our in-house congress guy? >> oh, yeah, sure, just to build off what lee was observing and ruth was pointing out, the house has in it a sort of natural reset button that can, you know, be pushed to lead to structural changes and that's the fact that every two years you have to create a new house and adopt new rules and involves a whole lot of bargaining and one of the chief points of bargaining is who gets to be speaker, the reason we have select committee on modernization of congress now is we have new members who didn't feel beholden to speaker pelosi and said look, we'll who would our votes unless we get reforms, one was the select committee of congress so one can see you can bring about change just by saying look, we got a bunch of new members and we want to have a vote on this schedule at some point this year about expanding the house or a select committee set up on this and that can kind of get the ball rolling on this sort of thing so eventually you can enact a statute that can lead to the house being ex

host: briefly, we have been focusing on congress. are there similar restrictions in place in the executive branch, from rivers of the ministration -- for members of the administration? guest: yes. they are not permitted to insider trading. they also have to disclose their stock trades. they also have a more robust conflict of interest laws and rules than the legislative branch, so the executive branch are brief required to refuse from any particular matter that would affect their financial interest. there is a much stronger company of interest protection there. host: thank you so much for joining us here on washington journal. guest: thank you so much for having me. >> the layout of his vision for the coming year. watch live coverage in jackson mississippi today at 5 p.m. eastern on c-span. our line online at c-span.org. c-span now. >> live on c-span friday, the common sent -- common sense society has live coverage beginning with liberty america had 10 a.m.. then we hear from psychologist jordan peterson at 1 p.m.. later, florida gov

in the last congress, this committee recognized that weakness and said that congress needed to strengthen its hand in court, and i know that the committee is considering this congress to send a letter to the gao asking them to do a study about how exactly would you do this? how would you set up an office that allows congress as a whole to issue legal opinions? should they be done by the house and the senate separately? should there be bicameral opinions? i think they would not be worthwhile unless they were bipartisan and they contained careful legal analysis. how would you staff that office? how would they draft those opinions? how would they finalize and approve those opinions? those are all difficult questions, but they can be worked out. some people think, well, you're never going to have the two sides agree on anything, much less the two houses. and yet i would submit that there are a lot of areas where consensus is possible. one being obviously that presidential aids are not absolutely immune to congressional subpoenas and don't even have to appear at a congressional hearing when ca

dachshund lamented in the first congress -- and implemented in the first congress. now we have a lot of people and it is hard to envision one person as the tribune of so many people. what we wind up with is an obstructed and rather limited view of representation -- abstracted and rather limited view of representation and there's a lot of diversity of this rich and diverse nation -- and loses a lot of diversity of this rich and diverse nation. i think we should take seriously the idea of increasing the size of the house of representatives to get it back in line with the idea of what a people's house ought to be. the u.s. has lacked -- lagged behind other countries in terms of ratio of representative to constituents and i think that contributes to the poor quality of our representation and our congress. the pros that we put forward would increase the house -- highest -- size of the house to a reasonable increase. the way we came up with a formula is to say, what would have happened if the house had taken the following rules started in 1911, which is that no state shou

so congress is out of session. what is lincoln supposed to do when he does not have all the powers of fighting a war listed under the constitution? this is really tricky right you rely on congress for example to declare war. and if you declare war as the president, are you violating the constitution? this is a real question. so lincoln is going to call a special session of congress. they're going to meet in july 1861, but they don't mean until july and so lincoln has several months where he has to figure out what to do. and one particular constitutional issue that comes up during these few months is having to do with something called the writ of habeas corpus. how many of you have heard of the writ of habeas corpus before we've heard of it, but it's kind of a tricky concept right? so let's go over what it is because it's really something that we as a members of a free society hold dear. we think it's really important. rid of habeas corpus is a legal action that requires a person under arrest to be brought before a

and until members of congress are banned from trading stocks congress will keep having an edge over regular people. and it will all be completely legal or at the very least so unenforceable that it is legal by default. but you have to tad mit it is such a smooth way to do corruption. in fact it is such a smooth way that leaders in the other parts of the world are starting to take notice. >> gentlemen, welcome to the-- it appears people have given you the sack receipt political office. how do you use that trust to get rich. >> i will pass laws that help those corporations in exchange for money. >> no, that is cor rufntion. what you do is you buy the stock in the company and then you pass the law, but that is also corruption, no, that is a free market. is i it with me. free market. free market. say it with feeling. free market. >> free market. >> put this in your-- book, free market! good, in america, if you say the word free market you can do anything it st like their witchcraft but teacher, what if i called caught trading on my inside knowledge. >> then you pay the penalty. >> but as a lawm

. >> and now a senate hearing on efforts to modernize the library of congress with the library of congress and head of the u.s. copyright office. topics include modernization act. >> i call this hearing of the rules administrative committee on congress' modernization efforts to order. i would like to thank ranking member blunt, our colleagues, and our witnesses for being here in what we will consider an island of sanity in a rather insane day today. right here in this room. i want to thank you for the work you do on behalf of our nations library. i want to thank the librarian of congress for appearing before the committee and maintaining a steady hand at the library through a really difficult time of pandemic. a place where so many people are used to coming in person and walking through the doors, and like every other agency and business, it has been not easy. i would like to welcome our other witnesses, the registrar of copyrights and director of the u.s. copyright office, the director of congressional research service, something we all use, and mr. jason broughton, the director of the na

why way congress have a statute like that if you do this if you don't you can do that. but then they read the statute to make that mean this. >> wanting the common sense notion that reimbursement like acquisition cost with justice barrett's earlier example i like a car for $20000 i would like to be the first herself. >> then go get a survey. >> we did. and that which undermines the argument to be invoking against that. >> does circuit secretary have to survey all hospitals could they do a survey of just the 340 be? >> that is an issue we are disputing that 2020 survey the reason that complies with those constructions surprisingly it doesn't because of 340 be hospitals don't want the results of the survey because that will be to lower rates for them. even lower now than hhs. >> that is the petitioner's position. >> i don't want to put words in their. >> that there is set up my —- objective. >> if that is the case then that does seem to do what you have done under two if you have a group of hospitals that indisputably pay less that the only way that you can adjust for t

it was not congress who proposed it. it was not congress who devised it. congress gave osha the responsibility to do these things and congress was saying get to mr. keller: what congress said was not you have statutory authority to regulate all diseases. it was blood-borne pathogens and that did not mandate testing or vaccines. >> your very last comments in the first part of your argument i want to come back to because your last sentence, you said the question is who decides. i think that is right. respectfully, it has a different answer than the one you gave. i will put a different version of it to you. i'm sure you're right there comments of public health and economic trade-off that have to be made in a policy like this. all kinds of judgments on a public health and economic side. what is to be balanced against each other? who decides? should it be the agency of expert policymakers and completely politically accountable to the president? this is not the kind of policy in which there is no political accountability. people like this policy and have voted t

and you served a full year in congress. i want to ask, have you noticed a change in policy, messaging, and improvement because there are more republican women elected in 2020? rep. salazar: well, i have seen many things because, as you said, this is the first time i hold an elected official position. i was in television for so many years and being in congress is a very big change. what i see is that we need to be more efficient. we need to work more for the people. i come from the private sector and i have noted that the public sector doesn't serve the constituency, or the constituents as efficiently or effectively as it should. and that's one of the reasons why i came to congress, in order to help the american agenda, or to help this country work better for not only for people who live in district number 27, but for every other american. i'm sure we're going to be talking about that a little bit more. olivia: absolutely. i know that this is your first year in congress and you just mentioned that. but i'm curious if you not

the democratic con in your 30 years in the congress. the party looms looms very large and it always has in my experience. the the house is a chamber where the majority rules and the majority party has all the leadership positions on committees and determines the agenda and it's in terms the the flow of business. so so the role of party leaders has always been very powerful and very important. i think the recent years have seen more centralization though and and more powers in the hands of party leaders and a good part of a couple of chapters of the book are are devoted to trying explain that and assess it. one one thing that's happened is that our politics has gotten more contentious and more ideological and so the parties have become. or more homogeneous internally and and farther apart in terms of their approach to the public policy and often the parties are extremely competitive. and the chambers closely divided. well, that's formula. for needing really to have a strong a strong party. you know the situation where the committees kind

but congress could not abolish slavery in a state where it was legal. what could congress do? as it turned out that question broke down into two separate ones. what could the federal government do about slavery in peacetime and what could it do about slavery in wartime in answering those questions the opponents of slavery developed what i call the anti-slavery project. and let me just say i've been calling it the anti-slavery project for 10 or 11 years. it's not a response to recent events. the anti-slavery project in times of peace the federal government could suppress the atlantic slave trade prosecute slaves smugglers regulate the domestic slave trade recognized the natural right to freedom of slaves who rebelled on ships plying the open seas banned slavery from all us territories deny admission of any new slave states to the union abolish slavery in washington dc and inhibit fugitive slave renditions by protecting the due process rights of accused fugitives. if the federal government did all of those things it would effectively surround the slave states with free oceans fr

it was not congress who proposed it. it was not congress who devised it. congress gave osha the responsibility to do these things and congress was saying " get to it." >> that rule did not mandate vaccines or widespread testing. >> justice kagan? justice kagan: in the first part of your argument, your last sentence you said " the question is, who decides?" i think that is the question. respectfully i think it has a different answer than the one you give. i'm sure you're right that there are all kinds of economic trade-offs that have to be made in a policy like this, all kinds of judgments on the public health side, on the economic side, how those two things ought to be balanced against each other. who decides? should it be that agency full of expert policymakers and accountable through the president? this is not the kind of policy in which there is any kind of political accountability. if people do not like it, they will vote that way. this is a politically accountable policy. it also has the virtue of expertise. the agency can decide for ports can decide.

they would be a three judge panel convened a congress a a congress or customer viewable only by direct appeal to the supreme court. protect democracy urges enactment of these measures. if there's one thing you take for my testament today hope it's thatre it's necessary. not sufficient to address congress for civil litigation no matter how expedited often will be too slow for consideration for voluminous information request and hands decision-making authority the courts giving congress senequa claviclee win. by all means you can't set there for the executive branch has learned its slow response to oversight demands for congress must get the executive branch back to the negotiating table are the best way to do this is by invoking inherent contempt powers. sending a sergeant of arms to rest -- while the supreme court is held -- upheld this means of affecting complaints it's practically in politically impossiblele today. it would turn them into -- unlike civil litigation expedia affected through changing the house has been congressional and harry contempt resolution and stays in me would d

congress today is the ability to pass cleanup bills. i have seen the difficulty in this place of passing even the simplest of bills. i would think that if hr one were to go into law, most states would be operating under court orders to run their elections because they would not have a chance to clean up their state statutes to comply with the requirements that, as far as i can tell, have not actually been run through the 50 states to say, what are you going to do to clean up? election fraud, having worked on my first big bill, it was an election bill, i would get frequent calls on election fraud. the majority of the election fraud i saw in texas was mail-in ballots. mail-in ballots are where you have problems. i watched criminal enterprises falsify requests for mail-in ballots, fax those incoming and then they would steal the ballot out of the mailbox. these thieves would typically target elderly minority individuals because they thought they were less likely to participate in certain elections. they actually decided who would sit on ci

congress has failed to act. it has failed abjectly to its responsibility, not that the issues are simple or easy, but the ftc is supposed to fill gaps that occur when congress sometimes fails to do so, i understand that members of the panel have reservations about it. i am not sure i understand the preemption objection, i think the resource issue can be surmounted and if congress were willing to act, of course that might be everyone's preference, but it is what it is. and in the meantime, states are also feeling the gap. that's the nature of our federal system, right? laboratories of democracy. but the ftc should start the clock on primary privacy rules either on congress acts or with the commissioners and ftc rulemaking at the very least would build a record and provide recommendations to congress for action. tomorrow, senator blackburn and i are holding a hearing in our subcommittee on consumer protection about how platforms like facebook and instagram harm the mental health of children and -- knowingly harm c

member of congress. if there are retired folks out there who have been chairs you might bring them in for a class or two would be my suggestion. >> and we have discussed that, we have discussed that. we are also working with congressional management foundation to provide some podcasts with discussions but previous members of congress. on various topics as well. we will be introducing about also in the next several weeks. >> okay thank you. and not yield back to the chair. >> could i? >> yes go ahead. >> could i adhere in the clerk's office that we have a course called community clerk and the congressional academy were we train the clerk's transition even if there's not a transition in leadership it is on a day-to-day basis. there is a lot of turnover the committee clerks continue to have professional development. >> that is exactly what i am talking about a could be the yoparliamentarian, counselor or whatever it is, thank you i'm glad to hear that and i will yield back. >> mr. phillips? >> thank you mr.

expanding congress and the case for doing so. i will spare you why i am obsessed with this and so, let's just get started. thank you for hosting this event. on december 9th, the american academy of arts and sciences published a report titled, the case for enlarging the house of representatives. and it was authored by lee drutman and norman borenstein and the academy's jonathan cohen. today, we will be discussing the findings of that report. that report has been expanded on the recommendations put forth in the project, common purpose, reinventing american democracy for the 24 century. our guests today are ruth rubin, an assistant professor in the political science department at the university of chicago. lee drutman, a senior fellow in the political reform program at new america. kevin kosar is a colleague here at the american enterprise institute and yuval levin is the director of social, cultural and constitutional studies here at aei and editor in chief of national affairs and my direct supervisor. so, we are going to sort of k

the commission did not take a position on whether congress should enact reforms. with respect to judicial asked -- ethics or other transparency tight reforms. there is some analysis in the report about congress having the authority to do so, but i think it is fair to say that it would be preferable for the court to act to bind itself, but do so in a way to clear -- is clear to the republic and is consistently followed. there was widespread agreement that something like a judicial code of ethics and limitations on stock ownership and the like are wide and prudent for the court, but for congress to regulate the court in that fashion, even if it is within its power, is something that people would be cautious about. judge griffiths: i agree. as a former member of the judiciary, i'm a little bit anxious about congress overreaching. robert: i am much in favor of the court super sizing itself. we have a chief justice who is keen fully aware of the role of the court in the public eye. i have confidence that they will respond appropriately as necessary. professor rodriguez

and then we end congress have to deal with that. you've got to fix those two problems before you come back and say we need 40% inflation. everybody and everything they do in life says i would like three to 5% over inflation, but you've got to deliver if the american public is going to support it and then congress is going to support it. >> is that case undermined by a multi trillion dollar spending bill on other priorities? it seems difficult to tell. >> let me say this it's undermined that in the following sentence and i've said this to my constituents that are busting my chops about the increase for those of you that don't know i represent is 77% democratic district and i argue with them andd say i supported the 5% increase that we put in as we passed the bill and i said we just spent $8 trillion in the last year on everything but defense. so i think we've got a good argument. i'm not saying that. yes it is undermined if you come along and say we don't have enough money to spend on defense because we spent all this other money but

the commission did not take a position on whether congress should enact reforms. with respect to judicial ethics or other transparency-type reforms. there is some analysis in the report about congress, in fact, having the authority to do so, but i think it's fair to say that it would be preferable for the court to act to bind itself, but do so in a way is clear to the public and is consistently followed. there was widespread agreement that something like a judicial code of ethics and limitations on stock ownership and the like are wide and produceddent for the court -- produceddent for the -- producedden -- prudent for the court. but for congress to regulate the court in that fashion, even if it's within within its power ising that -- is something that people would be cautious about. judge griffith: i agree. as a former member of the federal judiciary, a little bit anxious about congress overreaching. i'm much in favor of the court super sizing -- super advising it self. we have a chief justice who is keenfully aware of the role the court in the public eye. i have

when you think about the online privacy protection act or congress set the boundaries, congress set is the age limit and gave the ftc the authority to update personal information based on how technology changed. i think that was a really good model. >> clarity helps and i'm sure you can understand my frustration and my reluctance to give them anything in light of the fact they haven't complied with existing restrictions and seem to be looking to get around them. as we consider what we might do, as we take into account the rule making abuse over the decades, i want to analyze that against the current backdrop of the proposal to create a new privacy bureau. my understanding is that the ffc's fy 2022 budget request amounted to $389 million. the house's reconciliation bill, the $3.5 trillion bill, proposes including an additional billion dollars on top of that to give to the ftc. and the intended purpose for that is, and i'm going to read the entirety of the legislative text that deals with this issue, here it is. it is to, quote, create and operate a bureau including by hiring and retaini

first of all, as i just mentioned, congress has not in any way limited that, so congress certainly believes there is a legitimate reason for postelection contributions. even if they are just what the government has called makeup contributions, designed for no purpose other than to associate now -- exercise the first amendment right to associate with the winners and to hope that that will result in the kind of influence and access, that support for a candidate begets and that this court has in several different cases recognized, that congress cannot seek to deter, as opposed to seeking to deter and to prevent actual quid pro quo corruption, then those are reasons enough for a contributor to come after an election and make a contribution to the winner. it is just that the candidate has now become effectively an incumbent. justice sotomayor: you just said the magic words -- "to make a contribution to the winner." not to a campaign and its deaths, but for the pockets of the winner. that is a very different corrupting influence. mr. cooper: your honor, to the extent that the postelection contrib

the same as the fix that last congress passed in december, 2020. the impact aid coronavirus leaf act, which i sponsored with my republican colleague, dusty johnson of south dakota. mr. speaker, this vote is being watched nervously by school officials and military staff all across the nation. such as gratten school superintendent susan austin, leger superintendent and the navy school liaison officer at gratten subbase new london who have worked with the national association of federally impacted schools and i salute them and all their colleagues across the country for their work raising this issue before congress. the bill before us has already passedded the u.s. senate unanimously and has the support of the biden administration. it's a bill that keeps the promise to host communities that a high quality education will not be denied because of military service or tribal recognition. i urge the house to pass this bill tonight with an overwhelming vote of confidence and thanks for those who wear the uniform of this country in our tribal nations and the

why not congress's own and they did tremendously. well this regiment was authorized a thousand men so much bigger than the common continental infantry regiment, but it was authorized a thousand and by this spring of 77. it was hitting close to 900 men had enlisted in this regiment now did they all stay? absolutely not see it in the record some of these guys joined up put the caucade in their cap. got their bounty money and headed off. so we've got that they don't all stay but it was tremendously successful recruiting under congress's own unfortunately. regiment also didn't always get along well with others it got a rather infirmal reputation in what it was doing and congress came back and said you're not supposed to be calling it congress's own. um, so what's it supposed to be called back to second canadian? no, that's not doing recruiting. they tended to keep going which was rather traditional by hazen's name. so it was hazen's regiment for much of this war, but i also noted in some of the rosters that the captains in this regiment

and so congress the question of whether congress endorses. it is really as far as i'm concerned the big question because they're your reallocating the voting structure of the senate. and i literally have no way to know what would happen in the abstract because i don't know how many other people would say. well california's going to do this. i think illinois should do this. i think new york should do this. i think we need 30 more senators. i mean it could it could turn out that it's a very good thing but there would be an awful lot of people in states that couldn't split up who would think that was not the deal. so there's a good example in my view of something you'd want to debate in a convention. right, but you know the convention itself allocated literally allocated seats in the house representatives, you know that they they sat down and they said i think north carolina should have three and someone else came in and said no. no, i think they should have four and so the convention itself. allocated the seats because they were making a deal t

when he delivered the constitution to the congress, he said this. he said, this constitution represents the creation of a government which would allow for the continuation of rigorous debate, but we lies -- relies upon the common sense and good faith of the american people to find the better angels of our nature. as we proceed, let us find our common ground, reach our nation's heights with liberty and justice for all. remembering the words of our great patriarch. and in the spirit that our chaplain referenced of president lincoln. with malice toward none and with charity toward all. let us acknowledge today, as i conclude i want to acknowledge our fallin heroes of that -- fallen heroes of that day. u.s. capitol police officer brian sicknick. howard livinggood. metropolitanner officer jeffrey smith. u.s. capitol police officer billy evans of a later assault. now i ask all members to rise for a moment of silence in their memory . thank you. pursuant to section 11-b of house resolution 188, the house stands adjourned until 6:30 p.m. on monday, january

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

we have had more information about member of congress -- members of congress' financial interests. but with that increased disclosure and public scrutiny on what congress members are trading and win, we realize the stock act is not enough to prevent the other conflicts of interests. think about the member of the energy committee as being able to buy and sell stocks in electric vehicles or coal, oil and gas. that's currently allowed under current law. that's something that's really coming to the forefront in recent years and is front of mind in the public view. it is not a good way to secure the public's trust. host: delaney marsco is our guest, with the campaign legal center. she is senior legal counsel. we are looking at the effort to update the stock act. we welcome your comments and calls at (202) 748-8000 for democrats. for republicans, it's (202) 748-8001. for independents and all others, (202) 748-8002. tell us about your organization, the campaign legal center. what is your organization's mission. guest: we are a nonprofit that works to advance democracy through law, and we

congress has chosen the 250,$000 figure. i guess what he was asking is if you're defensible and on the basis of what? >> there are two ways you can defend congress's ability to set some and not simply to impose a blanket prohibition on all post election contributions for candidate repayment. congress can balance competing interests and the court often says no law pursues its principal objective to the furthest possible degree. congress could say we also want to make it feasible, for seed money, to strike a balance. >> a large outstanding balance, if they were able to receive enough in post contribution to repay the loan with substantial cushion. make you richer than you otherwise would be. no donor would have significant leverage over the candidate and by contrast if the loan is large, the candidate is unsure whether repayment will be forthcoming, each potential donor has greater leverage, congress could use one dollar threshold as a rough surrogate for a loan that implicates this uncertainty about whether full repayment wou

congress is planning a memorials. lawmakers will have the opportunity to tell their personal stories of what it was like to hide from angry rioters. but democrats are hoping thursday will be more than just a day of remembrance. in the senate, we hear from well-positioned sources, there is a desire to take the opportunity to supercharge the party's long stalled voting rights legislation, possibly even using the anniversary to get senators kyrsten sinema and dimension to go nuclear on the filibuster or embrace rules changes, the reporting saying that senator chuck schumer is expected to lay out a plan to push the national voting rights legislation to the floor in the coming days. all we, democrats will argue the flurry of voting rights restrictions have passed and gop controlled states over the last year are a direct result of the january 6 riots. from texas, our democrats line. caller: hello. how are you doing? host: what would be your message to washington? caller: my message would be to senator manchin. first of all,

it was a congress that began to notice and falsified it. even bruce or said there's problems with this dossier but nobody would admit it because they were after one thing. they couldn't stand the fact that he didn't get impeached. >> i don't watch a lot of tv but what i read and what i saw right before the election after the election startled me and i'm not a young person . i've seen a lot of reactions to political campaigns and certainly after the florida it recount fand the bush 2000 campaign which we saw a lot of animosity as a result of hanging chads and all in the supreme court decision but nothing like the vitriol towards president trump. and at this point in time you can see people literally sobbing as a result of president trump winning the election. they were so out of touch with where the american people were coming from. they were tired of the big government policies and they wanted to see a change. president trump offered them that change ngwhat you saw that in congress and you tell a number of stories about who nd you saw and w

we believe members of congress have different thoughts. host: i know over the years on this program, we have invited members to come on, sometimes associated with the problem solvers congress and others on separate legislation. what are they doing to keep the idea of bipartisanship alive, especially of the things you are describing? guest: you bring up the caucus, that is one of the few strong bipartisan legislative groups on capitol hill. they want to make a difference. it can be debated on how much difference they've been able to push and pull in different legislation, but this is a group that meets regularly, that talks about legislation. there is a lot of bipartisan caucuses that are not necessarily as legislation focus. but this group is. they meet regularly and talk about everything from spending bills to pandemic response. this group almost fell right after january 6. they strive to have an even number of democrats and republicans so they can talk and potentially vote together if they take a stand on legislation. there were four mem