congress. allowing the presence to unilaterally take these actions contributes to polarization because it leads to more extreme actions. if these actions could only be taken with the concurrence of congress, the parties would have to work out compromises, especially during the use of -- during the usual situation when we have a divided government stop government action within be moderate, less threatening to people from the other party. let me start by defining polarization. i view it as a combination on the one hand, a sharp division between the political parties on policy issues and secondly, an us versus them mentality between the parties. first, that sharp division means elections take on enormous importance because the loser will really lose big in a world of unilateralism. the sharp division and the resulting fear of losing collections leads to this us versus them mentality. people view the other party not so much as opponents but as a threat to the country to be demonized. one of the pri

, congress, congress, congress, congress, congress, congress, congress, congress, congress, fungus, fungus, congress, congress, congress, congress, congress, congress, congress, congress press. congress is impress, fungus boot in, play fungus edges. this congress is this congress that russia will be congress. russia will be congress. russia will be congress, carbon neutral, carbon neutral carbon new no. later, the carbon newton 26 carbon new to city 6 carbon nucleus. the sick carbon, new carbon newt carbon, newt carbon newton, a carbon newton carbon newt carbon new, to make carbon new carbon nukes it to delegate carbon newton to delegate carbon neutral. at the u. n. a carbon newt climate when they get carbon new to finally, when they get carbon new sometime when they get carbon nukes in scotland. in scotland in scotland, in scotland in scotland, in scotland in scotland in scotland in scotland in scotland in scotland in scotland, in scotland, in scotland, in scotland, in scotland, in scotland, in scotland, in scotland, in scotland and for the west put, put it put, put for action had come up

congress will tell me when. what was your second question? i apologize. >> the apparatus focusing on any part of the world, usaid, the departments that are operating, what would it be? >> i don't know. i think a special ig, maybe we should do our final lessons learn report about special igs. i think they are a good thing. i personally think it was a good approach to afghanistan. and was a good approach to iraq but i don't know. i really don't know. you could create special igs for these we could be difficult issues like the opiate. bring in a special ig who will look at all those issues and that may be useful. it is a good question, maybe i will when i retire right or novel about that but it is a good idea because every ig accept us in their 70 some, every week they create a new one is housed in a specific agency and can only look at that agency. by definition it can't see the whole of government. in response to that congress has asked 14 or 15 various agencies to look at i think it was the covid issue but when you have 14 or 15 different igs

instead, i believe this congress will go down in history as a broken congress. for nearly four years the house republicans have been voicing the needs of millions of americans, house democrats have broken nearly every rule and standard. in order to silence disdense and stack the deck with a radical and popular agenda. unpopular agenda. it broke the motion to recommit, first time in the history of the congress. they broke impeachment not once, but twice. they broke in-person voting and replaced it with proxy. first time in history. and they broke the minority's right to appoint members of its own choosing to committees. the speaker's burning down the house on her way out the door. what's worse, we got to this point on the basis of a double standard. democrats want to change the rules but refuse to apply them to their own caucus. i listened to the speaker talk about the highest standards. madam speaker, when a democratic chairwoman flew to minneapolis and told an angry crowd during a trial to stay on the street, get more active. get more confrontational, we've got

so in congress you don't have the advocacy so when can congress check the president? and then to have examples of fine congress is willing to assert its can —- congressional role. so in the early seventies so to have that bipartisanship in congress is not that different from each other and the fact that voters who are willing to come together not as democrats or republicans that across the spectrum in the parties to say that tonight is a time when george wallace said there's not a - times the difference between republicans and republicans and because of that they were able to work together across party lines to back legislation that is politically popular as well. that is not the real we live in today the world you live in today democrats and republicans are polarized as noted but also they don't like each other for those of you who have read about the studies of effective polarization democrats don'tns want their sons and daughters to marry republicans and vice versa a rate the party has a 20 compared to the seventies maybe around 60 at the very difficult time to g

that's clear from congress. this was not a limit on the former president's ability to bring jurisdiction. that subsection, 2204e, was not intended to increase, decrease or modify the rights or privileges of a former president to bring an action. a former president may need to bring suit to challenge under another jurisdictional basis. >> may i clarify -- i'm sorry to interrupt you. there's two things here. i want to make sure you are clear. we isn't a letter making you aware you will talk about jurisdiction. >> i'm specifically -- >> i want to switch between jurisdiction and cause of action. it sounds like they are getting woven together here. >> your honor, we're not weaving those together at all. what we're doing is pointing out that specifically when congress was deciding this act and deciding any limits of judicial review, any limits to judicial review here are very narrow. it's only applying to third parties who -- may wish to limit -- may want to challenge the decision of the archivist. >> let's suppose i

is it on congress? dod, department of state? that is what points do with the overall that was blamed for doing it that way. >> not one entity of the government. and if you read the report it is the way they reports the big efforts like this. so we go back to the lessons learned report. and then to give you soup to nuts at any time because we are already doing it with the administration right now. so when we send people to afghanistan they were not nefarious or stupid or lazy people. above and beyond they were brave, smart and eager to do the right thing. atwe gave them a box of tools that is something we are dealing with with the government right now with the v.a. and hhs and dhs and all agencies. our procurement system is broken the reward system to the over emphasis on contractors having build the capabilities of usaid your state is broken.ut and the whole appropriating cycle the approach to a whole government issue and i use the term to be wickedly difficult issue that we face as americans is due to the fact a whole of govern

congratulations, you are now member of the 117th congress. the speaker: without objection, the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kaptur is recognized for one minute. ms. kaptur: thank you. thank you, madam speaker. today we welcome representative chantal brown of ohio's 11th cop gretional district to the halls of congress, america's temple of democracy. representative brown's great lakes-northern ohio-cleveland region has weathered enormous challenges over the years. and now more than ever her intelligent, innovative, personable and collaborative leadership are needed. representative brown has a remarkable record of such accomplishments. she follows in the footsteps of former congresswoman and now h.u.d. secretary marcia fudge. representative stephanie tubbs jones. and representative louis stokes. representative brown will now become the 5 #th member of the black caucus, a historic high for our nation. first as the warrensville city councilmember then as a chi hoe gay county -- cuyahoga county councilmember she's driven progress through health, huma

in contempt of congress? >> yes, jake, there's a very important difference there which is steve bannon has the weakest executive privilege claim which is now a criminal defense. he has the weakest defense of any of these people because, as you said, he was not part of the executive branch at the time. and one thing that's important to know. we'll have two levels of battle playing out here. first, steve bannon will try to get this case dismissed. we'll argue he has a legitimate executive privilege claim. that will go to the judge. then he'll have a trial. we'll have a jury trial, united states versus steve bannon. if he is convicted, as caroline said, this is a misdemeanor, which is the less serious type of crime. maximum sentence is 12 months, one year per count. however, this is a really unusual in that there's a mandatory minimum of one month in prison. if steve bannon goes through with this, gets convicted, he has to go to jail for at least one month. >> let's bring in republican congressman adam kinzinger

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 had fashioned. he posted it on his official congressional social media where he has hundreds of thousands of followers, and where the video was viewed over three million times. what he posted was violence, fantasized violence, a wish. any other decade or any other congress, this public endorsement of violence by a member of congress might have been excused as a lapse in judgment or even possibly a bad joke. but this congress knows what happens when members of the radical right gets stirred up by their leaders. just a few months ago, this congress had to hide in safe rooms under the protection of police and soldiers or barricade ourselves in our offices because our place of work was overrun by armed citizens who wanted to hang some of us. this congress has seen threats against members of congress more than double, forcing members to pay for additional security for their homes, offices, and families, rethink how to engage with constituents and even where bulletproof vests to public events. so when a m

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

, congress, congress, congress, congress, congress, congress, congress, congress, congress is, impress, fungus, put in place congress edges. this congress hedges, this congress that russia will be congress. russia will be congress, russia will be congress, carbon neutral, carbon neutral carbon, new no. late the carbon newton 26 carbon new 36 carbon nudity, 6 carbon new carbon, new carbon, new carbon neutral carbon, new to carbon newt carbon new from that carbon new to carbon nuke 6 to delegate carbon neutral to delegate carbon neutral. at the u. n. a carbon nuke climate when they get carbon new to finally, when they get carbon new sometime when they get carbon nukes in scotland in scotland in scotland, in scotland, in scotland in scotland in scotland in scotland in scott, in scotland in scotland, in scotland, in scotland in scotland in scotland in scotland in scotland, in scotland, in scotland, in scotland and for the west put push it put for action had come up 2026. it takes with look at, look at how they're ambitious plans might hurt, might hurt night. her ations to her tends to pers

it took just three weeks from that contempt vote in congress for the dc u.s. attorney's office to put the case to a grand jury and get an indictment. steve bannon is set to turn himself in on monday. if convicted, he faces up to a year in prison on each of the two counts. this is the kind of speed and aggressiveness that democratic investigators in congress could only dream of from the trump justice department when they were facing uncooperative witnesses. this is a huge step forward in terms of accountability to congress, and by extension to the american people. and now there are questions. will this contempt case just drag on forever like previous attempts by congress to force testimony from uncooperative witnesses? and perhaps most importantly, what effect will this criminal contempt charge have on other recalcitrant witnesses in the january 6th committee that they're dealing with? today trump's former white house chief of staff mark meadows also just didn't show up for a deposition where he was subpoenaed. will he or others now think differently about how

the states have directed congress to amend the constitution and now it is the duty of congress and the administration to get out of the way and remove the arbitrary unnecessary and shameful deadline that we cynically imposed nearly half a century ago. since the earliest days of our nation, women have been fighting, not waiting, but fighting for inclusion in our founding documents. from the seneca falls suffragist to alice paul, from shirley chisholm and gloria steinem to the inspiring generation of young women and queer activists and allies of the new millennium. we have pleaded for centuries, a simple and powerful thing. equality under the law. i want my daughter bella to grow up knowing she has the same right as every man in this country. and i want my son milo, and every boy in america to know that too. they deserve a government that cannot treat them differently because of gender. if there is one word it is freedom when we present ourselves to other nations advocating across the globe for democracy and human rights. it is freedom which drives that discussion. there are even members

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

sometimes we have lost sight of that in congress. jonathan: one question on spending i wanted to bring up his looking at this, its current iteration of the bill you introduced, if it is just russia focused it would be about $80 million a year, but you mentioned this is more than just google translate, many of us have used google translate when it comes to trying to read articles coming out of china. what does $80 million get to you beyond google translate in terms of the benefits of the service? rep. castro: of course it is a translation that will be from folks that are familiar with the slogans, the particular sayings in china. a more accurate -- it is more accurate than a rough google translate. but the analysis is very valuable. we mentioned china and russia, but there is the potential to expand it beyond those nations. the analysis part is especially important. important not just for people in government, not just to benefit the state department or the department of defense and the administration, but also the media. i believe it

who issued a despicable video showing the killing of a fellow member of congress. worst of all, most despicable of all, the object of the censure said it was to attract a new generation. think about that. to attract a new generation of americans. we got to do better, my friends. come on. and to my friend from virginia who said if democrats had done this, what would we do, rest assured, my friends, every one of you, we would do the same thing because i will never ever ever allow a fellow member of congress to threaten or distribute a video showing the killing of one of us let alone another american. with that i yield back. >> gentle lady from indiana. madame speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from colorado. >> gentle lady is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madame speaker. democratic policies are so pathetic and have done so poorly, the left has nothing to do but troll the internet looking for ways to get offended and then try to target members and strip them of their committees. this is a dumb waste of the house's time but since the

i have a lot of respect for other members of congress. every member of congress worked hard to get elected in their district, to have the honor of representing the people of their district. they bring their own experiences. they bring their own opinions. they bring the values and the needs and experiences of those they represent in the district. so it's a great system, and we should have respect for all of those different backgrounds and experiences that come together. >> is there a democratic member that you're friends with that you have worked together with on legislation with in your three terms? >> oh, absolutely. in fact, i think almost all of the legislation that i have been successful in getting passed or including in another bill has been done on a bipartisan basis. i do think, and so yes, i'm friends with many members of the democrat party as well as the republican party. you know, i was -- people asked me when i first came to office, and i'm now in my third term so i have been here for five years, but people ask me what surprise

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

congress? so two questions. the psychology behind why and how some internal dynamics might change with a third entity instead of just two teams. liz wiseman: i can speak to a little bit on the psychology of why one of the things that i study is uh i mean leaders, i call multipliers who bring out the best and others versus leaders who are very smart and capable but have a diminishing effect on others. they tend to be very divisive leaders and often they have staying power in organizations and they have success. and i've spent a lot of time trying to understand why people keep working for them and why people follow them? and i think it addresses a couple of your concerns. and what happens is when people feel voiceless and they feel like their voice is not being heard, nobody is listening to me, i'm gonna go get behind someone who people are listening to. and even somebody abhors this person, this is my only avenue for voice. and it's what happens in the business world is people tend to follow them. the other dynam

they don't report to congress. we use them but my solution would be to beef up, reclaim congressional oversight power which we have allowed to lapse and we've outsourced that to the inspector general. do you understand that assessment? not necessarily agree or disagree but understand where i'm coming from in. mr. horowitz: i understand the concern you outline about what the congressional oversight responsibilities are and how they've been executed. i'll just say, this legislation changes nothing about the president's ability to remove and i.g. there is no for-cause provision here. there's none of that. and to your point, as sigi chair, one of the things and allison has continued this, i know, as chair. i talk about all the time not only with my folks at d.o.j. but other i.g.'s, we're not free-range actor, i agree with you. we're in a constitutional system. we follow the i.g. act and follow the law. what i think the legislation does though, particularly the vacancies act, it doesn't limit the president's ability to

instead i believe this congress will go down in history as the broken congress. for nearly four years as the house republicans have been voicing the needs of millions of americans, house democrats have broken nearly every rule and standard. in order to silence dissidence and stack the deck for the radical unpopular agenda. it broke the motion to recommit, first time in the history of congress. they broke impeachment not once but twice. they broke in-person voting and replaced it with proxy voting, the first time in history. and they broke the minority's right to appoint members of its own choosing to committees. the speaker is burning down the house on her way out the door. what's worse, we got to this point on the basis of a double standard. democrats want to change the rules but refuse to apply them to their own caucus. i listened to the speaker talk about the highest standards. madam speaker, when a democratic chairwoman flew to minneapolis and told an angry crowd during a trial to stay on the streets, get more active, get more confrontational, we've got to ma

collaboration in congress. the committee heard from business consultants and ceos in the fields of leadership development, and workplace civility. [inaudible] the committee will come to order without objection. the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time. i now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. i won't use all five. earlier this year. this committee made a conscious decision to explore some topics that aren't always easy to discuss. it's one thing to acknowledge conflict in the workplace is unpleasant, but it's quite another to really dig into that unpleasantness to ask why it exists and what we can do to address it. these conversations are hard because they force us to consider our own actions and to think about the roles we play in an institution that has become increasingly polarized. none of us want to shoulder the blame for congress is low approval ratings, but every member bears responsibility as uh one of our witnesses shoulder richards has said ther

everything congress has ever done, this is one of the ten most weirdest things congress ever done. guess who owned sallie mae -- banks and schools.. it's like the fox living with the hand house. the institutions that needed to make money and wanted to make money have access to all of this treasury department money, no risk whatsoever through this odd seat called sallie mae so i'll stop there. it is a long story and i'm curious if you want to know more about them. >> talking about independent and federal government wants to send more kids to college and don't want to pay for it and doesn't want to be seen paying parts ofi a create this shell game so they put in money but it's not on their book. sallie mae is created and basically prophets are guaranteed and losses are and they have every power the federal government has,ve feder, money and rates. now a new actor comes in and these are colleges they were supposed to have skin in the game. talk about that and what happened instead. >> right around this time, there's a big debate going on in washington how the country should finance th

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

potentially moved from congress? well, that's something voters have to do but -- >> no, i don't think they have to actually. alex, i think there's actually a legal argument to be made. i am not a lawyer but i have talked to legal scholars. and what is true about this is that, yes, censure is an appropriate first step, agreed, let's go there. but let's actually give it some teeth. let's take away his committee assignments. he's a senior member in the house. they're not in the majority right now, but the minute that or when it would change, right, here he is again in the leadership position like holding for foreign affairs committee and others, right? so that's something to be very concerned of. the second thing is that the 14th amendment from what i understand, it's not so much that he would be expelled, that speaker pelosi can say from what scholars told me, there's no legal precedent on this matter, so it can be done, right? to say, no, sir, you have forfeited your seat in your conduct in conspiracy to commit treaso

instead i think this congress will go down in history as the broken congress. for nearly four years the house republicans have been voicing the needs of millions of americans, house democrats have broken every standard in order to silence dissidents for their radical and unpopular agenda. they broke the motion to recommit for the first time in the history of congress. they broke impeachment not once, but twice. they broke in person voting and replaced it with proxy voting for the first time in history. and they broke the minority's rights to appoint members of its own choosing to committees. the speaker is burning down the house on her way out the door. what is worse, we got to this point on the basis of a double standard. democrats want to change the rules, bus refuse to apply them to their own caucus. i listened to the speaker talk about the highest standards. madam speaker, when a democratic chair woman flew to minneapolis and told an angry crowd during a trial to stay on the streets, get more active, get more confrontational, we have got to make sure we kno

thank you. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> ladies, members of congress, -- ladies and gentlemen, numbers of congress, the shuttles are ready to load. -- members of congress, the shuttles are ready to load. please proceed to the east wing entrance. thank you. ♪ ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, members of congress. this is the final call. the shuttles are ready to load. please proceed to the east wing entrance. final call for shuttles to congress. ♪ ♪ ♪ san policy center hosted this hour-long discussion.

congress' involvement in the tomb of the unknown soldier and how we pay tribute to those lost did not end with the first world war and interment of the first. in 1926, congress appropriated funds to authorized spending to increase improve the tomb of the unknown soldier and enhance the tomb of the unknown older by adding this march monument on top. this initial tomb for the unknown soldier was at great, same level that surrounded it they added this structure above the valley, here in this race, i'm going to consult my notes later on, a beautiful and powerful sentiment but you have this structure added on top of the existing tomb to create that much more prominent office space somber of a space to remind people this is a place of great solemnity i should mention as well we all know there were conflicts after the first world war and after the conclusion of the second world war, congress passed now public law 79 -- 149 authorizing the interment of world war ii unknown soldier at the tomb of the unknowns. they were in the process of preparing transport back to the united states so patriot

that's the system congress set up. i don't want to talk about presidentially confirmed senate igs like in my position. the setup congress created was to allow me to operate without fear that the agency leadership can respond in a personnel action against me. i can, of course, be removed at will be the president, and that is entirely appropriate, and none of this legislation changes that. >> again, independent of the agencies, but inspector generals report to the president. they serve at his pleasure. correct? >> that's correct. >> unfortunately, over the years, and i have experienced this first-hand as chairman of this committee, trying to undertake investigations issuing subpoenas, for example, to the fbi, that were largely ignored, slow walked. congressional oversight has been dramatically weakened because we have no enforcement mechanisms. it seems like we have outsourced our oversight, the people's oversight, the people's direct oversight into these agencies to inspector generals. i am concerned that inspector gene

very difficult to get your agenda through congress. they also have the worst relationship with the media and think about all of the things any covered up for john kennedy, the governor of his affairs which they knew about. the coming of his health problems, his variety of other illnesses and they were shocked the public if they would've known at the time the cart of the fact that his book was only bestseller because his dad bought thousands of copies which he stored up in an attic at their place and i've been unable to persuade my dad to buy my books but it's a good idea. and it changes that you have things like the pentagon papers and government studies about the united states involvement in vietnam which shows that presidents have misrepresented u.s. policies and you have the aftermath of watergate and nixon's refuted lies about his involvement in a cover-up and summer so that his press secretary for nafta later stated all previous statements were in operative. and because of the impact, the reporters now all want to be bob woodward

and the democrats are going to lose congress next year. the whole thing's going to go away and less republican decide to make a real bipartisan investment corey committee, which i think in general, i don't think they're going to do that. i think they should be looking into the f b. i wanted the f, b, i orchestra, this. what are the f b i or history charges against coll, written houses, clearly, innocent. why did this a president video that proved his innocence, and it only came out in the trial that that's, that's the questions we need an answer. i get to the question i have is that after i mean, so many things have been mentioned here. i mean, i've never heard humans a defun, the f, b i because i think they, i mean, given their recent track record with renegade and all these other things here. i'm a little surprised, hadn't been mentioned. got more serious. no, here. robert, i want to stay with the 500 or so they're still in prison here. i mean, are they being made examples too, you know, to, to the public in general that, you know, don't

that witnesses can no longer ignore congress with impunity. which really became the norm, in the course of the trump administration. you have the executive branch and a wide variety of individuals taking steps to disrupt congressional investigations at every turn so the fact that this indictment is now moving forward is a really important step. it's also, as you said,, important for us not to understate just the gravity of the decision. the last time that a decision of this nature was pursued by a grand jury in the context of a criminal contempt citation in congress, was before as born, in 1983. so clearly, this is a big deal, and i'm hopeful that it will have a persuasive impact on witnesses to come, who are subpoenaed by the committee. >> i want to read, just what the committee statement put out, by the chair and vice chair. steve bannon's indictment should send a clear message to anyone who thinks they can ignore the select committee, or try to stonewall our investigation, no one is above the law, we will not hesitate to use the tools at ou

for criminal contempt of congress. now here is the thing, the justice department isn't obligated to do anything with that referral. the justice department has to look at the relevant law and circumstances and decide whether there is a case that they want to pursue. as we said, no one has ever been prosecuted for contempt of congress while claiming executive privilege is. but in this indictment today, the justice department essentially says to steve bannon even if a former president were allowed to claim executive privilege is, which he is not, he cannot claim executive privilege over every document you might happen every single thing you might have said, you have to lay out what you have and he can shield specific things. but also, steve bannon you are not a government employee, you have been a private citizen for years. on january 5th you are a private citizen, and regardless of anything else, steve bannon, you just can't ignore congress. you have to show up and make your arguments, it took just three weeks from that

thank you. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> ladies, members of congress, -- ladies and gentlemen, numbers of congress, the shuttles are ready to load. -- members of congress, the shuttles are ready to load. please proceed to the east wing entrance. thank you. ♪ ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, members of congress. this is the final call. the shuttles are ready to load. please proceed to the east wing entrance. final call for shuttles to congress. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> c-span's washington journal. every day, we are taking your calls live on the air on the news of the day and we will discuss policy issues that impact you. coming up tuesday morning, pennsylvania republican congressman and number of the house ways and means committee lloyd smucker discusses president biden's build back better agenda and upcoming fiscal deadlines. lois frankel talks about covid-19 relief legislation. watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern tuesday morning on c-span or c-span now, our new mobile app. join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages and tweets. >> tuesday, homeland security secretary alejandro may

while we care because paul gosar is a member of congress. and millions of people watched that video. and the temperature in washington it's quite hot. it's quite volatile right here. many of us spend hours as rioters were attacking police officers as we kick back to the floor. so, when he has a fantasy about beheading one of my colleagues, it is not a fantasy thing that this could be a call to action for people who watched online. >> why john heilemann, do i get the feeling from congressman gosar that the location of his parking space in the basement garage is probably more important to him thank committee assignments? >> because he doesn't do any actual work, lawrence. the thing about the animated video, congressman eric swalwell is right of course. in the atmosphere of the, week we clearly see, in the country, not just in the congress, that the obviously incited violence. and that needed to be denounced, reprimanded, and taken to accountability. i still think that the congressman knew, who pointed out in office, -- if you made a video like

served in congress for the u.s. house of representatives office of the historian conducted this interview. >> my name is kathleen johnson today and with the help mention the day is generate we are in the house recording studio and we are very pleased to be speak with former representative susan from new york. thank you very much for coming today but. >> very excited to be part of this project. >> this project we are working on is to recognize and celebrate the 100th anniversary of the election of jeannette rankin to congress. the first woman. we have a bunch of questions and went to ask you today. first developed when you are young did did you have any female role models? >> no. i never thought about that question before. i remember looking at the autographed book when you are really little yes your grandmother, your mother and father to sign and the kids in your class it's a what he want to be when i grow up? and i remember looking back i was and maybe second grade i was a flight attendant we were called stewardess