly share that impulse myself. but let me put in a good word for them. parties exist to organize coalitions together. and at their best, parties really help organize the conflict in american politics, to make it more understandable, trackable, and they have some real virtues in that way. so, partisan discipline right now does seem at an extreme to me, but we should not be quick to say that partisan discipline is all bad. there's reasons why we like well functioning political parties and that help their members get on the same page. now, the other part of what barbara said was about just how hard a lot of the problems we confront are. and i think that is an important point. on the other hand, to me that is

all the more reason we need to pursue this more open model of conflict, where we need to let everyone have their say. we need to have it out with each other. on immigration, for example, congress has not ignored immigration by any means over the last decade and a half. but it has not passed much important legislation on it. instead we have done the important changes through executive branch action, like the daca program. and quite of the problem has been that we have tried, we have ended up trying to impose certain structure from the leadership on what or how the immigration debate can proceed. if it does not work, we get nothing. and that means we've had a hard time bringing on a board of skeptics who are worried about illegal immigration and think that past legislation has

duped them into thinking legislation will happen when it wasn't. there are deep trust moments there. the way we have to proceed through those problems is to say, ok, let's actually sit down and bargain with you. we know that you are a hard no on a lot of things, what could you say yes to? we need to build up from there and that kind of open ended, multi-factional negotiation has not really been happening lately. host: another good example of that, go back -- you talked about world war ii, when open conflict worked in congress. what is another example? guest: another example in my book as civil rights. that's a difficult challenge. as we came to the middle of the 20th century, this is an issue that has been, you know, struggled with all the way since the civil war, for the nation's

whole history, really. how do we get desegregation to happen without a revolution or civil war? that was such a massive social change. the way it worked was by working through the process in congress. in the end, you built this huge coalition for change that included pretty much everyone except the white southerners. but they respected the process that ultimately delivered the legislation in 1964 and 1965. they were against those laws, but at the end of the day they said, well, u.s. about a massive coalition that beat us. all we can do is live with the results. that's kind of a refreshing difference from the tone of today's politics, where often times you say, the other side

won because they cheated into be will find ways to nullify where they did. we will say it was totally ill illegitimate to start with. ther a differente' -- there's a different model where you work on building broader coalitions from the start and earn more legitimacy as a result. host: a republican on the line. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to thank the author. i got in early on the call. host: go ahead. caller: ok. well, maybe this is off topic, but i want to mention that when i think we passed the constitutional amendment to

allow senators to be voted on by their state, rather than having the state legislature and governor appointed senators, i think that brought a tremendous amount of money that the senators would have to raise. and think that that has really made a change for the worse. it seems like everything lately passed in the constitutional amendments to change the constitution has been detrimental. wouldn't you say the congress under nancy pelosi was the most partisan and kind of dictate tarot -- dictatorial in the united states? can you imagine the leadership

smirking behind the president publicly after the president's speech? i just think that we have got to take into account that fact that maybe we should have term limits. that would be the change in the constitution. but i'm wondering what you think about term limits? guest: there is a lot there, cornelia. i will take it in reverse order. the term limits, from time immemorial some people feel that having members that do not stick around in washington will make the place work better. i'm very skeptical of that idea. i think that we gain a lot from members who invest in expertise and how the system works. who invest in expertise in particular areas. some of the most effective work

courses are those who stick around for a long time. to me, that would be a net loss. the voters are the ultimate term limit. if they are sticking -- if they are sick of their member, they can get rid of them. now you said, we think the house under nancy pelosi was the most partisan ever? american history is long. we have got other good contenders for that title. if you go back to the 1880's and 1890's, you had speaker reid, who is known as tsar reid at the time. or in the first decade of the 20th century, his boss, joseph cannon. there were some strict party control, very strict discipline from members of parties back then. and very centralized, dominant control.

and numbers got fed up with it. they pushed things in a different direction. when we look to the 117th congress, it certainly was very highly partisan. by the measures of political science, to sort of analyze how much members clump together when they will, those were at all time high levels. certainly at those levels of 1880's of colorization in the two parties. and i think centralized control of the speaker's office is a trend, and i think that nancy pelosi ruled with an iron fist. that is a fair characterization. where things will go from here is a real question. there is no more speaker pelosi. that part of american history has come to an end. we are seeing a fight among republicans right now as to how they want the house to offer it.

part of what is at stake is the fight over whether kevin mccarthy will become speaker or not is how will the house operate. will he be a republican nancy pelosi, controlling everything out of the speaker's office, or will he do things differently? so, we will see how it goes. there's people who want things to work differently, so perhaps they will win out. and finally camille asked about the 17th amendment to the constitution, which got senators directly elected instead of eight elected by their respective state legislatures -- instead of elected by their respective state legislatures. it is a case where what voters want most. a lot of states were giving the voters the choice, even before the amendment. they had moved of popular elections, doing whatever the people wanted. the norm shifted where people

thought that people should get to choose their senators directly, and the constitutional amendment followed and locked that into place. so, it is another case where maybe the alternative had some attractive things about it. having state legislators have a voice in the national government would make some sense, but it is hard to imagine a popular movement back to that, back to that way of doing things. host: thomas reed, a republican from maine, here is a story about a book written about the former speaker. the most important politician you have never heard of, thomas reed was a larger-than-life speaker of the house during america's turbulent gilded age. he brought the position to prominence and forever changed the house of representatives. what more should people know about tsar reed? guest: he is a fascinating figure. he roasted dominating partisan

politics. and then ultimately lost his power because of breaking with his party over the spanish-american war, which he opposed. but, you know, he came to a house where there was sort of a filibuster there. host: in the house? guest: in the house. it was not called that, but the disappearing forum was the problem. if the members of the minority did not want a bill to be voted on, they would -- themselves from the chamber. there was not a norm of 435 members being there all the time. the total number was actually less back then. but having all of the members there at once was unusual. so if the minority all walked out, there was a chance at there would not be a forum for doing business. and that would leave the

majority party unable to do what it wanted. so the speaker figured out a way to -- he would literally bar the doors and stop members from leaving the chamber. host: a fire hazard these days. guest: [laughter] i do not think he was too concerned about that. he was known as somebody who made it possible for the republican party to work its will at that time. and made a big difference in centralizing power in the house. host: on filibusters, what is your view of the modern filibuster and its use in the senate? guest: the way that we talk about them today, not even related to anything that people have to do on the floor, it is related to the sense and that everything is going to be subjected to a motion, and to

pass that you will need 60 senators. so, for most things, budget reconciliation being a very important exception, but for most things we will act like we need 60 votes. and so, to me that the parts from the spirit -- departs from the spirit of the way filibusters have functioned in the past, where it was a thing that brought everything to a halt and focused attention on an issue. it gave us a chance to have grand debates about an issue in a way that contemporary filibusters do not enable. so, i would say that there are some healthy features of having a 60 vote requirement. i think it does bring partisan cooperation where we would not get otherwise. if you look at the infrastructure bill, that is a good example. but it has become so much part of the furniture there, it no

longer serves its intended function of really allowing the senate to be this place of grand debates. they do not really, you know -- no offense, but when we tune into c-span most of the time we expect to be bored by the legislative proceedings these days. not the regular programming, of course. but so much of what happens on both floors today seems like killing time. and really the senate, especially, is supposed to be the greatest debating society on earth. and it does not live up to that these days. so i would like to see reforms to the filibuster that would help it be more in that vein. host: 20 minutes left. philip wallach is joining us in that time. he is the author of "why congress." it will be released this spring

from oxford university press. he is a senior fellow at the american enterprise institute. and you can find him on twitter. call in to join the conversation. a caller out of lakeland, florida. an independent. caller: good morning. i got a plan for congress. this is wonderful. praise be for having philip wallach here. i have a masters degree in organizational development. i want the new speaker to bring in a team of organizational development consultants, because their purpose is to work with organizations to help them reach their purpose of what they are supposed to do. i want them to bring in a team of bipartisan agreement, on the team of organizational consultants, and then i wanted that congressmen to go on camping trips. these organizers would have

these camping trips where the congressman can get away from the pressure of phones, computers, and sit around campfires and get the problems assaulted for this country so that the end of 2023 we will dance and sing with the glee that congress has functioned this year. what is your reaction? host: i guarantee if we can get cameras at camp congress, c-span would send the cameras. guest: no, that would defeat the whole purpose. it's a great question. you are not the only one to think along these lines. there are some specialists in mediation, organization and alternative dispute resolution -- all kind of experts find their way to capitol hill and offer advice to congress. they are over there.

on the camping trips front, there have been bipartisan congressional retreats in the past. they have gone by the wayside at the moment, but there's so movement to bring them back. that is something that the select committee on the modernization of congress talked about. and encouraged. i think it is a good idea. i for the members to see others across the aisle as a real human beings, who have real concerns and are being faithful representatives of their constituents rather than ideologues or servants of special interests, that's something that is healthy and makes a difference to the culture on capitol hill. host: on the cameras, was it a good idea to bring cameras to congress in 1979? guest: i think that cameras change everything. people act differently on camera than off-camera. i certainly know when you get

members together for committee meetings that are not public sessions, that are just happening in back rooms with no public presence, they operate a lot differently. members speak to each other differently, there is less posturing and a lot less, uh, name-calling. and members are interested in each other. generally the people who are elected to congress are sociable people, they are people people and they like to get along. if you lock them in a room and tell them to work things out, they may do that more than you might think. host: the speaker read plan. -- reed plan. [laughter] guest: cameras on capitol hill changed the culture, for sure. it changed how people used floor time. and i think that there is a lot of -- to how the evolution has

gone. host: the book is "why congress." what is your feeling about cameras in the supreme court? guest: i think that they know what will happen if they let them in, in that news shows will be looking for soundbites. and may be justices will start to feel the pull of,if i gave a good enough soundbite, then i get to go on all the national news shows tonight. it changes things for the actors. i can understand why the justices themselves have resisted that trend. and i think that my prediction is that they will continue to resist it, until people are literally banging down their doors demanding it. the released the audio pretty promptly these days. or you can read the arguments.

they have gone right up to that but they know if there's tv clips, everything changes. i think they are right. to my mind, giving members of congress more opportunities to be with each other away from cameras, may be even away from their staffers, that's fall to the good of making the institution produce the use of strange bedfellows that we really need. host: i will point out that this network has pushed for cameras in the courts for a long time, and will continue to do so. you can see the history of this network and its interaction with the supreme court available on our website at c-span.org. 15 minutes left with philip wallach. ray out of syracuse, new york, a republican. caller: good morning. it almost seems like all the

conversation is coming up to the point i wanted to make, that is we have had several people calling in about tweaking a cumbersome government system with our congress. for example, having a certain percentage vote where we do not know who is voting, how they are voting, and this is -- i understand where that comes from, but it is a frustration. but i personally at my age, i am 66, i find when i start feeling that we watching what is going on in congress, i try to keep in mind the history and why we became the republic that we are now. and not just us, but other governments around the world. if you boiled it all down, what we really did was we formed a

system of government that wouldn't give us everything we want, but it gives us the most important thing -- it keeps us from killing each other. that is what caused us to have a war. and that is what causes us to fight hard, and made us willing to settle the war and come to some agreement. we did not want to kill each other anymore. so, we cannot be tweaking things to make everything perfect. that is not here on earth, that a summer else, in my opinion. the idea that we can't -- somewhere else, in my opinion. the idea that we can tweak goes in the wrong direction. our government is a big hammer that has been made to keep us from killing each other. guest: i think that that is a wise comment. that's sort of an underrated

aspect of america's political system that we take for granted the absence of political violence. january 6 made a lot of us take a little bit less for granted. keeping people from coming to blows, figuring out a way to live with each other, those may sound like trivial things to some, but in the grand course of human history most places, most times, people have not figured out. so having our system of government where we do not get everything we want, we get what we need. we get what we can all live with. that's very important. and so, i think -- i agree with your sense that maybe we should be careful of doing too many big innovations that change our system entirely because maybe we

will lose that fundamental core purpose. you are right to be skeptical for that reason. that said, our system has operated in and a lot of different ways throughout history. it does not mean one thing, it is a living, dynamic system. and a lot of how congress operates depends on how the members want it to operate, what they put into the rules of their respective chambers. and what kind of unanimous consent agreement they will allow in the senate. these things are always live issues. how will they chambers function? how will we figure out how to live with each other rather than coming to blows? there is not a formula in the constitution itself, so the legislators have to figure that out. that is what they will be doing tomorrow when a new congress starts. host: what is the most interesting rules change you are watching for tomorrow? guest: well, i think there is a

lot of attention being paid rightly to the question about the motion to vacate the chair, basically a way that members can revote on who the speaker can be. under republicans in the john boehner era, the rule was any republican that insists on -- could be bringing that motion to the floor and the house would've moved on it. it gave every republican a lot of leverage to make demands on the speaker. and it's part of what drove speaker boehner to retire when he did, although from's side he always thought he would win that vote but he also thought it would be awkward for a lot of republicans. so the question now is, should we bring that back with a one

member threshold? or has been talked about now as being a five member threshold. that is kevin mccarthy's current offer right now, entertaining the idea of maybe one member again. under nancy pelosi it was a very different. i believe that they made it the majority of the democratic caucus would've had to support such a motion for it to be made. so that was taken out of play. that's a question of just how powerful the speaker is, how much leverage the different sub-factions of each party have within it. that's sort of central to the question of how the house is organizing itself. i think we have to watch that. and we have to see then how it will be used. it's one thing to say that you can invoke this motion, it's another thing to actually do it and try to install a different

speaker in the middle of congress. there's the question, when people using their leverage? what do they want exactly? what are they not being given? that is not always so clear today. host: less than 10 minutes left with philip wallach the book, "why congress." if you want to join, democrats should call 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. dave, a democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. quickly, this is one of the best programs i've ever heard on c-span, so thank you for your clarity and historical perspective and depth of knowledge. and it makes me wonder why most of us as a society do not know, will never have your depth of knowledge on this, but we should be much more well-versed on the mechanism of government we participate in and not autopilot

this stuff. a lot of the stuff you're talking about i have not considered, and there is probably more. but this idea about how we vote with some conscious, but not really -- i'm not being cynical, but realistic. to the point, thank you for your depth of knowledge. and reminder to everybody listening that this is a process we should all be participating in and know what the mechanisms are, and know how we fit in this process. guest: thank you for the comment. i will say that one of the reasons the presidency is such a, such a magnet of attention, i feel it people know more about the presidents and presidency. it's easier to know about. it's more focal. there's one guy who lives in the white house. and you can psychology eyes him -- can psychologize him.

the national media focuses so much on the president. b congress isu -- but congress is harder to know about. with 435 members at any given time. not even members of the institution know everything going on there. it is harder to tell stories about congress. that is part of why i wrote the book, to give a story about congress that talks about how it sometimes is a key institution in helping the nation hold together. host: let's talk about one more of those stories on congress and the covid-19 response. page two ofne, "as impresse sive as they were, it came at a conch as covid spread. congress essentially excused itself, fli to give serious consideratn any legislation that would aress testing,

vaccines, mask wearing. americans found themselves with no good way to argue over the burdens as we confronted this trade-off, and our country nearly fell to pieces. we needed leadership and they gave us cash." guest: i think that the covid policymaking was a good example of how our contemporary system operates a lot of the time. some people think that congress can pass anything, but that is not happened in covid. it passed bills that got trillions out the door very fast. it did that by having leaders in both parties cut deals with each other, and push the bills through with really remarkably little deliberation. and on some, i would say that was probably a good thing, to help our economy from falling into a tailspin during a really difficult time, to get a lot of the medical research efforts

going really strong. they did a lot of good with those bills. but at the same time, we really never had a grand national debate about how we should be living with covid. when it is responding to an emergency in a matter of weeks, ok. you have to act quickly, without much debate. but covid is something we have been living with for years now and we have never had a proper debate. we end up falling back on cliches about who is following the science, as if that is the only question, when there are serious trade-offs involved on how we will balance the risks of living with this disease. and, we do not have any replacement for congress if congress does not do that. sort of fights on social media. guess what, they do not resolve anything and they are not going to lead towards a compromised

mindset. nobody has to compromise on social media. but our representatives should feel the pressure to compromise and work through issues, to say what can i give you for exchange on what i care about? let's take each other's concerns seriously and work from there. to my mind my that did not happen with covid. it is a shame. we have these massive institutional failures. and how much reform have we gotten? none, basically. host: you end the book with an open letter to congress. explain why. guest: well, it fits nicely with dave's question. most americans are not highly tuned into questions of government organization, and frankly they are not going to be. it feels a little bit in the weeds, however you want to say it.

but we are not going to get a grassroots movement for having congress operate differently, in my opinion. we need members themselves to say that this institution is not working the way that we want i to. so my open letter is addressed to them to say, the way this institution is now is making american politics angrier and worse. and it is up to you to make your institution work, to make american politics more compromise oriented and less heated. more light, less heat. that is not without sort of beyond imagining. we could imagine congress working differently before because it has. let's do it again. i'm cautiously optimistic. i think that the speaker fight is actually very healthy for asking fundamental questions about what kind of institution we want the house to be. i think that the most likely scenarios have to involve a

faction that feels it has a desire not being addressed. and maybe you can think of that as sort of hardline anti-immigration people who are the most frustrated bunch today and that they feel like the institution is not addressing their concerns. that could be a productive engine for evolution. we have to seek. i have expected things to change the past few cycles, and it hasn't. party leaders are really good at dividing and keeping their teams together. i'm impressed with how much party discipline mitch mcconnell and nancy pelosi, especially, have achieved in recent years. but nothing lasts forever. congress has a tendency to swing from one way of operating to another. so, i am cautiously optimistic. host: philip wallach is a senior

fellow at the american enterprise institute. his book "why congress" will be out this spring from oxford university press. you can see his work online. thanks you for your time. guest: has been a pleasure. thanks to the callers. host: we will be back tomorrow morning for a five hour program, starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern. until then, have a great tuesday. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> the new congress convenes on tuesday. they were returned to washington as a divided government and republicans will control the housof