by these television companies and more, including cox. >> cox is committed to providing eligible families access to affordable internet through the connect to compete program. merging the digital divide merging one student at a time. cox, bringing us closer. >> cox supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers. giving you a front-row seat to democracy. >> get c-span on the go. watch the day's biggest political events live or on demand anytime, anywhere on our new mobile video app, c-span now. access top highlights, listen to c-span radio, and discover new podcasts all for free. download c-span now today. conti. host: brad smith is with us, former chair of the federal

election commission. he is also founder and chair of the, here with us to talk about his organization and their look american free-speech rights. good morning. guest: good morning, thank you. host: tell us about your organization, the institute for free speech. why did you found it, and what is your mission? guest: the institute for free speech, i originally founded shortly after i left the federal election commission in 2005 and the reason was that its mission was initially to focus strictly on political speech, that there was a sense that i noticed in the commission all the time of this certain denigrating core political speech, saying we need to equalize it, need to crack down on big money or something, whereas big money was funding the discussion of ideas in the united states and donors were pulling the resources to talk about political issues.

that is at the very core of the first amendment. over time, our mission has expanded to defend the first amendment in other areas, but with a core focus on people's ability to discuss issues of public importance in the public arena. we are concerned now, for example, about the ability of people to speak about ballot issues, about legislation generally, events at their local school board. anything like that, that pertains to discussion of public affairs in america because without that, democracy is pretty much doomed. we have to be able to talk about things. host: you mentioned donors and political speech. how about your donors? who funds your organization? guest: we don't disclose our donors. we are funded almost entirely by individuals. we get very limited corporate support. some of our money comes from

foundations but mainly it comes from individuals who are particularly interested in political speech host: let's start off talking about the school board protests, a headline from a week ago or so from the associated press. the attorney general says authorities will target school board threats, and your organization recently filed a lawsuit on behalf of pennsylvania -- of a pennsylvania family who felt they were being threatened while school board. explain that case to us. guest: that case is called -- in which we represent four plaintiffs who are suing the pennsbury school board, a district outside philadelphia. in that case, these individuals sought to comment during a public comment period at the school board meeting and very calmly began to comment on things pertaining to critical race theory in schools.

the school board civilly began to shout over them. the legal counsel to the school board literally cut them off midsentence and began yelling over them and screaming at them, you are done. it's remarkable to see, and you can find the clips on youtube. you can go to our site for a full briefing on the case. the way it works is, a school board or public body does not have to have a public comment period, but if they do, that becomes a limited public forum and the school district can't only allow people who agree with its policies to speak up. it can't only allow people who say what they want them to say to speak. if you will have a public forum, you have to let the public speak. these people were rationally trying to make a case and they were shouted down, talked over, cut out. in many cases, the school board was editing the remarks out of

official transcript of the meeting as if they never even spoke, and so that is a case where we are suing to vindicate their first amendment rights. if the school board is going to have a public comment period, it needs to allow the public to comment and ethic most of us agree that school boards should hear from their constituents. this is not a question. you can go find that video on youtube. you can go to our website to find the links, and it is shocking how these people were treated by what are supposed to be public are presented as. host: you mentioned that school board official who shouted down a member, some trying to speak in that meeting will stop a picture from the daily beast of another school board meeting where plenty of people were carrying signs, showing signs at the school board meeting. where is the balance? how should a school board, a town council, a city council

battle -- balance the rights of the people who want to testify and speak out, and the rights of the organization itself to conduct its business? guest: you can limit people who are disruptive, making it impossible to carry on legitimate government meetings and we also have to have certain restrictions on protests. -- they have a right to protest and air their views. if any state body -- the attorney general's memorandum said he was threatening to get the fbi involved, and moreover, most of the alleged incidents that were discussed in this

memorandum they got from the national association of school boards which appears to have been a coordinated effort to get an excuse to threaten people, most of these were perfectly peaceful incidents. the fact that a person gets upset or raises their voice is usually not a sufficient reason to shut that person down. they have to really be disruptive in a way that cuts off the ability of the government to function. certainly the mere fact that they disagree with government policy cannot be a basis to not allow them to speak. host: what should be done about people who actually gets threats against members of the school board or counsel? guest: those are traditionally handled as police matters and they are serious matters. you can't physically threat people, you can't get violent or disruptive so that other people cannot comment. those can be handled by local authorities and that is traditionally how it has been done in the united states, but again the key thing here is that

most of these commentators, most of these parents showing up at school board meetings to take this issue are not violent. they are not even raising their voices, they are just citizens who are concerned and what is happening, we see in school district after school district is that administrators are refusing to even hear their positions, and that is bad in and of itself but it is also bad because long-term if you don't let people express their concerns, if you make them feel their concerns are trivial and you don't care about them, people will start to gradually become more and more frustrated and that frustration is more likely to boil over in inappropriate ways. host: you mentioned the fbi allegedly eventually becoming involved. the attorney general said this, and part. those dedicate their time and energy to ensuring that our children receive a proper education in a safe environment deserve to be able to do their work without fear of their

safety. that apartment takes these threats seriously and is considering using its resources to discourage these threats, identify them when they occur and prosecute them when appropriate in the coming days. the pub and will announce a series of measures designed to address the rise income look conduct directed towards school personnel. and your history and's, what you have seen, how much criminal conduct is being directed at school boards, and where is the federal involvement here? what is the federal responsibility? guest: the answer to the first question, how much is -- i think the answer is very little. it is a big country with lots of districts and you can find episodes of people getting out of line or making threats and we can find that all over the place, from leftist causes from right wing causes, there are people who get out of line and do things they shouldn't do, and

that is part of the problem here. there is not much evidence that this is a major problem, that this is suddenly something that the fbi needs to be involved in as counterterrorism as opposed to isolating -- isolated incidents in which individuals who step over the line can be handled by local authorities, and i think many people view this as an intentional effort to intimidate and cut off criticism of these curriculum changes, sometimes called critical race theory or equity and inclusion -- they go by a lot of names but a lot of parents don't like this and they are concerned about this. at the institute for free speech , we don't take any stand on the theory but will we are concerned about is that parents have a right to be involved in their kids education and more importantly, to speak out on scorebook -- on school board policies they like or don't like. host: we are talking free-speech

issues and first amendment issues with fort or f -- with former fec chair, brad smith who founded the institute for free speech. we welcome your calls and comments. for republicans, the number is (202)-748-8001. democrats, it is (202)-748-8000. for independents and others, (202)-748-8002. another issue is the potential voting rights legislation coming up in congress, a revision of the for the people act is being considered and may come to a per luminary vote, certainly in the senate revised democratic voting bill. this is this revision, the freedom to vote act is the senate version, the revised version. among its changes to the for the people act, it would require super pac's and other groups to disclose donors. it would require political ads sold online to have the same

transparency as ads on radio and tv, including -- to ensure super pac's are not part of the campaign. your views, your organization's views on that potential legislation? guest: much of the legislation deals with voting rights matters and those are things we take no position on at the institute for free speech. not getting talked about enough are the kinds of speech and campaign issues that you just mentioned. several of those, i think there is a misunderstanding about a number of things. as you describe the legislation, it would require super pac's to disclose their donors. super pac's already disclose their voters -- their donors. that has already been the law. what they want to do instead is require the disclosure of people who are not necessarily supporting a particular ad, for example some but he might be a member of a group that is a not

-- that is not a super pac. maybe they are a member of the environment a group because they favor a carbon tax and they are concerned about climate change, but they oppose subsidies to green industries. they could find their name appearing as the person responsible for an ad emoting subsidies to green industries. in some ways, it is misleading, but the donors to super pac's are already disclosed. another thing the bill does is the federal election commission has already -- has always operated on a bipartisan commission. this could be a powerful weapon. one party could in control of it and use it to attack the other side and prevent them from campaigning effectively. it is always required bipartisan participation. the bill as it was set up would have done away with that requirement and sibley given the president's party a controlling

majority on the commission. that has been taken out but there has been a provision substituted which indirectly does away with the requirement for bipartisanship, essentially what it does is it says whatever general counsel decides will be the rule unless there is a bipartisan majority to overturn it, which means essentially you can have a partisan decision again. one of the problems the fec sometimes had was building the general counsel position. it is a very important position. the party often but heads on it. it becomes a situation where the general counsel -- where what the general counsel says goes. i don't see how the fec will ever fill the commission because the commissioners -- if they did, they could not be stopped. the fec would become exactly what it was designed not to be, which is a partisan weapon being used by one particular party. there are a number of problems in the bill.

the bill also regulates any speech that purports to promote attacks -- attack, support or oppose a candidate. ribs the might want to run an ad that says kyrsten sinema should vote to end the filibuster, is that an attack on her? is that rig leading the amount of money that -- it has a number of vague provisions like that, that are incorrect. i think it will stifle free-speech. we think the law goes way too far, that the compromise version does not address -- host: before we get to calls, you served in the early years of the bush administration on the federal election commission. you chaired the commission from 2005. what were some of the things that worked well and did not work so well and how you would

like to see that change? guest: i was appointed by president clinton to avery -- to a republican seat. the commission gets a lot of flack, i think on terror i think unfairly -- i think unfairly. most of the decisions are good, noting that when we regulate campaign speech, we are relating the core of the first amendment -- we are regulating the core of the first amendment. i think there has become a bit of an issue on the commission, in particular, commissioners are simply unwilling to compromise. one of the democratic commissioners has been intentionally trying to make it difficult for the fec to defend its decisions in court.

that means that the fec ends up not defending and you get default judgments. and this is creating -- they need to establish a sense of camaraderie. it would be helpful that -- complains a lot about the commission becoming discount -- dysfunctional but she is the one who's been there all that time. she is like 15 years over the expiration of her term and it would be helpful to get a new commissioner. host: let's go to calls and hear from michael in michigan, democrats line. caller: yes, i've got two points. one, in terms of the critical race theory that the gentleman mentioned at the beginning of his presentation.

critical race theory is a college theory and not being presented in elementary schools for sure. often times it is said that it is teaching kids to hate themselves. what kids? white kids? what about black kids who have lived under the tyranny of racism in this country? who in texas were taught that slavery was not a bad thing? guest: we don't take a position on the benefits or liabilities of teaching critical race theory or any other thing. one of the issues you have now is the rake -- there is a question of what is critical race theory. i think it is fair the parents are upset about a wide variety of doctrines they believe are taught in schools that go generally under that rubric and

we don't need to start parsing this down as to whether this is precisely what my former professor at harvard law school meant when he was talking about critical race theory. it is more the general curriculum. we take no position on the point that the caller makes. recently state that parents have a right to be involved in their kids education and to speak out publicly on it and speak in public comment periods and engage in peaceful protest or peaceful statements or demonstrations about what should be taught in their kid's schools. host: next up in los angeles, freddie is on the republican line. caller: my question is more general. at the end of the debate or discussion, my uncle would say i made a three with you but i will defend to my death your right to say it. i almost kind of rolled my eyes because of course, that's obvious. everyone knows that.

but something is happening in this country. i first noticed it in college in the 70's when i saw the letter to the editor who says freedom of speech is ok but you can't really hurt poor people are black people with your freedom of speech. you only have freedom of speech when it helps people and i say that is a stupid letter but then i see that is seeming to catch on more and more. why is it we all suddenly -- all of a sudden, freedom of speech is to emigrate it. there are more important things like critical race theory or whatever and i want to know what you think was the turning point that people were turning against freedom of speech? it is one of the principles of this country. guest: i agree with you that something has changed in the way that americans tend to view free-speech. it has been a fairly long

process. old-timers like me, we used to say sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. we realize that words do hurt people and there has been a movement more and more to where you can't say third and think -- certain things or you shouldn't say third and -- say certain things. we noted that you first have to have speech ultimately to test whether your ideas are right. we have disinformation and we have to tap down on disinformation. often times we only know disinformation in hindsight and we have situations like with covid, where for a long time -- we believed it could have jumped -- leaked from a lab or jumped from animals and now the generally excepted theory probably did come from a lab and there was a time when people were trying to stop anybody from suggesting the lab leak theory.

you can only get to the truth of things and good public policy if we can debate these issues and discuss these issues. the previous caller said we should be discussing race matters and i think that is right. people need to be willing to discuss these types of things. one of the criticisms is that crt tends to cut off that discussion. i don't know that it does but certainly we see that more and more, the people say i don't like what you are saying and i want to stop it. we also see it in the way people indirectly go after folks. it used to be if he didn't like what some buddy said, you just did your own speech. now when some buddy says something we don't like, there is an effort to destroy the person's ability to work, their ability to live, to get them fired from their job. we say we will hold them accountable for their speech. what does that mean, to try and

use force rather than persuasion? that is what we are doing, using force to prevent them from working or ruining their small business or to simply hound them and make their lives miserable are protesting outside their home at night. these are all very dangerous and undemocratic attitudes that we develop. the first amendment applies a strict lead to government efforts to regular speech, but the first amendment ultimately relies on the citizenry is willing to hear other ideas and recognizes the call -- organizes what the caller said, we disagree on this one but you have a right to say it. host: do you think the citizenry, that we've gotten less receptive to hearing those other ideas over the years? guest: i think definitely we have. there is this tuning out of opposing views. some of this goes to how our media is fragmented and people

can be presented only with views they already agree with. there are a number of studies that show that when people get in that echo chamber, they gradually become more and more extreme or imagine if you are in a committee meeting and you have a committee meeting with eight liberals on the committee, they will talk in a way. if there are six liberals and two conservatives, they will talk differently. it is the different -- it is the same if you flip-flopped it with conservatives. having that diversity of views matters and gets people loose -- used to listening to each other. we are all citizens of this country, we are not people because we disagree on issues that we care a lot about, and we need to be able to talk about these issues because if we can't talk about them, if persuasion doesn't matter, then what are you left with? you are left with force and that is not a good way to live. host: we will hear from nelson

in california, good morning. caller: i agree with some of the things he is saying but the thing that these conservative think tanks -- i was a republican for four decades until they started going after liz cheney and adam kinzinger. i was a black conservative way before donald trump was a republican. he became a white nationalist savior with the republicans. if you can't say anything against what the governor of texas is doing, are not really having any integrity because he is stopping people from teaching rosie -- rosa parks. the state of texas was founded entirely on slavery. it was illegal in texas when it was owned by mexico but then the

slavers came in like ted bowie, and then they tried to take mexico and make it a slave state and then they fought for the confederacy to make all america. host: brad smith, anything to comment on? guest: i don't know what the curriculum is in texas. i don't know personally anybody nor have i seen anybody advocate that we not teach about things like rosa parks or the civil rights movement or slavery, but here is the thing. if one thinks that is true, one needs to be able to go and talk to their local school board, they may need to organize a demonstration or protest to say we want a curriculum that is appropriate. imagine if you were giving the comments that are caller just gave and i or bill juster did yelling over them, you are done, you're out of here. that is what happened at that pennsbury school board meeting, when people tried in a public comment session to talk calmly

about what they thought should be treated in schools. that is the kind of thing we are concerned about and it is vitally important that we be able to discuss these issues. what is the proper balance, when we go from teaching an honest history of race to something that seems tendentious or not grounded in fact. that can go both ways. some people think too much whitewash his history and some people think there is too much blaming americans. that is a tough issue and we need to be able to debate it. host: a question for you from jd in florida who asks, isn't voting rights a fundamental right of speech and why doesn't your organization fight for these encroachments -- or fight these encroachments? guest: voting rights have a speech element but generally i think the purpose of voting is to elect government.

your vote is secret, so i think voting is very important but its main function is how we elect people. in terms of fighting for free speech, you have to pick and choose your battles. we are a very small organization, our budget is somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.5 million. we are dwarfed by most organizations run washington. you pick your fights that matter and for us, we want to focus on people -- focus on things more directly later to people's speaking issues. not just the context of elections but more broadly, to talk about in our daily lives. we don't have any election period in the united states for they can call an election and you have six weeks to campaign. we always talk about politics and public affairs and that is what our organization has chosen

to focus on. host: a little less than 15 minutes left with our guest, brad smith, a hearing on the customs and border patrol nominee, chris magnus, the current tucson chief of police, that is coming up live at 9:30 eastern. we welcome your calls and comments until then. democrats and republicans, it is -- republicans, it is (202)-748-8001. democrats, it is (202)-748-8000. independents, the number is (202)-748-8002. brett smith come out i wanted to ask about the issue of misinformation. a pew research poll from a couple weeks ago from august shows that roughly half of u.s. adults, 48 percent now say the government should take steps to restrict false information, even if it means losing some freedom to access and publish content. what are your thoughts on that? guest: i think the 48% of people probably think what they say would never be deemed false.

that is the danger of giving this power to the government. the idea of the first amendment was that we don't give that power to the government or to anybody, rather ideas go out in the marketplace and there, they are tested. if we say some idea is false, then a year and a half ago, we would have said you can't talk about the covid lab leak theory. you can't tell people they should wear a mask because the original cdc guidance with people should not wear a mask. you could do that with other issues. you can't talk about russian collusion, that's false. you can't talk about -- you can pick your issue. most things in political discussion are really questions of politics and interpretations of facts, but even things that are factual statements have to be able to be challenged.

people have to be able to challenge them. it is not only that you only know your argument that if you know what other people say about it, but also ultimately that you can't prove or test your argument and if you never allow dissenting voices, these things become stale and dry and we forget why they are important and it leads to poor public policy, poor public debate and a worse democracy. you sickly can't have democracy if you're going to go around saying what that guy says is false so we're going to stop it. you have to let these things before it out. if you think what they say is false, you go out and explain why it is false, and you need to keep in mind that if they have the political power and you set the tone that you can silence fall speech, they might say what you are saying is false and you might find that you are not allowed to speak your opinions. host: let's hear from lisa in

texas. caller: good morning. governor abbott has sued our schools, biloxi school district and i see what on the local news, a handful of parents actually hired an attorney to speak on the behalf of their children not wearing masks. where does it end? guest: again, mask mandates are something we don't take a position on, but we do take a position on the ability of parents or others to be able to argue that we should or should not have mask mandates. one thing that people can do to make their speech more we do take a position on the ability of parents or others to be able to argue that we should or should not have mass mandates.

one -- mask mandates. one thing people should do to make their speech more effective is to hire an attorney if necessary or spokesperson. we related to campaign-finance or something. -- relate it to campaign-finance or something, saying you should speak on your own. a lot of times speeches made it more effective by the ability to hire someone to do it for you. some people don't know how to stand up in a public meeting or make effective radio ads area often by allowing people to come together as a group to full resources and hire an attorney to represent them, we enhance public speech and the debate in public. ultimately, school boards have to make a decision. mask mandate or not? the government needs to make a decision. whatever decision is weaned -- is made, people have a right to criticize it. secretary cardona: on our

republican -- post: on our republican line, doc. i live in the nation's capital, washington, dc. what i have noticed in the d.c. superior court, particularly with one judge. and, this is a very liberal town. judge elizabeth wayne gone on the d.c. superior court is ricotta find what i believe to be laws on the d.c. books. as it relates to the what you are talking about with preempting speech and having due process, talk to me about how you feel about speech being abridged that is not harassing, not hostile speech or threatening speech, but, just speech in general and how they d.c. superior court is re-codifying things at abridging

speech and ignoring the argument, as you put it, which i really appreciate you saying that way. when you limit the speech, you limit the persons ability to make an argument. we have lost that in our society. the ability to debate issues and be heard. host: thank you don. we will hear from brad smith asked. guest: i am not familiar with particular rulings out of the d.c. superior court. historically, the rule in the u.s. was you could state your opinions. there were very rare exceptions if your opinion was likely to imminently incite a riot, imminent danger of inciting a riot. then, it might be limited. but those are very rare circumstances the fact that people might be persuaded by an

idea, might act on it, is not a basis for censoring that idea. i favor old traditions. i think we are very fortunate that in recent years our supreme court has been very protect evolve free-speech in a wide variety of circumstances. i fear, as i talked about earlier, that our society is becoming more and more -- i think they presume they will be the ones never centered. i've forced them to quit speaking by distorting their ability to earn a living, threatening them, so on.

these things are bad for democracy. used to be said way back in the founding era that given a choice we would rather have their newspapers and free speech. we are forgetting that. ultimately we get to good policies only by having good, vigorous, peaceful debate. >> in terms of preemptive speech, would an example be when d.c. and federal officials in washington consider the request of those arrested on january 6? there was a rally over the summer. it was fairly small, but, there were plenty of police on -- and other presence there. it is. for speech a consideration on those officials on what the potential outcome may be of a speech like that or an event like that? guest: under a supreme court

precedent, you cannot limit that kind of speech unless it appears likely to incite imminent riot. i don't think that is there. i did not follow those events closely, but, i some reason -- saw no reason to think anybody was inciting a riot. the government cannot just generally suppress protests, demonstrations, a speaker on the theory that, again, maybe people will hear them and be persuaded. the government cannot do that. that is what the first amendment is intended to prevent. >> but the government can prescribe the size of a rally or the venue given to those who would like to make that speech or demonstration of any kind, correct? guest: when somebody wants to protest in public spaces, the government can put certain limits in place. they should not be based on viewpoint. you cannot say, we are going to allow the folks who want to

prosecute the january 6 rioters to have their demonstration. and, those who want to say, defendant the january 6 patriots. they don't get to protest. you can't have that kind of discrimination involved. but, the government can put certain limits, at least, on time and place of demonstrations. host: we have a couple more calls. we will hear from valdes in mapleton, illinois on the independent line. >> good morning. i am a former soldier, enlisted, not drafted. also, a retired police officer. people have been talking about freedom to speak for many years, mr. smith. if you're reading of history tells you people tried to peacefully petition the government in the 60's and were beaten down, it is not a new phenomenon that people are going to classroom then dust -- just

trying to speak. your organization should go back. you are seeing a group of people now feeling as if they will be in a minority, which is true. that is what they do not like. that is what they are uncomfortable with. i think you should expand. you seem to be only focused on certain issues when you knew nothing about what that gentleman from -- you talked about the texas curriculum that governor abbott tried to change. expand your thinking a little bit. thank you. guest: it is unfortunate that i was not around to form the institute for free speech in the 1960's. i was a great schooler. what we are focused on today peoples rights to speak about political matters. if people want to go and speak in front of texas school boards about the needs for more accurate treatment of slavery and ranch -- race relations and get shouted down by school boards we will try to defend

their rights to. -- rights too. host: let's hear from iris in tampa, florida. caller: i fully agree with the concept of free speech. it was put in the constitution so we can have accurate dissemination of news and facts. however, in today's environment, free speech has been weaponized. people can go and say whatever they want. in a violent manner, to stir up unlawful actions. we stated that if that happens, then refer to the police. it is too late then. i think we have -- it has come to the point where we have to have some kind of guidelines for people to express free speech. i watch the hillsborough county school board meeting a couple of months ago.

i listen to it for two hours. i was appalled at the violent nature of the parents who were against the masks and vaccines, how they threaten school board members. and, the school board members cannot say anything to put a stop to it. i was raised, my grandmother, we were raised that if you speak you have to be polite. you express yourself. but you do not do it in a violent manner. we need to protect free speech the way it was intended to be. guest: as i have tried to emphasize throughout, you are right that there is speech that gets out of line that can be dealt with by local police. the vast majority of cases in the u.s. are people speaking normally, politely, and rationally to school boards.

to the extent that they are silenced, we will defend that action. to the extent that people acting properly and are not allowed to speak because we view their space as dented information or inciting people to bad things, if we do not let them speak, eventually, it is more likely it will boil over in the kind of behavior you rightly criticized. so, the first amendment has always been for the idea that you can basically say whatever you want within very broad parameters. that is something that has been very beneficial for the u.s.. we are going to be in big trouble if we start thinking that we can trust the government with the power to decide who has spoken too much or too little, who is telling the truth and who was not, it was spreading disinformation or his speeches particularly dangerous -- whose speech is particularly dangerous because of positions they take.

the first amendment was meant to enshrine that for us and make sure we don't censor speech. host: from florida on the republican line, kurt, go ahead. >> you being -- caller: you being in fcc commissioner, i believe speech is regulated by the sec versus what you can say on broadcast media. would that extended to your opinion the internet? twitter, facebook, things like that? host: to clarify, he was former fec commissioner. guest: the fec regulates political campaigns. campaign-finance. the core difference, at least in theory, was, that with broadcast you have a limited amount of space, a limited number of networks. the networks only have a certain 24 hours a day to put material

on. with the internet, twitter, facebook, there is no limit to how much people can speak. i am not sure you can effectively transport a lot c-span now has you cover. down load the app for free today. >> you can be part of the national conversation by participating in c-span's stay tuned cam video competition. if you're a middle or high school student we're asking you to create a five to six-minute documentary that answers the

question, how does the federal government impact your life? your documentary must show opposing and agreeing points of view on an issue about the federal government in your community. c-span's student cam competition awards $100,000 in total cash prizes and you have a shot at a grand prize of $5,000. entries must be received before january 20, 2022. for competition rules or just how to get started visit our website at studentcam.org. ♪

>> the house returns shortly at 6:30 p.m. eastern to vote on bills debated earlier today. over at the white house president biden met separately with progressive and moderate members of the democratic party including program la jayapal whe with reporters after the meeting about spending bills.