Mcgovern, the ranking republican member of oklahoma. They are joining us from the House Rules Committee and we will be talking some hearing taking place on tuesday in here in studio billy hounds and deputy editor. Thank you for joining us stop joining us. [no audio] my focus is to make sure we provide the necessary funds, so i dont want to get into the policy on this. Is the president getting it right . I have some concerns, but at this particular point, we need to come together and provide the judgmentswe can make along the way. , we will allident today. R judgment surenk the focus is making we provide necessary resources for our communities. What is your number one concern . I am concerned we still dont know a lot about the virus. Our constituents are protected and want to make sure hospitals have what they need, want to make sure the information is out also requires we make a substantial investment that we will do in a bipartisan way. In terms of the administration responsible for . Good, but it has been give congress a lot of credit on it bipartisan basis. Thefunding level for nationalists, substantial andease for Disease Control stockpile of medicines and medical supplies. My friend, the current chair of the committee think weal funds and i are better positioned than most countries. I am with myhat, friend, the chairman here. I have lots of confidence in our professional center of Disease Control and certainly the National Institute of health. And that is really where the response is. Our job is to make sure that we get them the resources they need and to make sure we have the resources at the local and state level that we need. Weve done a good job today. You can look at the number of cases in the United States versus a lot of countries. The reality is things will get worse before they get better. So we need to deal with that in realtime. That means substantial resources available. I again agree with the chairman. This needs to be a bipartisan effort. In terms of funding and out of congress, it certainly will be. You are in the u. S. Capitol hearing room. We turn to billy hauser, bloomberg news, congressional reporter. There have been cutbacks in some programs that democrats are concerned about. But lets focus on this funding. Actually there havent been cutbacks. There have been continuous increases. Look, i was the chairman there for four years. We increased it every single year. We did it again this year. Cutting particular programs or whatever, yeah, but the reality is, this is the most substantial sustained increase in over 15 years. It is over a fiveyear period. Do you expect a vote next week on a funding mechanism, 6 billion to 8 billion, perhaps . I think it will be substantial. I dont know if it will be as soon as next week. But the message has been given to the appropriate people responding, our medical professionals, look you should do everything you need to do. Dont let lack of money stop you. The money should be there. Come and ask us for what you need when you need it. I think there will be an additional response. But as the chairman said, this is a new disease. It is unpredictable. We do not know as much about it as we would like to know. That point was made in our briefing this morning. So it would not surprise me if we did a substantial initial tranche and as we learn more, we might get another request. And that would be perfectly appropriate. I think the real message is, we intend to deal with this. I think everybody has made that clear, regardless of their political differences on other issues. Everybody wants to make sure that the American People are protected, the resources are available. Im very comfortable with this. Certainly congress will act in a bipartisan way to provide those resources. Shawn zeller of Congressional Quarterly. You are an appropriator. The Trump Administration has only asked for about 2. 5 billion to deal with the coronavirus. You are looking in the Appropriations Committee at significantly more than that. Does that Say Something about how seriously the administration is taking this . No. I dont think it says that at all. Look, i work regularly and have for many years with dr. Redfield, center for Disease Control, dr. Fauci at the nih, secretary azar, so these are career professionals, doctors, people that are very skilled administrators, in azars case. We get an initial request, we are going to look at it in terms of that request but also more broadly, picking up on a theme that my colleague and might chairman my chairman laid down, we have to think about the local response mechanisms as well and making sure that they not only have what they need, but they are reimbursed when they go beyond. The president himself said look, we are going to spend what Congress Sends us and will not be shy about asking if we need more. I think the signals from both sides have been, that is exactly the right approach. We do not want you to be penny wise and pound foolish here, we want you to put the wellbeing of the American People first. We want to make sure that the funding is available to do that. Chairman, next weeks hearing on the erosion of congressional checks and balances on the executive branch, you are depicting it as a longterm look back, decades of actions. But coming now with President Trump in office, how are you not getting responses, or will you not get responses that this is really geared to him . I have some problems with overreach by this administration. I know my republican friends have had problems with overreach by democratic administrations. This is not a new problem. This is not a problem that is unique to one president. The erosion of Congressional Authority has been happening for quite some time. And you know, my friend tom cole and i, we are from different political parties. Im a liberal, hes a conservative. But we are both institutionalist. We both respect this institution. We both respect the constitution. We think that over the last few decades, congress has been too willing to cede authority that is rightfully ours to the executive branch. The executive branch has been only too willing to take it. At the end of the day, that doesnt serve the American People. I think it undermines the constitution. But it doesnt serve our constituents. We are the house of representatives. We are the closest to the people. We have to get elected every two years. You cant serve in this institution unless you have been voted on by the people. I think we are closer to where the people are. And so on some of these decisions that are being made, we should have a role in them. We are not right now. I think that does not serve our constituents well. So this is a good time to do it. By the way, this hearing is not going to be about donald trump or barack obama or bill clinton or george bush or whatever. We are going to talk about basically what our authority is and where it has lapsed. To the extent that we make recommendations, it will be for the next administration, whoever he or she may be. Shawn zeller . It seems to me that part of the problem here with expanding executive power is partisanship in congress. That members of each party tend to support a president of their own party, whether that means the erosion of their own power as an institution or not. So at the hearing next week, will you present specific ideas that can bring both parties together . And what are those ideas . Was that directed to me or tom cole . I would like to hear what both of you have to say. What are your specific ideas for bringing powers back to congress . I dont want to get ahead of the game here. We are doing something a little bit radical. That is we are actually going to hold a hearing and bring experts in and get their judgments. I have some ideas, but i do not know whether they are good ideas or bad ideas, or if they can get the bipartisan support that is necessary to make the kind of difference i think we need to do here. Look, you are absolutely right. When theres a democratic president in power, democrats tend to be a little bit shy of challenging that president when they have exceeded their authority. I think the same could be true for republicans. Thats why i think this is a good time to have this hearing. We are talking about a future administration. How we should conduct ourselves. As some of you know, i have been very, very concerned about the war powers act and about president s that have kind of exceeded their authority in getting us involved in conflicts all around the world. We are operating still off of a 2001 that was 18 years ago. Theres no process in place for a regular review or whether it should be sunsetted maybe. Maybe there are some other ideas. The way we are going right now, whoever is sitting in these chairs 100 years from now might still be able to refer to a 2001 authorization for the use of military force to justify some military action someplace in the world. Thats not the way it should work. And i think most reasonable people on both sides of the aisle get that. What we are going to try to do is to see if there are processes and procedures we can put in place that even out the balance better. Congressman mcgovern . I agree very much with what the chairman had to say. Hes concerned about war powers long before there was a republican president. We were working on this one president obama was in. You cant question jim mcgoverns credentials in this regard. He has raised this from an institutional standpoint. I think hes the ideal person to lead this discussion because he demonstrated his loyalty and interest in defending the institution of the house of representatives, regardless of who was president and who was speaker. So we approach it very much in that fashion. And i think we were talking together, somebody made the point, we have very distinguished witnesses. Wouldnt it be wonderful if no one, at the end of the day, could tell if it was a republican witness or a democratic witness . These are people here to talk about the appropriate balance within the constitution of the United States. So theres a very widespread sense, and it spans the political spectrum and overlaps the partisan divide in congress, that we have simply given away too much of our authority in a variety of areas. I think probably initially, we will be shy about being real specific about this president. We want to get past this and have a discussion of what would really work. Some of it may be as simple as, well, you guys have to have the courage to reclaim the powers that are already there. There may be some ideas about not, for instance, extending look, let me put it to you this way. I dont think that anybody voted on the authorization for the use of military force in 2001 truly believed it would still be applicable today in 2020. I do not believe they meant that to happen. But once you cede this power to the administration, even without a timeline, without a clearly defined objective, it is tricky in a war on terror. We are dealing with a transnational enemy that is not a traditional state actor. And thats what the war powers were usually designed for. But again, there have been ways in the past of dealing with the barbary pirates or having unofficial conflicts with the french at sea that congress has been able to assert this authority. We need to have this discussion and relearn our own history. We need to see where we can update it. On my side of the aisle, members are excited that the opportunity to participate in this kind of day i want to applaud the chairman for this. We have some other committees that are trying to do this. We have a Bipartisan Committee which was one of my friends ideas. The modernization of congress. Thats an appropriate place to have this discussion as well. But we need to have this discussion a lot of different places if we want to protect the legislative power. This is most likely the power of the people being exercised in this chamber, a lot more directly than it is for a president who is elected on an Electoral College basis or United States senate, where everybody is the same regardless of the size of the state. We each represent districts that are roughly the same size. And so the popular will exercises itself most clearly in the house of representatives. Its our responsibility as custodians of that power to make sure that its preserved and that the peoples voice is heard loudly and clearly in the deliberations and debates in congress. Let me follow up quickly to congressman coles point. You are a student of history. Can you point to one event that you think began to erode congress authority . Let me put it this way. It goes back decades. This is not a recent phenomenon. We talk about war powers. There are lots of historical examples we can point to. Declarations of National Emergencies. I think we all can see that there are such things as National Emergencies that require immediate action by whoever the president may be. We had National Emergencies that were enacted when jimmy carter was president and george w. Bush was president that are still in effect today. Shouldnt there be a mechanism to relook at these and update them in this everchanging world . We have ceded our power in terms of how taxpayer dollars are spent back in our communities. You know, we rely too much on the administration, whoever that may be, to make those decisions. I think we are closest to our own districts and constituencies to know what works best in a row in our own areas. There is another area where i think we need to reassert our authority. Again, this is not about power for the sake of grabbing more power for the house of representatives, for the congress, this is about making sure that we are covering the people we represent. Again, i think in the house of representatives, we are the most direct link to the people of the country. Let me turn to billy house, bloomberg news. A lot of these executive actions can be voted against in congress. But the veto was always there. That seems to be one of the main problems to anything you guys might be able to come up with. Are we actually talking a possible constitutional amendment attempt . I think there are other things short of a constitutional amendment that we could explore. I hope thats what these hearings do. But look, i mentioned the war powers issue earlier. To me, there is something wrong with the fact that its easier to declare war or get involved in a war than it is to actually get to peace. You just need a simple majority to vote to authorize the use of military force. But knowing that the president would veto an action by congress to end the war if he or she didnt want to, it requires a supermajority. We need to have a discussion on whether that is the appropriate way we should approach these issues. I think what we are looking for here is to reestablish balance. When you read the constitution, article one, and when you read article two, it was pretty clear what the responsibilities were of congress and of the executive branch. I think what we have seen here is just an erosion of the power of congress in a way that i think has undercut our ability to be better representatives of our constituents. But also, it has resulted in the lessening and diminishing of the voice of the people of the country. Congressman cole, this is shawn zeller from Congressional Quarterly. Isnt part of the problem here that congress has failed to compromise on important policy issues . Take, for example, immigration. Congress has failed to act on immigration policy. As a result, you had president obama implementing his Deferred Action Program to provide legalization for some unauthorized immigrants. Now you have President Trump declaring a National Emergency to build a wall. The president s are trying to deal with important policy issues. Congress could pass a law, could it not . I could not agree with you more. I think that is a very fair criticism of the institution. Its unwillingness to actually cast votes. I will also say, as a guy who used to be a pollster for a living, the American People need to look at this too, because nobody gets rewarded for compromise anymore. If you are not willing to vote for people that are willing to cut a deal to get something for everybody, if you cast those people as sellouts and say you have to be a purist, that is what you are going to get and it makes legislation impossible. Appropriations is basically a give and take exercise. Its finding a middle ground that the majority can agree on. I think good legislation is as well. The immigration issue is a perfect example that you brought up of a problem you have to make some tough decisions and go home and be willing to defend them. The same thing is true in almost any other area. Nobody is going to get everything they want legislatively, but if you dont actually legislate, you open the door for the executive branch to come in and say, you guys arent dealing with this. This is what im going to do. Im sure thats what president obama would argue, for instance, on the immigration issue. He certainly sent enough legislation up here. He made enough proposals. We had two president s in a row that would have signed any immigration bill that congress would have passed. They wanted to work with congress. We just didnt muster up the well, republican or democrat alike, to actually get that done. Thats on us. Thats not on the president. So i would hope there is honest soulsearching in this debate as well. It is not just hey, we have been robbed of our power. It is sometimes as you suggest, we have refused to exercise the power we have and we have drawn the executive branch into areas that shouldve been dealt with legislatively. Congressman cole, let me follow up. President trump has used a declaration of a National Emergency on the southern border in order to begin construction of his border wall. The house has taken a couple votes to rescind that National Emergency. And you voted against it. You voted to allow the wall construction to continue. So if next january, we are greeting a new president , say president Bernie Sanders, and he declares a National Emergency on Climate Change or a National Emergency on student debt, will you also allow him to continue in that regard . Or will you see it differently . I certainly would not vote for the measures you are talking about. Im not going to vote to oppose a president when i support what hes trying to do. The real question here is the 1976 act, middle 70s, someplace, where we gave the power to the president to declare a National Emergency. That has happened 60 times. 59 of them did not seem to be controversial. Two of those dealt with the border. One was cartels, one was the last unexpected surge of migrants we had. Both of those by president obama. Both of those got lots of republican votes. If we are going to question look, i dont question the president s using the power we gave them. You would not have the fight on the issue. You go back to the original bill, the power to declare that, and either put some sort of limitation on it or put a time limitation on the emergency. The chairman here had a pretty good idea. How can you have an emergency that lasts 60 years . Most of us think of an emergency as something that is happening in real time in the short term. So we granted that power. Again, it is kind of like the authorization of use of force in 2001, 2002. I doubt that anybody in 1970 thought that this would be use in the same way as it was in 2019. So that suggests a limitation on some of these things in terms of time or scope. That would be the appropriate way to look at it. Sometimes, we dont look past the next november, november of the next year. We need to start thinking a lot longer timeframe. A minute left. A final question from billy house. Have either of you heard from the white house or the administration about this hearing . At any point, do you expect to hear or call anybody from the administration to talk about this . Chairman mcgovern . I should probably comment first, because they are more likely to call me and complain than they are the chairman, this white house. I certainly have not. We have had no communication about this. This is my friend the chairmans initiative, which i fully support. I think it will have broad bipartisan support inside the congress. Look, trump does not call me regularly, so i havent heard from him. Look, this is about us. This is about this institution. I think what we want to have is hopefully not just one discussion, but a series of discussions that maybe will actually lead to something to figure out whether we can restore some balance here. Again, this is not just about the institution, just about upholding article one of the constitution, its about making sure that the people of this country are being represented in the way that our fathers envisioned. We want to be more effective and we want to be more responsive. Thats a good thing. I know that weve had these informal discussions on both sides of the aisle. Democrats and republicans both are concerned about this issue. The politics sometimes get in the way and the partisanship sometimes gets in the way. We will see whether we can cut through that and move in the direction where we could do something. At the appropriate time, i am sure the administration, if they dont like what we are doing, will weigh in. But maybe they will surprise me and be supportive. But who knows . We are not at that point yet. A hearing we will be covering on tuesday. Joining us from the u. S. Capitol in the u. S. House Committee Hearing room, jim mcgovern, democrat from massachusetts, and tom cole, Ranking Member from oklahoma. Thank you for joining us on newsmakers. Thank you. We continue our conversation in the studio with billy house. How significant is this hearing . It is the first hearing of this sort that i can recall. Ive been in the capital for several years. There are real roadblocks to actually pulling both parties together in ways that could actually work against a president from this party or a president from the other party. There really has to be some institutionalism that i dont think is really there at this point. Right. Part of the problem is that some of these laws they are mentioning, the National Emergencies act, for example, is a 1970s law that was passed at a time when there was significantly more bipartisanship in congress. We are now at a period of very great polarization. So its almost impossible to get the kind of super majorities congress would need to pass a law over a president ial veto. And president s are not willing to give up their power. So bottom line, what will come from this hearing and this initiative from members of congress . I think the best hope is that when they are passing future authorizations of military force, for example, they will include a sunset clause in those laws that will require congress to revisit them several years later. Which is always an occasion for rethinking, an occasion for congress to reexert its power. The worst thing to come out of it, probably, is the Trump Administration and the president s supporters saying he is being singled out. Why wasnt this hearing held during the Obama Administration . Billy house, who covers bloomberg news, and shawn zeller, reporter for Congressional Quarterly magazine. We thank you for being with us here at newsmakers. We are live in north folk, virginia. Joe biden and get them ready to speak at a high school. In other campaign news, pete is reportedly ending his campaign. He is expected to make announcement tonight in south bend, indiana. We are waiting for joe biden voters to speak. Youre watching live coverage right here on cspan. The super tuesday primary takes tuesday. S in other campaign news, if you have not heard, Pete Buttigieg has reportedly ended his president ial campaign. Hes expected to make that announcement tonight in south for, indiana and as we wait joe biden to answer, lets show you a portion of todays washington journal. Host joining us at the table here in washington dc is jim antle. Good morning. We also say good morning to our guest elie mystal, justice correspondent for the nation. Elie mystal, why dont we start with your reaction to joe bidens victory in South Carolina and look ahead to super tuesday. Guest it is amazing what happens in a primary when you let people of color vote. Nevada looked a lot more interesting and South Carolina certainly produced a significantly different result in iowa. That is not an accident. I think the exit polls show the electorate was has been 57 africanamerican. Joe biden won the africanamerican vote. Crushing everybody else, i think sanders was second. What you see here is that the people of color, who make up the base of the democratic party, have different views of the best way to be trump and they seem to be saying, at least in South Carolina especially older voters they are saying the best way is to have a moderate with experience like joe biden. That is a much different answer than, for instance, people in ohio gave us in terms of their preferred way to be donald trump. Everybody is concerned about the same thing. Theyre just different opportunities, different ideas about how to get there. South carolina certainly threw a thunderbolt into this race. Host jim antle here in the d. C. What did you see in last nights results . Originally this is what we always expected. Joe biden to have a commanding lead. To be powered to a primary when with a strong africanamerican vote. In the recent weeks of looked like Bernie Sanders had been gaining. It looks like even tom steyer. As biden faded in the National Polls and as biden had disappointing performances in the first three states. Iowa and New Hampshire were very disappointing to him. There is some questions of whether the South Carolina firewall would hold for him. And it did hold. I think he can thank James Clyburn for an endorsement. I think he had a lifelike debate performance in the final debate before the primary. He did fairly well on the stump in the final hours of campaigning. This is a pretty big win for him. If this had been a loss, we would be talking about him potentially dropping out. If this had been a narrow when we would be talking about, what is his pathway forward . Because of this landslide win last night, we are talking about the potential of a joe biden come back. Host move this ahead to super tuesday. We will show the map of the 14 states. What are you looking forward to . Guest the question is, how does the fact that super tuesday is so close to South Carolina affect things . I think the optimistic scenario for biden is that it does not leave a lot of time for bidens momentum to dissipate. Potentially some of the centrist voters who were moving toward Michael Bloomberg and some of the africanamerican voters who are moving to Bernie Sanders and, to a lesser extent, toward bloomberg, wild ride back toward biden. The less optimistic scenario for joe biden is that because it is so close, this doesnt really give democratic voters a lot of time to process South Carolina by the time they vote on tuesday. It doesnt even give the other candidates a lot of time to process it. You might have a Pete Buttigieg or amy klobuchar, maybe if there was a week they might consider whether they would jump out. Whether they would support biden. Other there might be some centrist consolidation. He might see a different strategy on the part of Michael Bloomberg, deciding either that he is going to have a nonaggression pact with joe biden. Those things are all less likely to happen given that it is only two days away. The real question is, yes, joe biden had a really good performance. Is this going to be his swansong and an anomaly . Or does this put him back into the race . Does putting him back into the race restore him to Something Like a front runner status with Bernie Sanders . Or does it make the results on super tuesday more chaotic . Host phone numbers on the bottom of our screen. We welcome your calls. It is jim antle, editor of the american conservative. In new york city it is elie mystal. Look ahead to that large map of 14 states. What will you be looking for as the votes start coming in