congress have the powetoo that. >> congress had the power at the time.do it tomorrow with that fall outside congress's power? has to be, the plenary power, at least two things to bear in mind ahis. when congress, dealing with a tribe and its political capacity has power to diminish the tribe -- regulate the tribe's exercise of its governmentalrity like under the indian civil rights act. that dealing with tribes in political capacity. where congress is addressing the protections for individual indians, children, adults, however, that is what triggers the formulation of the trust status of tribes.or dependent it has to be reasonably related to cs's unique obligation. it has protected. >> can congress and act a l that alters the substantive law states apply in areas like contract or torts or rules of evidence? when one of the parties in the case is an india >> the mere fact the party is an indian would probably not be sufficient. >> why isn't that rationally related to furthering the inteof indians? >> i think and -- in examining any hypothetical statute or

. >> if this is within congress' authority then there is nothing that cannot be regulated by congress if it touches upon inindias. >> how about the congress touches on other laws, kidnapping and disputes among states. and justice sotomayor mentions, foreign sereigns it speaks there, won't question that authority. it would be odd t think it could not do the same here? >> wh respect to the latter point of congress. ha power to enact laws to implement treaties, i think hague convention typ legislation is unremarkable. >> parent kidnappg statute. >> iill confess to not being familiar with that. >> we'll put, that side then, you say impossible under the treaty power, what if congress tomorrow adopted a treaty within the tribes >> it would -- i tnk it perhaps would be one the article one power. >> that is my question. >> how about under the spending clause? >> that is how congress regulates the states in multiethnic placement act. >> it could do it in article one, you are complaining it is down under indian commerce claus >> that is ourent, we're not saying that congress is powerless in thi

that is exactly what you are describing where gives congress the option, it puts the ball and congresses core after an agency has written a rule and said do you want the agency to go forward, yes or no. the default would be no unless congress acts. so there we are talking about a larger number of regulations potentially that would be affected but now we're talking into the -- it's a good question how many but certainly less than probably 100 per year. with that question with that, as a practical -- practical matter, how much bandwidth does congress have to act on resolutions like that or approvals of regulations like that? compared to occasionally taking up a disapproval. so it flips the default and asks congress to take a much more active hand in the regulatory process and -- process that they have been taking today. sometimes when people talk about the reins act, they feel he could gum up the works on non-controversial or rules were legislators do not have an issue. the way it is with the congressional review act, it leaves the ball in congress is court to act if they want to disapprov

you also outline ways steps where congress steps that congress can take. one is the filibuster. one is one is the debt. you have eight worthy efforts. can you kind of show us or tell some of those eight worthy efforts that they need to take to overcome where we are now? and are you hopeful? are you optimistic? i mean, there are days when i am when i see i don't see any hope the congress is going to is ever going to get out of this cycle. well, i'm not as pessimistic as you are. i think there are ways to get out of it, but it's it's going to be a long effort, a long, long term effort. what's a worthy step? well, these were the efforts that i've discussed in here really are more history. i talked about the different things that we tried to during the 30 years i was there in the senate and things that got in the way, the impediments i discussed five impediment is that that got in the way us doing what we needed do or should have done in some of these areas. take climate change for an example, congress has not even yet, even though we've passed a significant bill, congress passed a

that one june 15th congress and then just three in the 117th congress. explain why this doesn't seem to be that successful that often, and what the heck was going on in the 115th congress. >> yeah, and just to put those numbers into context, in any given year, federal agencies issued several hundred rules, and so when you think about the types of numbers that you are talking about, one, three, even 16, it is a very small portion of the total number of rules that go out of the door. so the first time it was used was after the end of the clinton administration, there was a labor rule related to workplace safety and ergonomics that was disapproved by the next administration. and that is a trend that you will see in the data that the congressional review act tends to be used to disapprove rules right at the beginning of a new administration when the white house has changed control in terms of the parties that are in the white house. and that is because it is very unlikely that a sitting president would disapprove his own rules. so because the resolutions of

18 that hundred and 15 congress. then it just three in the 117th congress. explain why this doesn't seem to be that successful that often. and what was going on in 115 congress. >> just to put those numbers into context. any given year, federal agencies issue several hundred are rules. when you think about the types of numbers you're talking about. one, three, even 16. it's really a very small portion of the total number of rules that go out the door. the first time it was used was after the end of the clinton administration. there was a label rule related to workplace safety and our gunnar mix that was disapproved by the next administration. that is a trend you'll see in the data. the congressional review act and be used to disapprove rules. right at the beginning of a new administration when the white house has changed control. in terms of the parties that are in the white house. that's because it's very unlikely that a sitting president would disapprove his own rules. because the resolution to disapproval have to

i think the court is focused on tryi tensure that congress -- congress's role is rpected. that has argued in favor of reading this text in line with he plain language suggests. these arwords of >> that certainly is the case here. >> that is right, this is not a politically significant action. not just a politically significant action but one that has the attention of congress. the fact that it has not acted under the major questions doctrine but hasondered the matter for the notion th mbe it should be one for congress. ifou are talking about this in the extract -- abstract most casu observers would say if that is of great controversy,t they would think that is some for congress on. if they have not act on it navy that is a good lesson for the presidt the administrative bureaucracy that may be that is not some bay should undertake on their own. >>ete react. first is to emphasize that the un-enacted legislation that the stat a pointing to hear did not mirror the particarof this plan it would not be right to say that congress was focused on this plan and ifheourt were to go d

congress was a much smaller operation. committees have always been with congress. the house has always had the senate's always had them. why so? as you mentioned, committees have really been essential institutions in congress. its inception and the way that i like to think about it is that committees exist because congress is a huge institution and it has to deal with a huge number of issues. as we all know, watching it. and so it needs to delegate responsibility and, ownership in some way. and does this through committees. committees are really where it delegates responsibility to look more deeply and take ownership of different issues committees are where members can special eyes in a topic and take ownership it and deliberate and understand policies more deeply. committees also a way then of decentralizing power within the chamber and more legislators to be involved in different ways in. the process again just like many other big organizations that we might of and in terms of how committees actually function in the proc

but i believe congress is up to the challenge.o years in congress have been the most successful of the last 30 years, historic infrastructure legislation, the chips and science bill which tom referred to, the american rescue plan, and the largest clean energy package ever. most of these were done with bipartisan support under my leadership as majority leader. so don't count congress out. i know many of you have spentt months calling on us to act. i hear you. i hear you loud and clear, and many of my colleagues from botht sides of the aisle hear you loud and clear as well. so today i want to outline a two-part proposal to move us forward on ai, one part on framework, one part on process. first, congress needs a framework for action. what should our framework be? what issues within ai should we look at to prepare legislation after months of talk with over a hundred ai developers, executives, scientists, researchers, workforce experts, advocates? this morning i'd like to share my proposed framework for action. i call it the safe inno

that is congress's job. congress, in 1952 took out t very words the government now asks this court to wri i solicit, and assist. in 1986, congress took at the required intent. the government has cited no case in which congress has used the terms enure and induce alone to stand for solicitaon or aiding and abetting. seconds, evn you consider the statutes limited to solicitation or aiding and abetting, thisou should not create a new categorof unprotected speh. namely, crimina solicitation of sever law violatis. the historical roots of that exception are limited to solicitation of crimes. and for good rso if the justification for -- as categoricly unprotected is that it is integrato conduct that the govnmt can punish, and the speech cannot be punished re harshly than that conduct. this court has consistently resisted prior invitations to expand categories of unprotected, speh d to do the same here. otherwise, congress and the states wl free thut any first amendment scrutiny to criminalize ee soliciting violatio

and who i succeeded in congress.ade a point of saying we should find some time to get to know each other. it was a meaningful moment a few weeks into the start of my congressional journey. and a small gesture that meant a lot to me. as i was trying to find my place in the people's house. paul ryan is a good man. a family man. a principled man. a thoughtful man. a hardworking man. a green bay packers fan. sorry about aaron rodgers. but we'll take good care of him in new york. in his farewell address to congress, speaker ryan stated, the ultimate proving ground of politics is truly making a difference in people's lives. speaker ryan served in these halls and made a difference. he proved himself a fierce and sincere advocate for his authentically held values. he decried the rising bitterness in our political discourse. and he helped make big things happen, such as historic criminal justice reform. a leader among leaders, we thank you for your impact. service to this nation. congratulations. [applause] >> ladies and gent

i'm new to congress. so maybe i don't see the same problems that other congressmen and congresswomen do. i know the people. i have yet to hear one constituent say we need more regulation. i have one -- nobody's telling me they want the president to make universal decision force all of us. the fact is, we are out of balance. congress doesn't have the same power it's supposed to have enumerated in the constitution of the united states. the fact that we have made a president that can spend more money than we can save is the exact reason why i just voted against the lifting of the deficit cap. i can sum this up in one thing. you just said from the other house we said look, we make hundreds of rules by the bureaucracies. hundreds of rules. per year. how can we address that in congress? that's the problem. we spend half our time in congress litigating and debating the rules made by bureaucracies. you are right, we don't have time for that. we don't have time to tell you we shouldn't put people in jail for somet

to do some of the things that you want congress to do? address these drivers of that, medicare, social security. it is one less tool to try to the congress to think about spending, some would say. guest: it would be nice if congress did need massive leverage points in order to execute the basic path of government. we could have some leadership in congress, leadership in the white house that says look, we have a problem, and we need to solve. that's not as crazy as it sounds. we've seen that in the past, during the reagan administration. spending on social security was reduced, and those reforms have stuck. there's reason to believe that congress and the president don't need these kinds of points of potential catastrophe in order to actually reforms of these programs and address the structural deficit. but there are also lots of other leverage points. the social security program and the medicare program are going to face funding crises within the next decade. that will create a situation where benefits paid out by those programs are going

that is congress's job. inongress in 1952, they took outhe very words the vernment now asks the court to write in. solicits and assis. in 1986 congress took out the quired intent. the government has cited no pace at which congrs s used the term encouraged and induced alone to std r solicitation or aiding and abetting. second, even if you confuse the statute alited to solicitation or di and abetting, the court shouldot create a new category of unprotectedpeech, namely, criminal solicitation of civil law violations. the historical roots of that exception are limited to solicitation of crime and for good reason. if the justification for treating speech as categorically unprotected ishait is integral to conduct the governntan punish, tn, the speech cannot be punished re harshly than that conduct. so, the court has consistently resisted prior invitations to expand categories of unprotected speech and it should do the se here. otherwise, congress and the states will be free without any first amendment scrutiny to

now he had good friends and allies in congress, but he was not generally liked by members of congress the conservative wing of the republican party who thought he was too much of a progressive. well, as he progresses in the republican party, the so-called rhinos of the day of la follette and norris of nebraska and, they were called by one of the conservative senators, sons of the wild --, because they were so cantankerous and not club able. they work in harmony and they held the kind of, the balance of power in the senate and. many of them hated hoover, whom they thought was of insufficient progressive. and one historian once said of hoover that he was too progressive for the concern over this and too conservative for the radicals. so he kind of fell in between. so i think trump ford was did come to be disliked the way that hoover came to be disliked. trump rather run. ford did not have the same weight to bear in personal terms. hoover it was personalized for hoover, you know, there were in this country, some of you have heard these are unemployed people, living in shantytowns on, the

congress could have to approve them. congress could ask. you know, i was i found it interesting whenever i testified, congress no one said to me, are you accomplishing your mission? what is what are the goals of this program? you know i believe that every program should be looked and and congress say, what are we trying to accomplish here? and are we. and if we're not, maybe we ought to think about doing this program differently and improving it. the problem is oversight by congress involves a lot of work and involves a lot of effort, but they really should these programs instead of the program just simply being on autopilot. you're in, you're out. the fights on the budget are never about dramatically decreasing the program. what they're really about is how fast are we going to increase the program? and and what does it mean when we and and those are questions that if if you we have limited resources and you assume we want the best outcomes we can have and we're in the middle of a technical technological revolution. you think congress would

your message to congress on abortion. caller: my message to congress is stay out of it. it is a very divisive issue. congress has no business. it should be handled by the states. your first caller stole my thunder. she expressed it beautifully. if congress gets involved, it should be at the very surface level. host: in what way? caller: let's say estate has gone overboard -- a state has gone overboard, extreme. they want to prosecute a woman that travels out of state to get that abortion. that is just an extreme point of view and there should be no prosecution whatsoever. your first caller expressed it very well. host: the house gop conference chairwoman held a news conference on this will your anniversary and called for 15 week federal abortion ban. do you agree with that? caller: well, yes. that is reasonable. a woman has lots of opportunities to not have a child. she can use a prolactin. they could take a day after pill. they should not wait until the baby has taken form, a heartbeat. that is a moral. -- that is immoral. congress should not put us back into a position

but congress must pass each one of those bills, both housings of congress -- both houses of congress, by september 30. if you include this week, the senate is in session only 10 weeks before then, so we have no time to waste. as i said, in those ten weeks we need to pass the defense authorization bill, 12 appropriations bills, an faa reauthorization, and a farm bill, and those are just some of the big-ticket and most urgent items on on the to-do list. we also need to reauthorization section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act before it expires at the end of this year. this is an absolutely essential tool used by our intelligence community in order to detect threats to our nation and our national security. and it's an absolutely must-pass, must-do piece of legislation. then of course there is the never-ending humanitarian and security crisis at the border. we need to continue our work to crack down on fentanyl trafficking. again, unleash the power of american energy, ensure that ukraine, together with our allies, be sure that ukraine has the tools it needs to win its fight

it's unlike anything congress has dealt with before. it's not like labor or healthcare or defense were congress had a long history to work off. experts are not even sure which questions they should be asking. at the last two years in congress have been the most successful for the last 30 years. historic infrastructure legislation. the american rescue plan into the largest clean energy package. most of these were done with bipartisan support under my leadership as majority leader so don't count congress out. i know many of you have spent months calling on us to act. i hear you loud and clear and many colleagues on both sides of the aisle hear you loud and clear as well. so today i want to outline a two-part proposal to move us forward on the ai. one part on framework, one part on process. first congress needs a framework for action. what should the framework be? what issues should we look at to prepare legislation. with over 100 developers, scientists, researchers i would like to share my framework for action. i call it the state innovat

it's up to congress to do that. so while the president was blaming republicans for this sort of falling apart, it really started with nancy pelosi. it was her arguments on the house floor that was used in the majority opinion to shoot this down. secondly, just want to explain a couple of things. the president is talking right now about rejiggering this so student debt relief can still go forward working through his education secretary, miguel cardona. that plan will work through the programs that we already have. student debt relief program we already have. but some say it's sort of like moving a shell game here when it comes to what programs are available and what you can use. the fact of the matter is, the president did overstep his bounds. you don't have to be on the right or left about this. a lot of his people knew it was a hail mary pass and department pan out. this was not a republican pile-on here. this was a big concern on the part of many what you do for some, you're not doing for all and loans that you're

in short, congress and within congress the ways and means committee oversees trade policy and we should continue to defend that position. i will now turn to our strong support for the people of taiwan. congressional democrats are unwavering in their support for the people of taiwan. a people who have built a robust and thriving democracy that serves as a beacon in the region. as taiwan faces incredible pressure from its authoritarian neighbor, it is try vie tall that this institution stand and support our democratic partner. strengthening bilateral trade relations with taiwan also strengthens our shared determination to preserve democracy at home and abroad. as we see growing aggression toward democratic values and troubling erosions of the rule of law, it is critical that american trade policy reflect our global commitment to promoting democracy and peace. the biden administration has reflected this commitment by prioritizing america's economic and trade relationship with taiwan, a priority undoubtedly shared by congress. the taiwan implementation act demonstrates congress' strong supp

it's congress that taken its hands off of any checking function congress that for the first 200 years of our history, regularly pulled all of these levers to keep the court in line. congress tells the court in 1802, don't coming in dc, we're not going to have a term this year. congress the court in 1868. oh, you think you're to decide the legality of reconstruction? no. go home. 1964 congress gives every federal judge pay raise, but gives the supreme justices a very like middle, tiny pay raise because they were mad at them. right. so there are levers congress has pulled historically to keep the court from veering into, you know, deeply problematic procedural holes that is not pulling. so you say that if the if if congress wanted to to effectively end the use of the shadow docket, congress could do it. yeah, i yes, but i want to stress because i think this a point that justice alito dines out on that isn't actually an accurate summary of the critique. the problem is not the shadow docket. shadows are not inherently nefarious. right. the problem is how court is using it, and so does the

and yet the court follows what congress says it should? >> i think, senator, it is clear that congress does have authority to regulate the supreme court. indeed, separation of powers doesn't mean that one branch of government is entirely independent of the others. congress regulates many aspects of the supreme court, including the size of the, court the salary of the justices, its budget, a quorum requirements. as far back as the judiciary act of 1789, congress has been in the business of making manifest the article three promise that there will be a supreme court, but without article one legislation that this congress can pass, that article three promise would be a parchment promise at best. >> i'm not saying this as they, would put those on the other side argue that congress has authority when it comes to those elements you just mentioned. but doesn't have the authority to impact the decision-making of the court. they draw that line. do you recognize that same distinction? >> i think in the prior hearing, professor amanda frosted a nice

pro-life leaders, former member of congress musgrave, members of the media. it is my great pleasure to introduce our guest. we supported her early on, what susan b. anthony pro-life america loves to do for women who are models of what it means to be a pro woman and pro-life elected official. i have introduced a lot of people in this town over the years. i introduce people all the time. the resumes are fantastic. i'm going to refer to you as elise, if you don't mind, for just a minute. it's rare that you can say i actually like congresswoman elise stefanik and it's also very rare that as an over achiever she's very likable. also a rare commodity in this town. what do i mean by overachieving? . first woman ever elected to her district, the great district of new york 21. most of all she is the youngest mom in congress, the most important thing in that list. not bad for a harvard grad overachiever. she comes from a long lan of overachievers and i refer to all women who helped to make america great and stepped up when there were great human rights wrongs going on

he tried to get the bill through congress. he knew he needed an appropriations bill and change to statutory leg which. when he failed to get that through he then take unilateral action. he knew that was wrong. keeping the federal executive in its place and rolling back the administrative state is critical to the freedoms we enjoyed across the u.s. and missouri. >> did you know or feel that the case was likely to come out this way? >> i think the first answer is i don't ever want to get into the speculation game. we got nine incredibly smart, thoughtful justices. each have some nuanced principal positions that they used to interpret the constitution. you never want to get into the production game. having said that, coming out of oral argument i felt good about the questions asked. we had five justices who signed onto the chief's opinion and did not ask any questions to challenge our general knowledge. we certainly felt good about that. but you never know until the opinion comes down and we were on pins and needles like everyone

what is the role of congress versus the role of state legislators? >> i believe the federal level we do have a role to play by ensuring no taxpayer dollars goes towards funding abortion and also having a minimum of 15 weeks bill with exceptions for rape, that's legislation i support. then states are able to continue to sign up for strong pro-life legislation but it's important both the federal and state level those are elected officials that make e those decisions rather than radical judges. who frankly took the voice away from the american people when they took that away from legislators. we rightly have that back and it's our responsibility . >> thank you so much, i'm so grateful for you. [applause] ... [inaudible] ... [inaudible] >> saturday, march 1 anniversary of the supreme court's decision overturning roe versus wade. former vice president mike pencjoins the celebrate life rally at the lincoln memorial. or online at c-span.org. >> live sunday, author and professor francis fuyama returns to talk and take calls aboutpolitics, international affai