things outscored congress. congress proved less popular than head lice, colonoscopies, and nickelback, which had to hurt. [laughter] maybe congress deserves some of the disrespect it gets when you think of how much power of the first branch is ceded to the president over the years. is it surprising that the public holds it in such low esteem that it has come to think that it is a loud and useless performative debating society that is not even good at debate. there is more than a little truth to that. if part of your -- folks want to be popular, part of your status involves being with -- being part of a respected institution, that argues for some degree of self interest in helping congress get its groove back. we know it would do the rest of us some good. maybe he would even new members of congress some good. -- maybe it would even do members of congress some good. with that, i will sit down for the question-and-answer period. [applause] >> for the q&a segment, i have my handy dandy ipad, where people have been

host: where is this congress on passing appropriations bills that explain why it is congress is supposed to pass the spending bills for federal agencies, and they are supposed to do it without a continuing resolution. guest: they are supposed to do it without a continuing resolution, but they have consistently fallen down on this part of their job. the ways the appropriation process in the house and senate is supposed to work every year is there are 12 individual appropriations that are handled different -- handled by different federal agencies. one for the department of defense, labor, health and human services. there are 10. congress is to take up each one of the 12 bills individually, delivering over spending, levels for programs in those agencies, and pass the bills individually and they are supposed to do a by the start of the new federal fiscal year on october 1. congress has failed to do this regularly for the past several decades. so when it fails to act on appropriations before the start of the new fiscal year, that is when we end up with a continuing resolution or short-term st

congress be damned.etimes we talked about the constitutions in the framers we sound like we say keep faith we don't want to make james madison sad. i say that's not the spirit in which i would make these comparisons. i think it's important to know what the law is if you want to change it constitutional law but what i would say in particular in the area of emergency powers the skeptical view is borne out and reluctance to see unchecked authority that we learn again and again and then have wisdom in it. probably got here. the phrase flipped the script is right and a threat than modern president centered regime has done jordan talked a little bit about this in context of arms sales. and then the defensive tools to push back and the way things have evolved in recent decades and then in many different areas and then the president proposes and disposes. thanks in part to a 1983 supreme court decision that congressional attempts to rein in presidential action have to themselves to the gauntlet of the ordinary l

the congress and senate. when we watch televised congressional committee meetings or senate meetings, they become political grandstand for unfortunately the republican party of their lies and continuing pushing of election fraud, borders being overrun. i think how congress now acts is irresponsible, unethical, and they are grandstanding and set of enacting law and legislation. versus the senate who has currently been stonewalling almost every appointment the president wants. people don't seem to realize that ambassadors are not being appointed, heads of departments are not being appointed, and this is all to set up the biden -- set up that biting cannot get the vision that he wants done. host: we will take the points. guest: a caller brings up a couple of things that are worth touching on. on congressional hearings and what their purposes and how that has changed over time, we know that congressional hearings have never been -- has always been the most effective way for congress to get information. a lot of t

dachshund lamented in the first congress -- and implemented in the first congress. now we have a lot of people and it is hard to envision one person as the tribune of so many people. what we wind up with is an obstructed and rather limited view of representation -- abstracted and rather limited view of representation and there's a lot of diversity of this rich and diverse nation -- and loses a lot of diversity of this rich and diverse nation. i think we should take seriously the idea of increasing the size of the house of representatives to get it back in line with the idea of what a people's house ought to be. the u.s. has lacked -- lagged behind other countries in terms of ratio of representative to constituents and i think that contributes to the poor quality of our representation and our congress. the pros that we put forward would increase the house -- highest -- size of the house to a reasonable increase. the way we came up with a formula is to say, what would have happened if the house had taken the following rules started in 1911, which is that no state shou

>> most notably congress itself. that's where the action really takes place. 95% of the enforcement of the stock act and the application of the stock act to members of congress is happening internally. it's a bad parallel but i will use it anyway. it is like the internal investigation department and a police force where there is internal action taking place to determine whether the officers in a police force are doing the right thing. congress has the ethics committee also serve an important function. there's not a great deal of transparency into the process and we have asked dozens and dozens of people probably hundreds of questions for the past year about the process of who is responsible and very few people want to talk or provide any real information about it. we filed a freedom of information act to determine if members of congress were saving checks to pay their fines. the law stipulates that you have to pay a fine to the u.s. treasury. they came back with no responsive records. it didn't provide us and the pub

congress can have them. creating a determination as to whether or not privilege exists between the two, the former president and the current president, is really what's at stage here. >> i guess i don't understand the decision made by president biden to be that these are not the type of documents as to which executive privilege attaches, but like any privilege, it is a privilege that can be waived. he said it is not in the interest to the united states to be asserting it as to these documents, as to this particular request by this particular committee for these particular reasons. so that is not saying that i've decided these are not eligible in their content for executive privilege or that they weren't subject to executive privilege when created, but simply president biden has said i'm not going to assert it, i'm waiving it on these documents. so if we understand it that way, then it is not really a question of when you look at its content. it is simply a question of, as i understand it in this case, of the

make congress work. that is another recommendation of our common purpose report, although not the focus of this particular report by the way good -- way. >> we will find someone else to moderate the panel. you have taken up on what we were saying. can you talk, and i agree with you, but you are smarter than me talking about this stuff, why having intra-party factions would benefit congress, which i assume you would get. the multi-representative districts would clearly contribute to more intraparty factions. what are the factions and why are they something that we want? >> we have had two parties for most of our history. almost any moment, you have two large parties, but you would have discernible factions within the parties that create coalitions that reach across party over distinct issues, so a lot of issues worked out through multiparty conditions and european legislatures are worked out through factional coalitions in the american congress. the role of these factions play has been enormously importan

and they and others in congress have really led this effort. when we were looking for someone to host this discussion, we had tess bridgemen at the top of our list. dr. bridgemen is the co-editor of just security, and she has also written widely on this subject. in fact, i think it's fair to say much of what i have learned on this subject and especially what i have learned in terms of congress'work on this subject has started with dr. bridgemen. i want to turn things over to tess. it's your show, tess. take it away. >> thank you so much. it's really wonderful to be here with these two members. i can't think of anyone better to have this conversation with. you have both really been steadfast in reminding us that it's congress' duty to start reclaiming the war powers that have been largely ceded to the executive branch over the last several decades. you both also have been matching with action. you have been writing legislation, cosponsoring legislation, trying to get it passed. you thought strategically about these issues. and you have reminded

and notifying congress.a administration as part of the deal to get one of our soldiers who had gone awol back from taliban associated forces, we actually traded five senior taliban detainees and what the government accountability office says was a violation without a notification of town -- of congress. he transferred those detainees and they are now in senior leadership positions, some of them are, within the taliban government. and so, it is a challenging situation. at least some of them have been transferred back to afghanistan and our government leaders in the new government post as we consider withdraws from the country. host: republican line, los angeles. this is susan. good morning. are you there? ok, we will go to dave in oakland, michigan, also on the republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning, i wanted to touch base with the reason we are at guantanamo, i believe it is because we have irreconcilable's that we have taken off the battlefield. that is basically what it is and these guys are in fo

a congress that cannot enforce its subpoenas is no more congress than a court would remain a court without the power to compel witnesses to testify at trial. instead, it becomes a plaything for a desperate. although wholesale reinforcement of our democratic institutions, protecting our democracy is this about the past than the future. the bill's provisions addressed many of the deficiencies revealed not as a punishment of the last president who is now beyond legislative reach but to guard against any future president of either party who would be identity make them selves king. many of the protections have been -- have enjoyed bipartisan support in the past. many of these have been authored by republicans. many would expect that these would be embraced by the gop as desirable limits on the current democratic administration. this is a natural conflict to hr one. this is a precarious moment in the long history of our struggle for a more perfect union when the fate of our democracy is once again in question. we must rise to meet that moment and i am grateful that the congress has begun that pr

and i think congress wants to know. i mean, many people think, we're only going to look at what happened to women and girls, which is very important because they're in a special category of -- of having to deal with this taliban and losing a lot of the little advances but some advances that were made over the last 20 years. but we're going to be looking at everybody who believed in democracy, rule of law, and what we thought we were doing in reconstruction. so journalists, film teams. i mean, i got calls. i have gotten calls. too, from many americans, and many afghans concerned. i didn't even know how broad and how wide the nascent afghan film industry was. all of those people are running for their lives. all the judges, female or male, who believed in the american way and believed in democracy, they're all hiding. all the prosecutors, all the good cops, and all of the special forces. and that's afghan special forces. this is one thing you have to remember. you know, there were a lot of ghosts in the afghan police and m

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

of efforts for congress to -- more powers. we're talking just to make sure we are on the same page about the 2000 to iraq aumf, the 1991 gulf war and even the 1957 middle east aumf from the eisenhower administration. spanberger has said that removing this dog is a clear opportunity to show [inaudible] -- serious about reclaiming its war powers and serious about representing service members and veterans which i think is an important thing to keep in mind. representative meijer has said colourfully that these old outdated aumf's are like zombies. it could be brought back from the dead and used in ways far from the original intent. it is essentially an end run around congress's constitutional authority. i want to start by asking each of you, why now, since these have been around for decades? some more than 60 years. why is now the time to repeal these outdated aumf and when motivated you to take this action. both of you had distinguished service in the executive branch as well. visit those experiences that motivated it or was it

two and the default act and take that away from congress because congress has proven that we cannot be trusted with that responsibility. secretary yellen what happened specifically with mr. foster's bill that you support simply eliminating the debt ceiling so that we do not have to deal this in the future and focus on real crisis. >> yes i would because i believe when congress legislates expenditures and put simply tax policy and determines taxes and the crucial decisions that congress is making. finance the spending and tax decisions it is necessary to issue additional debt. i believe it is very destructive to put the president and myself and the treasury secretary in the situation wherere we might be unable to pay the bills that result from those past decisions. >> every day your response to the secretary's reasoning for supporting and ending that legislation and ending the debt limit. >> far be it for me too contradict and she is right. that you would get rid of it in congress would do its job of deciding. and they do decide congress does decide the budget process how big the budget

as many of you know, i have a copy of this, our 53rd quarterly report to congress. this quarterly report is kind of unique. it's the first one issued in our 12 year existence when there are no u.s. troops or anybody in the u.s. embassy, there is no u.s. embassy, in afghanistan. those of you have followed s igard's work is the reason for the unexpected collapse of the afghan government is something we have reported on for years, corruption, gulf soldiers, the dependent of the afghan military on u.s. mail -- airpower and other enablers as well as the overall incompetency of the afghan government stuff in the press and on the hill, it's suggested thatsigar may be the only agency that who stock is risen in the wake of the with drawl due to our penchant for telling inconvenient truths. i would suggest that you and the press corps must also be credited with telling unwanted but ground truths on what was going on in afghanistan through the evacuation in kabul and to date and without the amplification of our reports by the press, sigar would not have been as successful as i

certainly not when it is uttered by those who work in congress. we must hold members accountable when their words and hateful rhetoric but their colleagues and staff in harm's way. have seen what it can inspire. ask steve scalise. or ask the capital lease, or any of my staffers who handled a pipe bomb after it was delivered to my district office. ask staffers who have opened mail riddled with violent words and imagery every day in these buildings. to think that similar rhetoric and languages being perpetuated by a member elected to this body is just repulsive. democrats are and should be focused on building real and symbolic bridges and connecting our communities, and we cannot lose sight of that. but failing to exact consequences will lead to more hate. and inevitably it will lead to more violent actions directed at our members and the communities they call home. congress cannot normalize islamophobia, and that is what this member is doing. this member has repeatedly uttered anti-muslim rhetoric, referring to a member in this body as a terrorist

of course, this is the first member of congress or former member of congress who the congress is referring for criminal contempt and recent memory at least or recent history, i should say. the committee members really laid out their case there and there was a lot of speculation at the beginning of this formation of the january 6th select committee of could there be any sort of new information -- i'm sorry. hold on. congresswoman, can we ask a couple questions? some of the lawmakers -- can you name some of the lawmakers mentioned? okay. so we're going to keep trying here. but the committee said that everything runs through mark meadows, that they are central to this investigation and getting back to my previous point, there is skepticism that this committee would be able to find out something new. they are just in the beginning of their fact finding phase and according to this report they have received a lot of new information including text messages to mark meadows pr okay if news anchors telling him to tell the former president to call off what is happening on january 6th, joy. >> absolut

why way congress have a statute like that if you do this if you don't you can do that. but then they read the statute to make that mean this. >> wanting the common sense notion that reimbursement like acquisition cost with justice barrett's earlier example i like a car for $20000 i would like to be the first herself. >> then go get a survey. >> we did. and that which undermines the argument to be invoking against that. >> does circuit secretary have to survey all hospitals could they do a survey of just the 340 be? >> that is an issue we are disputing that 2020 survey the reason that complies with those constructions surprisingly it doesn't because of 340 be hospitals don't want the results of the survey because that will be to lower rates for them. even lower now than hhs. >> that is the petitioner's position. >> i don't want to put words in their. >> that there is set up my —- objective. >> if that is the case then that does seem to do what you have done under two if you have a group of hospitals that indisputably pay less that the only way that you can adjust for the

this is something congress put in place in world war i and all that it was was a way for congress to say okay treasury, you can go ahead .nd issue debt you don't have to come to us every time you issue it. up till that point congress had to issue every debt the united states made and that was cumbersome and time-consuming so they said treasury, you can go ahead and do it up but to a certain limit. it was up to congress to keep control over the process but in the process of doing that over the years, decades and decades later more than 100 years later it's become a political football and i know lots of people advocate getting rid of it and i like to sometimes be the naysayer saying why get ridof it because what difference would it make ? they would find some other way. there's so umuch divisiveness in congress in the united states that they would find another way to make the budget and our deficits and how much money we might go to others and the way in which we finance what we do. they would find another way to make that. >> you pointed out i think it was on marketplace that the debt

and congress.y much appreciate this. >> thank you and thank you for crystal riling the sup about technologists and legislation. thank you. and senator blumenthal? >> thank you, senator and thank you for having this hearing. there are now pretty good indications that the federal government is going to have or given rule making. in would be very, have been welcome. last week i wrote to general common. along with others, and four ok colleagues urging the f.t.c. to start rule making concerning previouscy. co-litigation of 24 civil rights group. others have joined in the call. the reasonable is simple, that congress has fameed to affect. they act abjectly to responsibility, not that the issues are simple or easy but the f.t.c. is supposed to fill gaps that occur when congress fails to do. so some members have expressed reservation about it. i have am not sure i uniform the prekempes ejection. i think the resource issues could be sur mounted and if congress were willing to act, that might be everyone's p

he is is in contempt of congress. mr. meadows also has knowledge regarding president trump's efforts to persuade state officials to alter their official election results. in georgia, for instance, mr. meadows participated on a phone call between president trump and georgia secretary of state raffensberger and meadows was on the phone when president trump asked the secretary of state to "find 11,780 votes. to change the results of the presidential election in georgia. we know from the text mr. meadows turned over that at the time of that call, he appears to have been texting other participants on the call. again, mr. meadows has no conceivable privilege baseis to refuse to testify on this topic. he is in contempt. third, in the weeks before january 6th, president trump's appointees at the justice department, informed him repeatedly that the president's claims of election fraud were not supported by the evidence. and that the election was not in fact stolen. president trump intended to appoint jeffrey clarke, as attorney ge

congress needs to step up. congress needs to stand up and speak out on this, because it will be both right and the left extremism. clearly, white supremacy is the biggest issue, i think, in the military and across this country, when it comes to violence and domestic terrorists. but the fact is, all of these can be applied in any number of ways to return extremism. and i think it's really important that what congresswoman brown is doing with regard to the congress, just like last year in the ndp we put in language to make sure the department of defense went through the issue of renaming bases and other assets that have been named for confederate generals and confederate officers. this is very similar to that. it's an assistance to the department of defense to let them know that congress is serious about this. >> let me also add and to pick up on that whole of government approach that senator jones has now mentioned at least twice. the national strategy that the biden administration recently published on addressi

he is in contempt of congress. third, in the weeks before january 6th, president trump's appointees at the justice department informed him repeatedly that the president's claims of election fraud were not supported by the evidence and that the election was not, in fact, stolen. president trump intended to appoint jeffrey clarke as attorney general. in part so that mr. clarke could alter the department of justice's conclusions regarding the election. mr. clarke has informed this committee that he anticipates potential criminal prosecution related to these matters and intends in upcoming testimony to invoke his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. as mr. meadows nonprivileged texts reveal, meadows communicated multiple times with a member of congress who was working with mr. clarke. mr. meadows has no basis to refuse to testify regarding those communications. he is in contempt. january 6th was without precedence. there has been no stronger case in our nation's history for congressional investigation

the congress and senate.we watch televised congressional committee meetings or senate meetings, they become political grandstand for unfortunately the republican party of their lies and continuing pushing of election fraud, borders being overrun. i think how congress now acts is irresponsible, unethical, and they are grandstanding and set of enacting law and legislation. versus the senate who has currently been stonewalling almost every appointment the president wants. people don't seem to realize that ambassadors are not being appointed, heads of departments are not being appointed, and this is all to set up the biden -- set up that biting cannot get the vision that he wants done. host: we will take the points. guest: a caller brings up a couple of things that are worth touching on. on congressional hearings and what their purposes and how that has changed over time, we know that congressional hearings have never been -- has always been the most effective way for congress to get information. a lot of that in

but i think i will run for congress. well, let me just tell all of you, if you are a normal person, a freedom loving american and you truly believe the things that they claim they believe when they are talking on fox news and all these networks and you go to run for congress or any time -- any kind of local publicly held office, they are not going to treat you very well. they are not going to like you at all, as a matter of fact. but i beat them all. and so now i am here and you have seen me attacked this past year on an unprecedented level. the reason why you have seen me attacked this way is because they hate us. that is the truth. let me tell you about the swamp. i really want you to understand it. washington, d.c. is completely broken. congress is the most pathetic institution i have ever seen in my life. it is true. and you know the proof of that? here we are nearly $30 trillion in debt and thanks to mitch mcconnell making a deal with chuck schumer in the senate, our debt ceiling just got raised to $31.5 trillion. y

congress has done it twice. mitch mcconnell agreed to two changes to the filibuster to expedite nominees. that's how donald trump got three supreme court justices without 60 votes. we see it right now. they're able to change the filibuster when they want to. so if it's good enough for donald trump to appoint new supreme court justices, if it's good enough for a green light for an escapade from a senator to offer an amendment that's doomed, if it's good enough to prevent the global economy from crashing, isn't it good enough to change the filibuster and protect our democracy? that's the argument we ought to be making right now. >> ezra, i'm struck by the fact that the media by and large has ignored this, even as they have done a lot of reporting on the filibuster and the seeming sort of stalemate over the filibuster all year long. i'm also struck by the fact that democrats have been -- democratic senators have been very quiet about this. i wonder if you see that as them sort of avoiding the strategic implications

they take in congress.ou look at how they have shipped all of our jobs to china and these guys have profited from it. her family has a shipping company that runs out of china and they profit from the votes of mitch mcconnell and then shipping all of the product into this country. they all have a vested interest. the biden family has a vested interest in what china bringing manufactured products from china to this country. the main thing that needs to be done is term limits. the one thing that is more important than anything else that we must go back to, first to the november voting period. no early voting, no mail-in voting. you get up, you go to your place of election, you vote on the first tuesday of november, every other year. that way you have an honest election system. what about -- host: what about american citizens who live overseas? caller: that is an absentee ballot. that is not early voting. that is not mail-in voting. that is not voting two weeks prior to election day. that is what i'm talking ab

whether they're from a democratic congress or a republican congress. they're not. you know, the department of justice needs to have a firewall between the white house and the department of justice. you can't have the president calling up the department of justice. any president of any party shouldn't be able to do that. then the president embargoed, stopped money to congress, republican congress, for ukraine. just stopped it. but apparently on the other side of the aisle, they feel like their job is to be hand maidens in case trump comes back. they don't want to put in the protections now when joe biden's there, who they carry on about as abusive all the time. why not put in the protections now? because you want donald trump to be able to come back and continue these sorts of abuses. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. comer: i yield a minute and a half to mr. stewart. mr. stewart: there is so much in this bill to be concerned about. for the last five years

meadows text messages sent to another member of congress in november 2020, in which the member of congress indicate that, quote, the president asked him to call arizona governor doug doocy, and quote, and in which mr. meadows asks for contact information for the attorney general of arizona to discuss allegations of election fraud. but we would ask mr. meadows about text messages sent to and received from members of the house of representatives and the senate about objections to the certification of electors in certain states on january 6th. we would've asked him about text messages sent to and received from a u.s. senator regarding the vice president's power to reject electors, including a text in which meadows recounts direct communication with president trump. according to mr. meadows and his text messages, quote, thinks the legislators, meaning the state legislators, have the power, but the vice president has power, as well, in quote. remember, the whole ball game here, the whole point, the whole goal of the plot leading up to january 6th was to try to get republican officials in the st

he is in contempt of congress. second, mr. meadows has knowledge regarding president trump's efforts to persuade state officials to alter official election results. in georgia, for instance, mr. meadows participated in a phone call between president trump and the georgia secretary of state. mr. meadows was actually on the phone when president trump asked the secretary of state to, quote, find 11, 780 votes to change the results of the presidential election in georgia. that's the president of the united states telling a state official to, quote, find 11, 780 votes. while this was happening, mr. meadows appears to have been texting with another participant on this call. mr. meadows has no conceivable privileged basis to refuse to testify on this topic. he is in contempt of congress. third, in the weeks before january 6, president trump's appointees at the justice department informed him repeatedly that the president's claims of election fraud were not supported by the evidence and that the election was not in fact st

he is in contempt of congress. second, mr. meadows has knowledge regarding president trump's efforts to persuade state officials to alter official election results. in georgia, for instance, mr. meadows participated in a phone call between president trump and the georgia secretary of state. mr. meadows was actually on the phone when president trump asked the secretary of state to, quote, find 11, 780 votes to change the results of the presidential election in georgia. that's the president of the united states telling a state official to, quote, find 11, 780 votes. while this was happening, mr. meadows appears to have been texting with another participant on this call. mr. meadows has no conceivable privileged basis to refuse to testify on this topic. he is in contempt of congress. third, in the weeks before january 6, president trump's appointees at the justice department informed him repeatedly that the president's claims of election fraud were not supported by the evidence and that the election was not in fact st

they know which member of congress it is. beyond that the vice chair of the investigation, republican congresswoman liz cheney, is making crystal clear now, both last night and again today, that the turn the january 6th investigation has taken is toward criminal liability. not just who's going to look like a bad guy in history but who's been caught potentially committing crimes here. and i'll show you what i mean. i'm going to play you two clips of liz cheney, one from last night, one from today. when she said this last night, prosecutors all over the country, law students all over the country, anybody who's ever been a criminal defendant all over the country, everybody did a do-woop when she said this. like wait a second, what did she say there? >> mr. meadows' testimony will bear on another key question before this committee. did donald trump through action or inaction corruptly seek to obstruct or impede congress's official proceedings to count electoral votes? >> that was liz cheney last night. we learned today that was n