host: we don't have a house speaker right now. can you talk about the national security implications? me to not have a speaker from a national security standpoint. israel is at war with hamas. ukraine is at war with russia. both those countries have major needs. president biden is asking for congress to approve a major aid package for ukraine and israel. that package can't be approved if the house doesn't have a speaker. if that package isn't approved, it would send a bad signal to america's allies and partners overseas about the extent to which they can rely on the united states. countries like ukraine and israel rely on america's support. and if that support isn't forthcoming, even when the president has made major speeches calling for it, that really would suggest that america's not able to play a strong leadership role in world affairs. host: congress as both formal

and informal powers when it comes to u.s. foreign policy. start with the formal. what are their duties and responsibilities? guest: congress has some very important formal powers under the constitution. the most important is the power of the purse. the president simply can't spend money on programs whether it's defense, foreign aid, diplomacy, unless congress appropriates the money for that. we are seeing that right now with aid for ukraine and israel. president biden simply cannot provide new aid for ukraine and israel unless congress provides that money through appropriations legislation. and substantive legislation that shapes the content of u.s. foreign policy. congress in recent years has passed many laws placing sanctions on a variety of countries including russia, china, iran, north korea. right now members of congress are considering imposing new sanctions on iran because of iran's support for hamas.

this is also a very important power of congress. i expect if the house gets a speaker and begins operating again it would pass legislation imposing new saxes on iran -- sanctions on iran. host: an article here from "the hill" the headline. mccaul preparing authorization of military force against hamas and iran proxies. what does that mean? what does authorization to use military force and congress' role in outlining that? guest: under the u.s. constitution, congress has the power to declare war. and in some of america's major conflicts historically, congress did declare war after japan attacked pearl harbor congress declared war. they can also authorize the use of military force by the president by passing what's called an authorization for use of military force. congress did this in 1990 after iraq invaded kuwait. it did it after the 9/11 attacks as an authorization for the use of military force against al

qaeda and the taliban. it did it in 2002 to authorize use of military force against iraq which led up to the overthrow of saddam hussein. the invasion of iraq by the u.s. this type of authorization that congressman mccaul is talking about would authorize the president to take military action against actors in the middle east. the president might argue he can do that without congressional authorization. typically presidents say they don't need congressional authorization. as commander in chief they always have the power to take military action to protect the united states and its interests, but when congress passes an authorization for use of military force, it empowers the president and certainly suggests that congress is behind the president with regard to the possibility of using military force. it wouldn't require the president to use military force, but it would say the president can use military force if the president deems it's necessary. host: you mentioned him, here is representative michael mccaul, chair of the foreign affairs

committee. from last week talking about the impact of not having a speaker on national security. mr. mccaul: we are living in a dangerous world. the world's on fire. our adversaries are watching what we do. and quite frankly they like it. and chairman talks about how -- chairman xi talks about how democracy doesn't work and we are proving him right. we need to filth chair with a speaker. every day that goes by gets more dangerous. i was on the phone with our friends from israel. they are going to need a supplemental and aid to replenish the iron dome. they can't do that if we don't have a speaker in the chair. i see a lot of threats out there. one of the biggest i see is in that room because we can't unify as a conference and put a speaker in the chair to govern. i can't get my resolution, 416 co-sponsors condemning hamas, and supporting israel without a speaker in the chair. i can't get that supplemental aid to israel without a speaker in the chair. it's very dangerous what we are

doing. host: i will invite our listeners and viewers to join the conversation for our guest. professor jordan tama of american university. calm us on our onlines by party. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. and independents, 202-748-8002. jordan, defense secretary lloyd austin has ordered 2,000 troops to be ready to deploy to the middle east. is that something congress has a say in? guest: not generally, no. the president as commander in chief has the authority under the constitution to move u.s. forces around as the president deems fit. it's a different matter if the president orders forces into combat. that's where congress' power to declare war under the constitution comes into play. in 1973 congress passed the war

powers resolution. it was vetoed by president nixon, but congress overroad nixon's veto. this is still law. under that resolution the president has authority to deploy u.s. forces into combat for 90 days but is not allowed to have military forces in combat for more than 90 days unless they are authorized by congress. simply moving forces into the mediterranean, or moving them around into different parts of the middle east is fully within the president's authority under the constitution. if the president ordered force noose combat and that last -- forces into combat and that lasted for more than 90 days, congress needed to authorize it to be in compliance with the war powers resolution. host: we will take your calls now until 10:00 eastern which is when the house will gavel in. rowen first in durham, maine, democrat. good morning. caller: can you hear me? host: we can. caller: the reason for my call in today, i'd like to tell you

about the presidential candidate, his name -- . host: that's a little bit off our subject today. jesse in albuquerque, in n republican. go ahead. caller: good morning. good morning, professor. i just wanted to tell you i have a niece attending american university. like meeting the professors she might be interacting with. i wanted to ask you a question about this because i'm teaching u.s. government right now. i was just going over article 1, section 8, powers delegated to congress. i'm hearing this narrative that they can't fund or they need congress to be operating in order to get this funding to

ukraine and israel. i'm just wondering -- i don't see the connection to any of those delegated powers about giving aid to other countries. i don't see the connection about why we need a house to be -- why we need congress to be operating fully in order for us to provide aid based on presidential powers. i was hoping you could explain that. guest: first of all look forward to hopefully meeting your niece at american university. always excited to hear about students attending university. on your question, the reason why congress has to act in order for the united states to send aid to israel or ukraine is because congress has the power of the purse under the constitution. this is one of the clearest powers assigned to congress. the president cannot spend money

that hasn't been appropriated by congress. host: steve is next. steve of florida, independent. caller: yes. wanted to comment about israel and ukraine. number one, ukraine is fighting for its life as an independent democratic state. number two, israel seems to overdo it every time something happens. in this case they may be justified. in the third case, the enemy of my enemy is my friend no longer exists because now you have china and you got to watch out for china because they are sitting back counting the numbers. that's all i have to say. thank you. guest: i think china is quite happy to see the united states focused on other issues outside of asia. like the war in ukraine. war between israel and hamas because china may see that as an opportunity to assert itself

more in asia while the u.s. is focused elsewhere. with regard to your point about israel may overdo it, i think president biden has struck the right tone on this. he's expressing strong support for israel while also urging israel to pay attention to the importance of protecting the lives of innocent palestinians, opening up corridors for humanitarian aid. the united states is working to achieve that. while also supporting israel strongly. host: i want to ask you about iran. this is "the washington post" with the headline, white house must punish iran over hamas attacks, lawmakers say. u.s. officials have not presented evidence that tehran played a direct role in the massacre in israel, but a bipartisan group is demanding action. can congress impose sanctions without the president? guest: congress can mandate sanctions which would then force the president to impose them. congress could pass a law that

requires the treasury department, the state department, other agencies to impose certain sanctions on iran. and unless that law provides some flexibility to the president, which laws sometimes do, then the president through the agencies of the executive branch, would have to impose those sanctions. sometimes congress passes a law that mandates sanctions on a foreign country, but says the president can waive those sanctions based on a determination of it's not in the u.s. national interest to do so. the devil is in the details in terms of what the legislation actually says. yes, congress can require the imposition of sanctions on iran or any other country. host: carl is next, democrat. traverse city, michigan. caller: hello there. thank you for all you do there. a couple things, real quick. in this conversation with the house drama and as it continues, let's not forget that one man, representative from florida caused all this. his name has drifted out of the

storyline so far. to our guest here. and i think you are the man and maybe c-span could cover this a little bit more. how come these diplomats, i.e. ambassadors, have not been approved through the senate? i understand i read an article there is a big backlog on this as well. the fellow jack lew, i believe that's the guy, didn't they just approve him two days ago to be the ambassador to israel? can you help us out on that story there. guest: yeah. this has been a problem for years. it's certainly been a problem under the biden presidency. the senate not approving nominations for senior executive branch positions expeditiously. there's been backlogs under the biden administration. there's been backlogs under previous administration, trump, obama, etc. and often these backlogs exist even though the nominees are

very highly qualified, really should be uncontroversial. the most blatant example of this right now is senator tommy tuberville who is holding up the confirmation of the promotion of all senior u.s. military officers, four-star generals and the like. this is really hurting the defense department, hurting the ability of the defense department to move its most senior military officers into the positions that they need to be in. and it's an example of partisan politics impeding national security. host: chris in georgia, republican. caller: yes, chris. from georgia. high hi, chris from georgia. go ahead. caller: first of all i want to follow-up on the previous caller. the appropriations for israel has already been passed. they are already getting money. on the -- on the news, on the

bombing of the hospital, are we going to crack down on the news with the early calling of saying israel attacked? then they found out the truth it wasn't? are we going to crack down on the news? guest: i don't think the united states as a government should crack down on the news. that's one of the defining qualities of american democracy and political institutions is that we have freedom of the media. certainly when the media misreports something, other outlets should call that out. and highlight for the american people that something has been prevented in -- presented in an inaccurate way. the u.s. government should not get in the business of cracking down on media outlets. regarding your suggestion that appropriations for israel have already been approved. the united states has for many years now approved an annual appropriations bill of aid for

israel, about $3 billion in aid. that's what president biden is looking for is a supplemental appropriation of emergency aid to help israel deal with the current conflict. that has not been approved by congress. it can't be approved until the house starts operating in a regular way. host: jordan, what would you say is the impact partisanship has and the lack of agreement within congress? how does that impact foreign policy? guest: it has a large impact. overall as anyone watching this program probably knows, partisan polarization is the dominant characteristic characteristic of american politics today. sometimes it seems like democrats and republicans are on different planets. and this has trickled into foreign policy. overall foreign policy debates are less polar a'sed than domestic, some have become quite polarized in recent years. issues like climate change and

immigration, democrats and republicans tend to be in different places. on those issues. and more problematic, politicians often talk about foreign policy issues in a way that's just designed to score political points. this happened right after the hamas attack on israel, some republican politicians argued that the biden administration was responsible for this because it had reached this agreement to unfreeze assets in return for iran releasing hostages. that money had not been disbursed to iran and couldn't help hamas. this was an effort to score political points against the administration. at the same time, on the substance of the u.s. policy response to the war between israel and hamas, there's been a lot of bipartisanship. overall democrats and republicans are largely on the same page in terms of supporting israel. favoring aid to israel. and even on ukraine there is still a lot of bipartisanship.

there's been a lot of attention on the maga republicans who are against aid to israel. but there are other republicans, internationalist republicans, people like mitch mcconnell, lindsey graham, michael mccaul you mentioned. and the presidential campaign nikki haley, mike pence. these are internationalist republicans who are strongly pro-ukraine they are aligned with democrats. some are working closely with democrats in congress. mcconnell and schumer on the issues of aid to ukraine, aid to israel are cooperating and trying to build a package that can go through congress. there are mixed story. partisanship polarization. but there is also still bipartisanship. host: portland, oregon next. independent. rose, good morning. caller: good morning. i feel the greatest threat to america, 250u8ly to the world, would be -- actually to the world, would be jim jordan becoming house speaker. it's very frightening to me. the potential of him being --

making decisions regarding our military, regarding our position in peacemaking, whatever. he's totally unknit and -- unfit and appalling. those people who support him are absolutely ignorant. thank you. host: any comments on that? guest: well, i also think jim jordan has some very troubling positions. he has been a staunch defender of donald trump. he has defended the behavior of people who strorpld the capitol on january 6 -- stormed the capitol on january 6. his foreign policy positions are troubling in that he's been opposing aid to ukraine. and overall i think the country would be better off with a speaker of the house who is a stronger supporter of american political institutions, of foundations of democracy, and has more of a track record of working across the aisle with democrats on important issues.

host: barbara in texas, democrat. hi. caller: hi. first in congress, the republicans in the housekeep blaming the democrats for their problems. but i don't see them inviting any democrats into their closed door meetings to work things out. so it's kind of contradictory. as far as the foreign policy, i think about all the holy wars, the religious wars we have had in our history throughout the world. and i think we are on the verge of one here because there's so many people trying to join the government age religion together. it's just a constant bombardment. separation of church and state is on its way out i'm afraid. and one thing about religious people that bothers me, they never question their religion. why would a religion teach people to hate? people are raised up as children in a certain religion and never

question it. but i think it's time for meme to look at -- time for people to look at their religious beliefs and how it ties to the hatred in the world and question why any god would want people to go to war against each other over their different religions. guest: well, you're certainly right that religion, unfortunately, has been a source of conflict in many places for many centuries. we see religion as a powerful force in the middle east. that's contributing to conflict. of course it's not really religion itself as an inherent thing, but the way some people are interpreting religion. people who interpret their religion in a way that make them their their religion justifies acts -- them think their religion justifies acts of violence. other people of the same faith

see things they differently. president biden also made very important points last night in his speech talking about the importance of countering anti-semitism and shrapblaphobi. there is a rise of anti-semitism in the united states. as a society we need to avoid going down those directions. host: kentucky, good morning, ed. caller: how you doing. the biden administration all they do is keep promising money, and we don't have any money. you see that we are broke. we are going broke. and our economy, our gas is up. everything is up so high. everything is triple. giving money. and borrowing that money to give. and i think the maga people are trying to break down on the spending which we have to do eventually. we can't go on like this.

i agree with jim jordan, who is going against the weaponization of our government against republicans, not -- the rino's they don't go against. they go against the trump people or maga. i saw yesterday when they interrupted the capitol. i didn't see tear gas. i didn't see staging. i didn't see the cops shooting rubber bullets at them. it seems they missed all of that. host: your response to jordan? guest: from the issue of funding and where does this money come from, i would point out that the spending that president biden is requesting for aid to ukraine, aid to israel actually will go into the american economy because it's spending that goes to military assistance, to ukraine and israel. and the replenishment of u.s. military supplies to make that assistance possible. in other words, the united states in this spending effort

would be investing in the production of weapons and other military systems in the united states by american manufacturers who produce these weapons. that would be enabling the united states to provide more aid to israel and ukraine. i just want to point out i think people don't often realize that. that this is not just money that is leaving the country. it's going into the american economy to support production of weapons. that's what allows the aid then to go to israel and ukraine. host: what about humanitarian aid? nonmilitary. guest: that's also very important. especially in israel case, but also with regard to ukraine. people don't realize the united states has provide add lot of humanitarian aid to ukraine. host: does that come back into the american economy? guest: that does not come back in the economy in the same way. though some of the aid is distributed by u.s.-based nongovernmental organizations who are operating in other countries.

some of it does filter through u.s. space organizations. u.s. faith organizations. the aid, humanitarian nature, can be just as important as the military aid. it tkepbdz t*epbdz to get lost in the -- it tends to get lost in the shuffle. host: frank, independent, marion, ohio. good morning. caller: yes. what i called about is i'd like to know why we are promoting all these wars. there's two sides to everything. why don't we have peace talks instead of promoting both sides? like in israel. and calling people names like maga. that's not helping nothing. all that does is divide us. guest: the maga term is used by

the trump, the republican party itself, trump and his supporters on capitol hill like marjorie taylor greene, they use that term. that's why i use it as well. on your point about shouldn't we be pursuing peace talks? the u.s. has tried to promote peace talks between israel and the palestinians for several decades. unfortunately that has not borne a lot of fruit overall. and in recent years it hasn't gone anywhere. because the israelis and palestinians are simply too far apart in terms of their position. the biden administration has pushed in that direction to the extent they can. the conditions between the israelis and palestinians are unfortunately not conducive to peace between them at this time. it's the same between russia and ukraine. russia would be glad to have peace talks if that would mean the current state of affairs in ukraine would be frozen in time. in other words, have a

cease-fire. and that means russia gets to continue occupying the parts of ukraine that it occupies. that would be great from russia's standpoint, but not from ukraine's. what incentive does russia have to make concessions to ukraine if the current line of control, the area that's controlled by russia-ukraine is frozen in place. it's not a good time for peace talks between russia and ukraine unless you think russia will give up that territory they occupied. there is no sign that russia will be willing to give up that territory through peace talks. host: fred is a democrat. new jersey. good morning. caller: hello, good morning. professor, thank you for being on. you are an excellent guest. we are talking about the speaker's race. i was talking about this with friends. we were wondering who can get 217 votes that they need? and one of my friends carl said maybe we should get tim scott's

girlfriend, she doesn't exist. do you think there is a viable candidate? guest: at this point i don't know of a viable candidate. i hope one will emerge for the sake of our institutions. we really need congress to be able to function both on foreign policy and other issues. we need congress to pass the overall funding bills for the u.s. government. for the year that's beginning. the longer we don't have a speaker, the longer it will be to do that. host: kathy, pittsburgh, georgia, republican. caller: i just have -- pittsburgh. pennsylvania. republican. caller: i have just two quick questions i was listening to the president's speech last night. i didn't hear anything about any funding that's going to be put on to our border at the south border. and i'm really concerned about that because of the people that are coming in that aren't -- as you are looking at the different

demonstrations through our country and through the cities and colleges, it's a lot of males that are demonstrating. i was wondering, too, if the f.b.i. has been doing any face recognition on some of these people that are doing this demonstration. because i'm really concerned about any terrorist attack here on our homeland. the second thing i wanted to say was, do these representatives get paid while they are off -- like when people are on strike, they don't get paid. just a question i just was wondering. next thing i wanted, one more thing, sorry. somebody mentioned about not going across the aisle to speak to the other party. we had a really bad situation with nancy pelosi.

so it's both sides. it's a shame because people in the middle here are just floundering. we don't know what's going to happen. that's it. host: i wanted to make sure you knew that even though the president didn't mention it last night, the associated press is reporting that he's going to be asking for $14 billion for managing the u.s.-mexico border and fighting fentanyl trafficking. go ahead. guest: that's interesting. i would anticipate even if the president didn't ask for that, that might be added by congress. the senate in particular. the senate now is going to be take ago lead on putting together this package of supplemental spending since the house is not operating. i think adding border security will also broaden the base of political support for this package because there are some members of congress who are very concerned about border security. there are members of congress very concerned about israel. some members very concerned

about ukraine. packaging these things together will help build a broader base of support for it. yes, the other question. most members do get paid when they are not in session. they would argue they are still doing work. but that's an interesting thought that they might have their pay docked when they are not in session. host: jack, florida, independent. go ahead. caller: good morning. we need to just start thinking like we are americans. take the labels off. the republicans do this. the democrats do that. independents, they just don't have enough votes. it's all about the dynamics of doing government and we are failing, period. get to work. forget your labels. get your business done. tighten up the ship. get it right. these guys have had time and

time to make their issues about obamacare. the republicans had years to get that straight. and when they finally had the ball to make changes, they didn't have the package. another example republicans running government. i'm going to say the democrats have just as bad a record as the republicans. just pick your time. host: that will be the last word. sorry, announcer: coming up tonight on c-span, our weekly interview program "after words" is next with ryan reilly on his book sedition hunters. then we take you to the house floor for a recap of the house speaker election, and afterwards the latest on the israel-hamas war from president biden and

secretary of state blinken. announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including charter communications. >> charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers, and we are just getting started, moving 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most. announcer: charter communications sports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] announcer: next on "after words, " ryan reilly of nbc news chronicles how citizens help law enforcement track down individuals involved in the january 6, 2021 attack on the u.s. capitol building. he has