Statement from me and from mr. Cole then well go tow our distinguished witnesses. Today the rules committee will hold a hearing to discuss how the constitution separated powers between the legislative and executive branches and how the balance of power between these branches has shifted over time. We are doing this in the hopes of finding concrete Bipartisan Solutions to better ensure congress is playing the role our nations founders envisioned. Thats a lot, i know. And while a constitutional debate may be fun for law students and legal scholars and mr. Raskin [ laughter ] the it wasnt fun when i was yeah. For the rest of us, it could feel a little in the weeds. So, so for the rest of us, let me simplify. You know, we throw around the phrase, the peoples house, a lot around here, but this really is but this really is about whether we remain the institution that our nations founders created to be the voice of the people. The constitution entrusts congress with deciding how to spend federal resources and develop policy for the entire nation on everything from health care and Energy Policy to trade and our nations farm policy. It also entrusts congress with the very important job of determining when to commit the nation to war and to put our Service Members in harms way. These important tasks were put in Congress Hands because we are the closest to the people. Each senator represents an entire state, but each of us in the house represents roughly 700,000 constituents. We are on the ballot every two years. This puts us closer to the people, their worries, their needs, their frustrations, their hopes and their fears. It makes up more responsive to them. Because our founders determined that some important tasks demand direct input from the people. The president , the head of the executive branch, has important powers, too. Among them is implementing and enforcing the laws that congress enacts. They face regular elections as well. Since there are no kings or queens in america. But sometimes, president s of both parties have overstepped and gone from enforcing policy to creating it in ways that our founders never imagined. Every time that happens, the power of congress, the peoples power, is diminished. That is what weve seen for the past 20 or 30 years now. President after president has taken more and more of the power traditionally vested in the congress. The question is whether we are going to itch lmplement reforms take our power back. Across our hit we, weve seen congresses do just that like in the 1970s when the war powers resolution, National Emergencies act, and the arms export control act among other reforms were enacted to rein in president ial p power. In the 1990s when Congress Passed the congressional review tookt provi act to i think the time has come for congress to push back once more. Not to rein in a particular president but to rein in all president s. Thats with pan s at the end. Well, i think this is the perfect time to do it. Were in an election year. We dont know who the next president will be. But what we do know if history is any indicator is the next president is not going to have an epiphany and just Hand Congress its power back. We need to seize it. If the next president is republican, i know ill want to assert my full Constitutional Authority and i guarantee that if he or she is a democrat, my republican friends will, too. This is bigger than who will win the next election because when the executive doesnt consult with congress, doesnt notify congress, doesnt submit to oversight by congress, sends our troops into harms way without congress being part of that discussion, its not just this institution thats on the losing side of the tugofwar, its our constituents, the people we represent. Those people are the ones who lose. So before we introduce the witnesses, id like to discuss or format today. Our panel does not consist of majority or minority witnesses. The witnesses have been called who have been called to testify today have been called by our Ranking Member and me jointly and we relied on the Congressional Research service to help us with Background Materials because we wanted just the facts. Next, while we will ask our experts to keep their opening to five minutes, our members are free to ask questions for as long as theyd like. Brevity is always rewarded, but we want to make sure that our members and our witnesses have ample time to discuss the issues. For the sake of this hearing, i would like to think there are no democrats or republicans. Finally, the only reason why we have been able to maintain a bipartisan approach, and i want to note just for the record is because of our Ranking Member, mr. Cole, and his very talented staff. And you continue to be a cl collaborative and helpful partner, and i so appreciate you and your commitment to this house as well as, you know, my staff and the members on both sides here. So our hope is that this process will help us find opportunities to reassert Congressional Authority that both sides can agree on. And having said that, im happy now to yield to our Ranking Member, mr. Cole, for any remarks that he wishes to make. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Vy a ci have a couple off the c remark s before i get to my prepared remarks. Normally when i come to this committee, i walk in thinking its 94. Today i think its 130. Because, frankly, whether youre a liberal democrat or a conservative republican, whichever side of the philosophical or partisan divide youre on, i thing theres probably a common sense throughout congress, honestly, not just on this committee, that theres been a many dedecadesg erosion of congressional north own theres time to do something about it. Were also 130 today because were all students and youre the instructors. In fact, some of us did our homework this weekend. I noticed mr. Perlmutter cramming right until the last minute. He was reading the testimony. And all of us probably are a little bit of awe, mr. Raskin, as the chairman pointed out, hes academically on par with all of you. But were very grateful for your participation. Mr. Chairman, let me add, againing iagain, im very grateful for your relationship. You established the rules committee as a model of civility in congress. A role for us, one we proudly claim under your leadership. Todays original jurisdiction hearing covers what my view is one of the most important issues face congress. The scope of Congress Power under article 1 of the constitution and the impact of separation of powers on governance. I want to thank chairman mcgovern for arranging todays hearing. Though the chairman and i disagree on a lot of things, Constitutional Authority entrusted to congress is not one of them. Indeed, we were both equally concerned about protecting Congress Power under article 1 of the constitution and were both equally concerned about the erosion of that authority over the past several decades. Though the shift has been gradual, congress has not only ceded its authority at times but presen president s of both parties have also claimed powers that belong to the legislative branch. The constitution very clearly vests all legislative power in the congress of the United States. And all executive power in the president of the United States. This was carefully crafted to create a system of checks and balances that prevents any one branch from becoming too powerful and allows our republic to thrive. So why, then, does congress over the years consistently allow the redurks ction of its own author . Im hopeful our Witnesses Today will shed some light on this and discuss where practices of the past went wrong. I think probably all of us as practicing politicians and legislators have some pretty interesting thoughts on, again, where we see weve fallen short, in many cases, of living up to our own responsibilities. With todays hearing, we will hear from four experts who allow us to put all of this into perspective. We will hear about the constitutional provisions affecting both the legislative and executive powers. And we will hear testimony on the history of how this has all unfolded and hopefully hear recommendations on what congress can do to reclaim its authority. At the end of this process, we may learn that there really is Nothing SpecificCongress Needs to do to reclaim and reassert its Constitutional Authority other than act decisively to do so. And utilize the tools currently available to us. Or we may discover that substantive changes do need to be made. Either way, im hopeful that congress can act in a bipartisan manner to effectively use the legislative power should it choose to do so. Todays hearing of the rules committee is an important first step in making that goal a reality. Finally, i want to invite us all to remember and ponder this. When our founders envisioned the grand american experiment and put pen to paper on the distribution and separation of government powers in the u. S. Constitution, they first described the powers entrusted to congress on behalf of the American People. Indeed, perhaps, the greatest power of the legislative branch established in article 1 is how closely connected it remains to the views of the nations citizens, as my good friend, the chairman, pointed out. With that, mr. Chairman, i want to thank you, again, for calling todays hearing. I want to thank our witnesses for being here today and for sharing their insights and expertise with us. I want to thank the staff on both sides of the dais for their hard work in putting this hearing together. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. Well, thank you very much. Im now delighted to introduce our panel of witnesses. Matt spaulding is the kirby professor and Constitutional Government and dean of the van andel graduate school of government as well as the Vice President of washington operations at hillsdale college. He is the bestselling author of we still hold these truths rediscovering our principles, we claiming our future. Also executive editor of the heritage guide to the constitution. Deborah pearlstein, director of law and codirector of the center for constitutional democracy at c rerks redozo sch. She served in the law and Public Affairs program at princeton university. Laura delmonte is professor of history. Dean of Virginia Tech college of li liberal arts. Author of is the queselling th way. Served on the u. S. Department of states Advisory Committee on u. S. Historical documentation from 2009 to 2019. And cy prakash, james monroe professor of law, senior fellow at the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the university of virginia. Also taught at princeton and the university of San Diego School of law. He clerked for Justice Clarence thomas. And i just oh. Yeah. And thank you, again, for all for joining us. Im going to begin with myou. Youre recognized for your testimony. Good morning, chairman mcgovern, Ranking Member cole, and members of the rules committee. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this hearing on how Congress Might reassert its Constitutional Authority and redress the current imbalance between the executive and legislative branches. I appear before you as a scholar who has studied the history of the United States for over 30 years, particularly the history of u. S. Foreign relations. Ive spent my career explaining how and why the role of the u. S. Government has shifted over time. In my Academic Work and publicfacing scholarly activities, i have tried to present passionate explanations of the machinery of government, actors who affect Public Policy change, and the reasons why certain events and individuals arise. My key aims today are to place the current state of affairs into Historic Context and to stress that the present imbalance between the executive and legislative branches is a result of a decadeslong shift, not a recent turn of events. The United States has one of the most brilliantly conceived and enduring frameworks of government in the history of the world. The constitutions articulation of separate powers for the three branches of government is the very essence of that system. A reflection of the framers fears of concentrated power. In preparing this testimony, i have reflected upon the final day of the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Eager for news about what type of government the framers had created, a crowd waited on the steps of independence hall. When Benjamin Franklin appeared, elizabeth willing powell, the hostess of one of philadelphias bestknown political salons and wife of the citys mayor, asked franklin, what do we have . A republic or a monarchy . He famously replied, a republic, if you can keep it. We as a nation are at a critical juncture where substantive action is needed if we are to keep the democratic republic the framers envisioned. The fact that you are convening this hearing is proof that you also recognize that. I am honored to be part of the discussion. Dr. Spaulding . Chairman mcgovern, Ranking Member cole, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify to the committee on rules. Like many of you, im concerned about the decline of congressional power relative to the modern executive and hasten to also add this is not a recent development. During this administration, the Previous Administration or many before that. My opinion, are simple tfr sympy of a decadeslong change in American Government of administrative rur administrative rule. Relationship between the increasingly powerful executive and weakening legislative branch seemingly unwilling to exercise its institutional muscles. My testimony makes three general points. First, the old ways of Constitutional Government have been replaced for the most part by a new form of bureaucratic rule. The rule of law based on consent. Three separate branches each with distinct powers, duties and responsibilities. Separations of powers to prevent the concentration of power. Encourage cooperation for the common good. The basic power of government is . The legislature because the essence of governing is centered on a legitimate authority to make laws. Congress most important power is control of the governments purse. As a check on the executive and the authority by which the legislature shapes national affairs. The president s vested with unique constitutional powers that do not stem from Congressional Authority. This is especially the case when it comes to war and National Security. The executive power is not unlimited, however, as the grant of power is mitigated by the fact that many traditionally executive powers were given to congress. This system was further divided between the national and state governments and system of federalism, leaving ample room for selfgovernment. The practical result was the United States was centrally governed under the constitution but administratively decentralized the state and local level. This began to change after the civil war when progressives advocated more administration in a new form of governing they called the Administrative State to remove or circumvent structural barriers and make government more unified and streamlined. President s of both Political Parties, Theodore Roosevelt and woodrow wilson, if particulan p advocated expanding the executive branch. The most significant shift in this balance of power occurred more recently, in my opinion, under the Great Society and its progeny in both parties. Agree with the policies or not, this expansion of regulatory activities on a societywide scale led to a vast new centralizing authority in the federal government and a vast expansion of regulatory authority, in particular. My second point, both congress and the presidency have adapted to these new ways but in the legislative executive battle to control the bureaucratic state, the executive has a distinct advantage. Congress was the first to adapt itself to this process by increasingly increasingly turned to backend checks such as the legislative veto that the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional, and has come largely to focus on postbudgetary oversight and afterthefact regulatory relief. The rise of the, what i like to call, the neoimperial presidency should not be that surprising given the overwhelming amount of authority delegated to decisionmaking actors and bodies largely under executive control. As Congress Expanded the bureaucracy, creating agencies, delegating lawmaking authority, losing control of details of budgeting, focusing on post hoc checks, the executive has grown and this is the general add to this the general breadth of executive discretion, as well as sometimes poorly written and confli