work of congress. it is worth thinking about things like how to encourage members to spend more time together, how to encourage members to take retreats together or have dinner together. that matters, but i would say ultimately ultimately what matters more is the work of the institution. the cultural change of the work encourages a different kind of culture. and just spending time together is not really a way to get at the core of the culture of the institution. you have to think about how congress works, therefore how its members work. and fifth and finally, i would urge you to think explicitly the how you understand the purpose of the congress. reforms of the institution, including improving culture have to take for granted some idea of the purpose of congress is work, but there is a rather deep disagreement about that purpose which i think is implicit in a lot of the thinking that surrounds congressional form, and that sometimes leave some of that working coherent. simply put, i would say reformers

ultimately, this needs to be legislation from congress. it needs to originate in congress.t is not actions the executive branch can take on its own. host: steve in baltimore, maryland. your next. caller: yes, mr. akabas, i could not agree more that this is a legislative branch issue that we continue to spend ourselves into oblivion, and it does not matter which party. there is a basic equation of the private sector versus the government, and when we have more people working in the government than we do in the private sector, that creates an imbalance, and that and balance you are seeing, because the revenues we're taking in just cannot cover these ballooning facets. in this has been going on since the day i have been born. i have never seen the deficit ever decrease. it always increases. let's get to the point. the point is the legislative branch. the legislative branch of the united states of america is going to turn the united states of america into the next great third world country. thank you. guest: so the caller makes some interesting points. we had the bipartisan pol

woodrow wilson noted congress in session is congress on public exhibition and congress in its committee rooms is congress at work. unfortunately this hasn't been case for some time. the select committee is trying something today. earlier we adopted rules that give us flexibility to experiment with how we connect our hearings. the goal is to engage in thoughtful exchange of thoughtful ideas. the committee members agreed the ability to look at one another when speaking and listening matters. so does engaging with a witness or a colleague. this provided the framework for our hearing today. given the topic of today's hearing, building a more civil and collaborative congressional culture this makes sense. in accordance with clause 2j clause 11 we will allow one window of questioning of the witness. these two hours will not be strictly segregated between witnesses which will allow two hours of back and forth exchanges between members and witnesses. vice chair timmons and i will manage the time to make sure every member has an equally opportunity. any member who wishes to speak, you can wave o

what is congress willing to authorize? in the landscape where these aumf hang out there, available for use, none of those conversations have to happen. that, to the detriment of our national security, to the detriment of the responsibility. you should have to take those votes and be accountable for them, rather than pointing to this president, that president, and as we get further and further from the aumf, so too do we get further from the responsibility of it all. rep. meijer: if i can build on that, it is an important distinction from saying, and the 2001 aumf, if we had had a two-year sunset requiring authorization, you could make the argument it should have been reauthorized every year since 2001. it would be the same impacts from an authorization standpoint, but procedurally from an oversight standpoint and from a congressional attention and focus standpoint, it will be different. every two years, each member of congress had to be asking the tough question. not just congress asking those questions, but the executive

congress decides how to spend the people's money. but over the years, that power has been eroded by executive overreach. and it didn't start with donald trump. as many of my colleagues have said. as a matter of fact, this was a problem recognized back in 1974 when congress passed the impoundment control act which basically said it's not -- it's against the law for the executive branch to spend less money or to divert money from the purposes that the congress dictated. and we saw that then. we saw it very vividly during the trump administration with the withholding the funds to ukraine in exchange for political favors and then diverting money from the military budget to build a border wall. so what title 5 of the protecting our democracy act does is to re-establish, reassert the power of the purse to congress by creating new teeth and enforcement mechanisms in the control act because it said you couldn't do it but there were no penalties in it. so we're correcting that. but lass creating new reporting requirements and new systems so t

continental congress gave him no powers.ncock might have signed the declaration of independence in the boldest hand of all as president of the congress in 176, but signing -- 1776, but signing documents was almost all hehe did. some states actually abolished the office of governor entirely and tried to rule through a council directed by the legislature. .. one of the leading members of the convention, james wilson of pennsylvania, moved in the opening days of deliberations to create a national executive who would possess the executive powers of congress. this generated, first, shocked silence, and then equally shocked denunciation as virginia's edmund randolph described such anol executive as the fetus of monarchy. but wilson had the hard experience of years of misery under the articles of confederation to stand upon. and the question quickly became not whether there should be such a national executive but how he should be elected, how long his term should run, whether he should be equipped with a veto over congress, or whet

and congress' power to regulate commerce this law that is a hope hope that one day the congress regulate slavery out of his kiss and the existence printed he declared that international laws part of our lawn and must be read into any act of congress. he defended the property rights and the rights to try and for private corporations and colleges. and prior to the opinion, they're only a handful of private corporations in the united states rated and within a decade afterwards, there were thousands of other time marshall retired. there are more than 20000 private corporations with total authorized capitol of more than $6 billion. that was all, marshall's word pretty he assigns the rights of america and her native american in the right to occupy and he is the tribal lands free from interference by the state. any protect the rights of aliens even enemy and lands under our constitution and international law. in fact, no member of the founding generation has eight more impact on what our republic has become an john marshall. and no one did more to preserve the delicate union of our republic at

what congress does is they always continue to fund. if they control the purse, they can stop budgetary support, but they don't do that. in spite of the rhetoric, we find both sides, the legislative and executive branch, complicit in these long-running engagements and involvements in foreign countries. i think this question about whether we want to invest in a unitary power, you would have to seed -- cede budgetary responsibility from congress, he would never get that, or military to congress. that would be a disaster. i think the founding fathers did a good job of dividing the responsibilities that allow us to respond quickly to an emerging situation and yet you still have the responsive -- the representatives of the public responding. it is messy, it was meant to be that way so we have these sort of debates, that it seems to be the best of otherwise bad options. dr. guelzo: we have some questions coming in from the audience through our chats. some of these questions are aimed at the same target. that is the use of presidential executi

what did congress do? create add new spending account that wasn't subject to the limb nations of the putting control act. the president has been able to say well, there's an emerging threat and my responsibility per the constitution is to secure, provide for the security of the country and i can use this tool, this military to respond to that and i'll go to congress and make sure they're in agreement with it and what congress does is, they continue to fund. if they control the purse, they could stop that bugetary support. right, but they don't do that. in spite of the rhetoric, we found both sides, the legislative branch and the executive branch complicit in these long running sources of engagements and involvements in foreign countries, the question whether we want to invest in a, you know, unitary power, no one is going to agree to that or you could give control of the military to congress and that would be disasterous. i think that the fathers did a great job with the responsibilities, being able to res

continental congress gave him no powers beyond keeping congresses deliberations in order. john hancock my dad signed the declaration of independence in the boldest hand of all as president of the congress in 1776, but signing documents was almost all he did. some states actually abolish the office of governor entirely and try to rule through a council elected by the legislature. having thrown off the rule of king, americans were not eager to substitute something similar in its place. but the experience of the postwar yearse demonstrated tht too little executive power might be a a recipe for anarchy ratr than liberty. when the constitutional convention assembled in philadelphia in 1787, one of the leading members of the convention, james wilson of pennsylvania, moved in the opening days of deliberations to create a national executive who would possess the executive powers of congress. this generated, first, shocked silence, and thensi equally shocked annunciation, , as virginia's admin randolph describe such an executive as the fetus of monarchy. wilson haf years of misrule

everything congress had ever done i think this is one of the 10 most weirdest things congress has ever done. think about this. yes who owns sallie mae west and mark banks and schools. so it's like the fox living in the henhouse. the institutions that needed to make money and wanted to make money only have access to all this treasury department money. no risk whatsoever. through this odd piece called sally may. so i'll stop there because it's just a long story and i'm curious what you want to know more about 's we're talking moral hazards and the consequences so just to catch us up the federal government wants to pay for it, doesn't want to be seen paying for it . it's a little bit of a shell game so they're putting the money up but they're not, it's not on their books and then sally may gets created to basically their profits or losses are raised and they have every power of the federal government has on federal government rates. a new kind of hazard comes in and these are the colleges themselves. they were supposed to have skin in the game. and let's talk about what's happening with t

traditional lobbying, interacting with numbers of congress and staff. grassroots mobilization, encouraging everyday citizens that care about certain issues that affect them to speak up. there is a campaign-finance component. those are the three legs of that stool. lobbying and campaign contributions, united states is a regular did activity. we are fortunate the lives that we are fortunate to live in a system and there are nuances with some parts of campaign finance. it is a very regulated and transparent process. you can look up at your federal and state level how contributions are made. host: you talk about the importance of transparency. we mentioned your work at the national association of political action committees. what is that group? are you currently a registered lobbyist? guest: i am not a registered lobbyist. 50-year-old organization that was created to encourage best practices. i would also fight and defend campaign finance and policies to ensure more employees, more americans have a greater voice through their organizations. there is probabl

interpreted congress's power to regulate commerce broadly in the hopes that one day congress would regulate slavery out of existence. he declared that t international law is part of our law and it must be read into any act of congress. he defended property rights and the rights of private corporations in college. prior to the marshall's opinion in dartmouth college, there were only a handful of private corporations in the united states. and within a decade after were there were thousands. by the time marshall retired, there were more than 20,000 private corporations with total authorized capital of more than x billion dollars. that was all marshall's work. he defined the rights of native american tribes and upheld the right to occupy and use their triballands free from interference by the state . and marshall protected the rights of aliens, even the aliens under constitutional law. in fact no member of the founding generation had a more enduring impact on what our republic has become then john marshall. and no one did more to preserve the delicate union of our fledgling republic at a critic

i've been in congress nine years and worked for a member of congress for 16 years before that. do you know how many times i've ever come back to washington d.c. in the middle of august until this summer? zero. but she felt it so important to bring hr-4 to the floor without having a hearing for our part of the jurisdictional boundaries and hr-4 and house administration. this is their number one issue. their future, their dominance, and their power depends upon them changing the electoral system here in washington d.c. you're on the front lines of this fight. don't think that we can just sit back and prepare maybe for some contested elections. we can go out to certain parts of the country that are a little better than others and then we're not going to work hand in hand with the folks who are running these elections and we're going to be there and all of a sudden after election day you pick up and go home because we may have won, we may have lost. we need each and every one of you to be as dedicated on the front end as the democrats are to take republicans out of power. to make s

another is reform of congress . you might think a lot of the problems with the two powerful non- compliant president that congress has not been exercising his constitutional responsibilities . we don't have proposals for that. what we focus on our proposals that most of which became clear during the trump years. we focus on fixing the back and after you have a populist demagogue as president elected. and just to underscore something that we haven't seen yet there are reasons to think there are republicans who support some of these proposals and may have even made some of these proposals in congress and a lot of the proposals, especially the ones we prioritize are ones for which there wasa bipartisan consensus for 50 years . the hope is that if you put these reforms forward when a democrat is in office there's an unusual situation that you have a democrat who might be willing to accept these constraints but you're able to kind of grab off some of the earlier consensus among enough republicans to make this a reality.

another is reform of congress. you might think a lot ofhi the problems with the two powerful, noncompliant presidents congress is not exercising his constitutional responsibilities but we do not have proposals for that. we focus on our proposals most of which has been clear during the trumple years. we focus on fixing the backend to underscore something bob said we have not seen it yet. there are reasons to think they've made some of these proposals in congress. a lot ofe the proposals especially those we prioritize our ones for which there was a bipartisan consensus for 50 years. the hope is that if you put reforms forward and ate democrat is in office, it's an unusual situation where you have a democrat who h might be presidentsi who might willing to accept these constraints. that you are able to grab on some of that earlier consensus among enough republicans to make this a reality for it i will just acknowledge, these are reformed as anti- trump reformsr the closer we get to the next presidential election and th

now, congress got the interest rate at which student loans would carry, right, and so congress would cover part of that interest while students were in school and then after school students were supposed to pay the interest themselves and that would go to the bank for reimburse the banks for extending the loans. inflation was rising at this point to the extent that that really drove up the overall cost of banks. we need more money from you. >> interest is going up, inflation is going up, the cost of borrowing is going up. it's the 70's. mortgages are 14%, it's crazy. >> totally, totally. the whole purpose of banks is to make a profit and, again, lyndon johnson, you know, is saying make loans and they are saying give us more money and we will. and the problem was congress kept on raising interest rates and inflation kept on going higher so it was like sort of like this -- it kept on going on and on and finally they said, here is what we are going to do. in 1972 we will create a for profit corporation called sally may but it not only for -- not just a for profit corporation, it's actua

you think congress of the u.s. will hold this president accountable?e directive of all of this and so is schumer. they stayed in line kissed the president but and we've got to get out of that mindset so i appreciate it. liz: thank you for joining us, good to see you and thank you for watching. i am elizabeth mcdonald, you been watching the evening editt onpr foxbusiness, that is a for us. hope you have a good evening and join us again tomorrow night. ♪♪ larry: hello, president ofbidenh and going have some direct average on larry kudlow and welcome back to fellow have avoided turn to business network edward lawrence of the white house for the latest on the biden speech. edward lawrence tell us what you took away from it please predict. guest: very interesting the present obviously thinking military members on the ground getting 124,000 of people including 5500 americans the president said in

when drafting this legislation, national congress of american indians urges congress to establish an assistant secretary for indian housing and housing in urban development that would streamline environmental rules, allow tribal housing programs, access sanitation funding. congress should permanently authorize tribal veterans assistance programs to ensure all native veterans receive the benefits they deserve. in conclusion, if congress does not act, is a sting tribal housing existing tribal housing will continue to deteriorate and tribes will be left vulnerable, as we have all sing during the covid-19 pandemic. thank you so much for allowing me to testify. >> thank you so much. we will now turn to mr. stevens. >> good morning. my name is adrian stevens. i am the acting chair of the board of directors of the national american ending housing council. i currently serve as the executive director of the nation housing authority. i appreciate the opportunity to testify before the senate to discuss tribal housing. i would like to thank chairwoman smith, ranking member arounds, and committee

that is what congress is there to decide. host: good this proposal benixed by the senate parliamentarian? guest: that's unlikely. congress has made many of not most of the changes to medicare over the years as part of budget reconciliation bills. that's what budget reconciliation is for, it's for congress to offer mandatory programs as opposed to the annual spending bills. the reconciliation process was designed to make budget related changes to programs like medicare and medicaid and that's exactly what they are doing here. host: how popular is the prescription drug prices with americans? guest: extremely popular and that's why democrats and republicans say they want to do something. the trick is doing it in a way that will not cause the enormous multimillion dollar negative ad campaigns from the drug industry but doing it in a way that will actually save money and lower prescription drug prices. do u.s. is one of the only developed nations that doesn't somehow limit drug prices. most of the rest of the world does and that's

and another is a form of congress. you might think that a lot of the problems with the two powerful non- norm compliant president is that congress has not been exercising his constitutional responsibilities. we focus on our proposals that a road most of which became clear during the trump years. with focus on the backend and a populist demagogue and the president elected. [inaudible]. and we haven't seen it yet but there are reasons to think that our republicans do support some of these proposals they made some of these proposals in congress and a lot of the proposals especially the ones that we prioritize, are ones for which there was a bipartisan consensus for 50 years. the hope is that you put these reforms forward with a democrat is in office, that's an unusual situation that they have a democrat he might be president, might be willing to accept these constraints, that you are able to grab off some of that earlier consensus among enough republicans to make this a reality. i'll acknowledge that if these reforms are

congress won't let people do . and i get it and there are instances where they needed to summon up and in fact to some of the political will to do things. it's a hard thing when because the force is so small we got people going back five, six, seven times in tours of duty to then go home and explain to them that you voted to cutthe commissary city a littlebit . it's a hard thing . and i think this answers your question . i think if the bipartisan leadership of the two authorization committees really believed that an effort like this would make the departments substantially more effective, more accountable, if it would produce better personnel and better platforms over time, i think there would be considerable risk and they would go to considerable effort and i think rather than a commission although carl and i will serve on it they've got plenty of ideas out there . i really think this is the case where they need to sit down and say we can do this and then a couple of years ago they held all these great hearings an

ultimately, this needs to be legislation from congress. it needs to originate in congress.t is not actions the executive branch can take on its own. host: steve in baltimore, maryland. your next. caller: yes, mr. akabas, i could not agree more that this is a legislative branch issue that we continue to spend ourselves into oblivion, and it does not matter which party. there is a basic equation of the private sector versus the government, and when we have more people working in the government than we do in the private sector, that creates an imbalance, and that and balance you are seeing, because the revenues we're taking in just cannot cover these ballooning facets. in this has been going on since the day i have been born. i have never seen the deficit ever decrease. it always increases. let's get to the point. the point is the legislative branch. the legislative branch of the united states of america is going to turn the united states of america into the next great third world country. thank you. guest: so the caller makes some interesting points. we had the bipartisan pol

this congress to clarify u.s. policy towards libya and empower the united states with sanctions authority to revitalize diplomacy, secure our national interests, stabilize libya and provide peace and opportunity for the libyan people. i've been heartened to see the biden administration take a more active role of diplomacy over libya which is the primary goal of this legislation. this bill is a demonstration of congress' interest in ending foreign intervention and consolidating libya's political gains, both before and after the december elections. it's a demonstration that the united states is ready to play an active, engaged role in achieving long-term peace and stability in libya. that's why this bill is so important. it's why i'm proud to stand here in support of h.r. 1228. and i urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting for this legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from pennsylvania reserves. ms. wild: madam speaker, i have no further speakers. i contin

i came to congress and i had that attitude before i came to congress that if i were to achieve, i hadto put extra efforts in. i could not take the first response as the response. whether i liked it or not. the realization of my development has told me if i'm going to get from here to here i cannot let your resistance or your attitude towards me be my determinants. that is just not a lot. and also the culture in the era in which i grew up in, those of us who achieve new we had to achieve in spite of resistance. and in some cases because of the resistance, whatever you want to call it. and also, as i indicated earlier, my mother instilled that in me. both my father and mother wanted us to have they sacrificed. i had one brother and they were determined we were going to college. it was not questioned. but what they said you need to do well. i did do well. >> and you came to congress that's respectful and very proud of. >> i came to congress. my mother is not living when i came. when i was elected county commissioner she was and she was very proud, she was very proud of that. and interest

trust me, they know i am their member of congress in my hometown. but the people who came up to me saying this is the first time i voted, they made me take my trump hat off before i walked in. they made me take your sticker off my coat before i walked in. i never voted before. what's it like? those are the people that are going to be the first to lose faith in what we do writer in america, and that is to freely elect our leaders if we don't stand up and defend the processes that we have in place in every precinct and nation. there is fraud and with god to do what our job is to make sure those fraudulent cases are prosecuted. somebody votes twice, prosecute them. deter them. but let's work off facts. the facts are most people don't understand the process and we've got to get them to do that. we called an election judges in illinois. my county clerks need a lot of poll workers. have them go sign up. learn, educate and we are going to win. so i know i'm running behind. i apologize for that. actually i'm not sorry. but thank you all very, very much. app

she covers congress e hill, obviously here to talk to us about the week ahead in congress. good morning. guest: good morning, thanks for having me. host: let's start with the moving of this infrastructure vote, the headline of your peace published overnight, this headline says pelosi sets thursday vote on bipartisan infrastructure bill. that boat had been planned originally for today. why was it moved? guest: right now, democrats don't have the votes to pass it. for months, house members were holding that they would not vote to pass the bipartisan protector bill unless the larger -- bipartisan infrastructure bill unless the larger spending package was ready to go. as of this morning, that larger package is still far from ready, so late lesson, leader pelosi announced the vote would be by today, she last night said the house will start debate on the floor today, but they won't actually vote until thursday which incidentally is when a number of key programs expire. host: that is unusual, starting debate several days before you have the vote on a measure. guest: exactly, but l

is laid out and comments congress had the opportunity to fulfill the promise of the aca with fillinghe medicaid coverage gap moving us forward as a path to health equities and racial justice. there are so many in our country and there is a moral and ethical imperative for us to adjust the medicaid coverage gap so i'm excited so let's get started. you have been vocal about to close the medicaid coverage gap that they could still expand if they wanted to because of the american rescue plan act so can you talk about why it is necessary to close the medicaid coverage gap once and for all quick. >> first about thank you very much let me respond to the question this way. i always view history and how we serve as a country. in the history is very clear with the vast majority so the states rights and they take the right voting rights and educational opportunities and it is the same for health and medical attention as well. so that will never expand. so in my lifetime. i think it is incumbent upon us and the opportunity that we have with the build back better agenda to just get rid of the cov