the federalists in congress. and we shouldn't pretend that just made everything work out smoothly in and of itself. the 1790s were an exceptionally nasty decade of politics in history. but that's not my subject. i'm just going to sort of say we we see a situation where we we need to organize a faction in congress. but partizan organization introduces its own problems. let me fast forward about eight decades to another observer of congress that is the political scientist, wilson woodrow wilson, as a as a doctoral student at johns hopkins university, wrote a book that became probably the bestselling work of american political science in history and it's called congressional. most people remember it today, a famous pronouncement that congress in committee is congress at work. that's sort of the most famous. but wilson wasn't wasn't just writing a textbook. the book is quite polemical, and he's very concerned that the congress of his day was, again a place where special interests were predating on the american that a

and republican congresses. what makes this group unique is they have represented four whistleblowers have gone before congress and they do have this unique skill set with their connections to chuck grassley. host: were all of those whistleblowers related to the biden investigation? guest: two are with the fbi, speaking out about things they saw and the justice department. two are with the irs, specifically with the hunter biden case. host: about 10 more minutes with our guest. we go to the nation's capital, democrats line. caller: hello. good morning c-span. i just want -- i'm a little speechless because there is a lot of american business that is not being dealt with under this congress. this congress reminds me of -- it is almost like you are watching a reality tv show. i think that if more people like jason lee or those bloggers actually investigated political parties, this country will blow up. the same way they investigated athletes and entertainers. they need to start going after politicians. i'm so sick

congress must act. beginning with the foreign intelligence surveillance act which was passed more than 30 years ago in collecting and using foreign intelligence, the government must show there is not only probable cause to believe the target of foreign intelligence is an agent of a foreign power but foreign intelligence gathering is the primary purpose of the collection. the 9/11 attack and significant advances in technology, the needs shifted considerably yet stymied by the need to get surveillance which requires manpower which presented to congress by law enforcement. in response, congress passed the f.a.a. of 2008 that authorizes the federal government to collect massive amounts of information on people outside the united states. congress has granted agencies within the u.s. intelligence community this authority and section 702 as they may gather foreign intelligence information to seek out, pursue threats from foreign terrorists and nation states that mean to harm us. together these statutes have be

i think the court is focused on trying to ensure that congress -- congress's role is respected. that has argued in favor of what the plain languagene with suggests. the are not words 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 cones the facthait has not acted under the major questions doctri b has considered the matter for theotn that maybe it should be one for congress. if you are talking about this in the extract -- abstract most casual observers would say if you're going to give tch amount of money on the s that is of great controversy, they would think that is some foress to act on. if they have not act on inavy that is a good lesson for the esident or the administrative bureaucracy that may be that is not some bay should undern their own. >> let me react. first is to emphasize that the un-enacted legislation that the states are pointing to hear did not mirror e rticulars of this plan it would not be right to say that congress was focused o

(upbeat music) - this is again, another really important difference between congress today and congress 30 years ago, because today, there's a perpetual campaign. it used to be that congress would campaign for six months out of two years, and for a year and a half, they would govern. there's no governing anymore because they're constantly in this war mode in order to trigger the resources they need to fund their campaigns. - many of them go saying, "i'm gonna do the right thing, "even if i lose this seat two years from now." and then they get into the system and they find that they're not gonna be on the right committees. they're not going to be in path to lead a committee. - (gavel bangs) the senate will come to order. - to receive a particular committee spot, you have to raise a certain amount of money for the party. now, that seems like it, first of all, it's totally unethical and seems like it should be illegal. - pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america. - we've seen more and more information leak out that is supposed to be kept confidential about how much time

which i noted has bipartisan support in congress. this new space we are excited to hear about some of the new projects you mentioned. can you talk about the goals of the plan, if it's progressing on time. and in your written testimony you said that the projects in the plan will not impact the historic great hall reading room nor the library supportive on-site research. what steps is the library taking to ensure any changes are consistent with historic preservation standards and are you committed to ensuring that any concerns in this area are fully considered? as you know my own husband asked me about the historic circulation desk, he doesn't usually inquire about matters of oversight in the rules committee, i felt that i should ask that question. as you know he is a big user of the library as a law professor and author. how is the plan going? and talk a little bit about that historic standard. dr. hayden: we continue to be very excited about this project because it will transform the constituent's experience in visiting the library.

there absolutely is a role for congress to play. even the major ai companies acknowledge that congress absolutely has a role to play. host: this is a tweet from robert in douglas, it gets to a big concern we are hearing. he writes, artificial intelligence in self is not the actual danger. the real danger is forthcoming, if artificial intelligence advances enough to become artificial consciousness. we are talking about the machine learning. is that a possibility, and what are your thoughts about if that creates a risk? guest: i would say that artificial consciousness is a line that different people have defined in different ways. i am not entirely sure where the question asked her is -- asker is asking the question. i would say the dangers does not necessarily start at the point of consciousness. nuclear weapons are not conscious, but monstrously dangerous. the real question is not necessarily, can ai feel or does it identify as a person, it is, what can it do? what can it do in the economy, the military, the intelligence community?

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

and everyone, the president, congress, everything. all right, so let's start with just one from all of you. the top reason for this dysfunction folder. well, i see the main message here in the mouse, in the method of payment of precedent. dino and washer was we have space time to say, i'm close to 2026 and she fresh uh no secondary p by he's supported by a 9 percent out from susan benson alliance between castell, smarty and bloody names are wrong. the stream left on the stream, right. and, and which is based on an, i mean most, you see, i mean most of you stallworth the police because little which is not even a stream, right. or, nor is to never use. no, they do as they come. yeah. it is because yeah, it is. uh, they the biggest sense for humor, right. they stand for your age, ice trends, institution. and they the stream for the strength name across the i. now they don't, we don't have any of that. we have a, a, a low, a bigger, bigger validation of our democracy and east brooke. cake of commodity, say that even just had her own. and

there is sort of a gun to the head of this congress.the debt limit deal, if they don't get these done, there will be a 1% cut across government. all government spending will be cut by 1%. none of the republican policies would go into effect. they would be stuck with nancy pelosi's policies from the last congress. there is pressure on both sides. democrats don't want to cut and republicans don't want hello see's policies -- don't want hello see's public debt pelosi's policies. guest: the national defense authorization act, every year, this is one of those must pass bills that has to go through congress. what it does is it really sets the roadmap for how the military can spend money when it is appropriated. a version of this bill has already passed in the house. it had all of these extra provisions added in, culture war issues. fanning the military from using dei officers -- banning the military from using dei officers, strict and's for paying for travel for abortions and another -- and a number of other issues. we are headed eventually i

but, this congress, as in the lochner congress, as in the dred scott congress. has the authority and the responsibility to act on behalf of the citizens who elected them. and, not have that impeded by a supreme court, unless there is something unconstitutional. the decision-making authority of the courts, are not contested. i yield back, and i apologize for going over my time. >> senator tillis. well mister chair, i'll tell you, i think it's the only day where senator well should have to apologize, it's his birthday. happy birthday. [laughter] >> thank you. >> thank you all for being here. i actually came with some prepared comments, talk about what i thought was covered very well by senator graham, and senator kennedy. so, i'm not going to talk about this current state of affairs. but i think that, our behavior, and the behaviors of some people in this country, have created a really toxic and a very dangerous environment for the supreme court, and the judiciary down the line. and, that's what we need to be aware. of we have to start this year, because it won't

she came to power with the blessing of the right wing alliance and congress. and she governs today thanks to their support. they're virtually the only people that support her, aside from the very wealthy business men and women and in peru. and so i think that's one of the main reasons why there's so much anger towards her . it's not only because of the repression of the protest, which is another element, is also the fact that she has seen as essentially a betraying um, the thing that brought her to power, right? the promises that brought her to power and essentially giving essentially free reign to this right wing alliance, not only to govern but to destroy peruse democracy. and i think it's important to highlight this that's in the past 7 months under the government. the congress has engage in a series of actions that have, we can peruse rules last week and it's democratic institutions and really eviscerated the balance of powers which is essential to any democracy can give you specific examples of that. but i think it's important to understand it's not just

congress, the house of representatives, believes in the tenets. the state of israel is not a racist state or apartheid state and the united states will be a staunch partner and supporter of israel. mr. speaker, not only do i urge my colleagues to support this, but i urge my colleagues to stand up against bullying, against those who would say things that are not true, those that would denounce or use words that are hateful in their rhetoric, that undermine the very essence of the nation of israel and undermine the freedoms that this country stands for. it is with great honor that i am able to author this and stand before the american public and to reaffirm on the 75th anniversary of the state of israel for a nation that is divinely inspired. and with i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is now recognized. mr. meeks: i yield to the gentlelady from north carolina. mr. mann: -- ms. meng: i rise in those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and remain standing until counteing the

every one, the president, congress, everything. all right, so let's start with just one from all of you. the top reason for this dysfunction folder. well i see a main message in the, in the mouse, in the method of payment of precedent. dino and washer was we have space time today and goes to 2026 and she fresh uh no single 90. but he's supported by a 9 percent out from 6 in denton alliance between castell, smarty and bloody names are wrong. the stream left on the stream. right. and, and which is based on an, i mean most you see, i mean most of you don't work. the police because blo, which is not even a stream, right. or nor is to and there is no imperial as they come. yeah. it is because yeah, it is. uh, they the the extent for humor, right. they stand for your age, ice trends, institution. and they the string for the strength norcross. i know they don't, we don't have any of that. we have a, a, a low, a bigger, bigger validation of our democracy. and these, brooke, cake of commodity, say that you need to turn around and do you kno

and what congress ends up looking like. and also with a kinds of far-out theory that was being tried out by some states that the supreme court said, no, not so fast. so let's get first to the redistricting decision. what walz the case about and what does the court find? because redistricting has been one of those tools that has been in use over the last 10 or 12 years to kind of chip away at the larger umbrella of the civil rights voting -- or the voting rights act. rick: sure. so in every state that has more than one congressional member, you've got to decide how you're going to elect them. congress passed a law saying they have to be elected from a single member district. you've got two members, you have to divide the state in half. even though the supreme court has said since the 1960's that you have to have equal numbers of people in those districts, there are lots of ways of drawing those lines. there are ways of drawing those lines to get partisan advantage or to give advantage or disadvantage to one group or another.

please, the program of the congress is on the process of holding the 60th congress of tehran. the teacher ? god willing, today, by the power of god, the call to submit works to the first international congress of the eminent scientist martyr hassan tehrani moghadam will begin today. we have the unveiling of the congress poster and website, with the message of the honorable minister of education, the presence of shahid rajaei university officials in tehran , today at ten o'clock today , there is a wider program that will be held at shahid rajaei university . we will be at the service of the media for the congress. and plans have been made, and your international martyr hassan tehrani moghadam is around with regard to the existential dimensions of the personality of the president . an outstanding scientist since last years, in a meeting with the family of martyr beheshti in 2016, he sincerely said that the ambition and ambition of a manager are natural and inherent, therefore, from any angle we look at the character of this high-ranking martyr, he really has the capacity to set

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

we will get our bills passed and this is a new congress. the old congress and i understand why you want to ask in a question because you asked me every monday. tomorrow you will ask me will i still bring it up this week and will i still be speaker. then by wednesday, you are going to ask me, are you her. on wednesday you say it is no big deal and come right back down to monday and i come back, i'm not going to give up on the american public. people are invited to come. bills go to floors and there will be amendments because the people want their voices heard. and at the end of the we are not going to do an omni and show up to work and you will get 72 hours to read it. thank you for asking monday's question. you win the prize today. [indiscernible question] the speaker: you guys are very good to try to categorize individuals based on some conference or not. we have a republican conference. and every day we work with the entire republican conference. but the one unique thing is, everybody gets to voice their concerns. everybody has an ability

the congress, years ago, implemented this amicus process by which the court can reach out, by what congress described as novel questions, to give the assistance of a third party view, separate from the government. that has been roughly underutilized and as far as i know there's no indication it's ever been used in an individual case where the fisk court says can you look at this application? what we know is when but put those applications under a spotlight which is relatively rare, the chair mentioned, ought of -- out of i think 29 cateses 25rbg of them were in error. there's obviously a need for some additional viewpoint. i don't think that's going to be achieved with any amicus curiae. i think what you really need is a concept of a special advocate, a formal office that has the ability among other things to bring a case to the appellate fisa court to say that there's a problem here that you should reveal. or review. i think that would be very useful to have an actual privacy advocate with security advocacy if you're going to have a secret court, let's make sure both are represented. ms. l

the key is that the congress once a productive dynamic economy. that means that creators need to be compensated for their work, so they are incentivized to keep on creating. looking at what is the right balance when it comes to artificial intelligence is something i would expect congress to address. host: let's go to the phone lines. again, democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. first up, robert in washington, d.c. on the independent line. what is your question or comment? caller: i would like to make a comment. thank you for taking my call. i am a former employee of the united states air force. i used to work in albuquerque, new mexico at the air force base. the shareholders of the platoon at headquarters of the united states air force -- this has been ai -- i was there in albuquerque. at the time, i was working around -- they were doing a lot of experiment on ai and i worked around the church, laid by seymour craig. i worked around during the first -- at that time, they were making a lot of different

>> as mandated by congress fear merit neutral and congress decides which investments to take that it is based on disclosure so that. >> so investors can decide that you believe it should be a part of the decision-making process? >> what we know today is many hundreds of companies are making disclosures with regards to climate risk and investors across the spectrum are currently using the climate risk disclosures and investment decision. >> you believe that should be the guiding principle how people invest? >> it is currently happening in the us and around the globe so we have a role to bring consistency and comparability with disclosures that are already happening. >> does the sec deserve any culpability in the collapse of spx quick. >> a number of entities in the cryptofield are noncompliant with you as large as adopted by congress over the years and we will be the vigorous cop on the beat. >> that's not what i asked does the sec deserve any culpability for the collapse of spx? yes or no quick. >> when people are defrauding the public we go after them. >> you are not answering my qu

for the ftc, congress was adamant that -- the reason congress created the ftc because conference was frustrated on how antitrust raw -- law was developing in the court. shortly after the oil decision, congress jumped in to create the ftc and that was because in the standard oil decision, the court had introduced what is known as the role in region standard -- the role --rule and readance standard. congress saw this opinion as a power grab by the court and they worried that its judiciary being exclusively in the driver's seat of the involvement of antitrust law was a problem and they exclusively accredit the ftc to have these commissioners that are supposed to be coming with expertise, for that to be able to study the passing in the market and congress wanted the ftc commissioners to be playing a role in the development of the antitrust law. that was a history on why congress gave us this function. it is not unique to the ftc. there are other, shade of agencies including securities and exchange commission have a similar feature and the challenges you're are seeing in the court to this

and he said, well, you know, we just we can't run congress around your so unique and we can't congress around people like you no one else has told you we've never heard of that. and there's kind of that mindset. and because a lot of the people in congress who are women, many of them followed the two more traditional paths. they either married someone who was in politics or their father was an elected office. this is the path that they followed or they waited until their kids were grown and and ran. and that's really changed a lot. have a lot more young parents, both men, women. we had the first in my time in congress. we had the first member of congress take parental leave, and he was a man colonel. and of course, guy was right. and and i will say that i'm grateful to collin for doing sure because he will would make it possible women to do it more. but there was definitely some you know, this is like there are 10 million single parents, give or take, in this country. the only place where that family structure is unique turns out to be in congress, you know. yeah, it's interesting. you

and we did see congress come and fix some of the worst aspects of the rules that are used by congress to count the electoral college votes that trump was trying to manipulate at the end of the tw*epbts election. so -- 2020 election. so there's some areas where there could be bipartisan kpwro mice. on the compromise. on the big things that divide democrats and republicans, hard to see any time soon that congressional legislation getting through unless there's a change in how the senate does its own set of voting. patt: let's talk a little bit about what future cases may be coming and what insights we have on them from decisions that have already been made. for example, the decision that the environmental protection agency can't protect the environment when it comes to wetlands and some waterways. does that argue that the court is going to revise and say there are even cabinet-level positions where the federal government can't administer the very things it's supposed to be in charge of? richard: one of the things that we've seen from at least some of the conservative justices on the cou

the congress made an extension, with the district court and that is really show you what congress wants to send something else, that is what it is and the cs are a view scheme. and like -- i have a hard time of think why the nature of the constitution claim would deprive the party's of the district court of clear guidance. i still don't understand, is there something special about structural constitutional claims? because i don'ly know what they are. but he would se be the removal, okay? but your colleague mr. clement wants to go broader on what structure is. i don't really see how you vide that out from just regular due process claims. our that i have received so f in the case law. or from the diplomatic public structure. and give me some sort of special damage that you are suffering. under that definition. >> a structural constitutional claims, the courts decision and -- is to recognize the claims of structural constitutional claims. carl versus all dealt with the >> remind me of what it -- >> in that case t court held that you did not havto exhaust appointments clause challengere adm

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

subject to congress o override.d for presidential elections the state elections good to set the rules. that's article two of thef constitution. congress is not good to pass legislation necessarily. the question is a state legislature sets the rules isn't like a free-floating body that can do whatever he wants? it is like that votes to ratify mems the constitution. but what about when it passes an election law? violence a state constitution. the state constitution protect the right to vote. the theory of the state legislature is the idea can act in presidential election it cannot even be constrained by its own c courts. not be constrained by state constitutions. and the supreme court on that question was six -- two and rejected the theory one justice did not express the view on the merits of the case. just thought it a was moot and should not of been heard. six justices rejected the idea. we think back to 2020 when trump was trying to reverse the results of the 2020 election he was trying to get state legislatures to

the number of supreme court justices is established by congress. it was established in the middle ever the 19th century. it's nine today. it was other numbers before that. congress has the power to choose the actual numbers of the court. and when it came to issues like televised court proceedings for the supreme court, there's a bipartisan bill which i am authoring now, cosponsoring with senator grassley, a republican from iowa, to deal with the actual conduct of the proceedings before the supreme court. we also handle the annual budget. congress passes the annual budget for the supreme court as well. as you can tell, it is a relationship which is intertwined. we do not have the authority nor are we ever trying to exercise the authority to change or influence a judgment. that is up to the court itself. but whether it comes to the administration -- when it comes to the administration of the court and rules of administration, congress has played an important role. senator mcconnell described our concern about the ethical situation in the court as a,

a number of these are actually required by congress. they swapped execution facilities. >> while we are on the position of rules, this is a follow-up from my colleague, mr. norment. your client disclosure rule, 500 pages, you say that is a way that we can have uniformity and disclosure but what provision are you using to create authority for large climate disclosure if congress never gave you one? >> congress did give us authority around disclosures and both of our first acts, 1933 and 1934. >> can you honestly sit there and tell me in 1933 and 94 congress anticipated climate disclosure rules? >> they didn't anticipate many things. it was 90 years ago. but what they did anticipated the companies need to be truthful and their disclosures. >> truthful in their disclosures around their financial practices around assets like abilities, earnings per share, return on equity, and i can go on and on but potential climate risks? congress never anticipated that, never. >> it is broader than that because it is also companies today that are already