fundamental problem and i don't know how anybody could support the concept. >> why did he win the house and the senate to play an active role opening up the chambers? the >> i don't want to get too sanctimonious about this but i do belief in openness and government. i generally don't like secrets of any kind. others think things are a lot easier as an open book. i thought it was part of the modern era. covered by the media if it was only ten at pencil. it was electronic age. audio, radio and powerful medium television. ..

>> to be a firsthand witness to history, to understand exactly what's occurring not just by reading the record, but actually hearing the voices watching the faces of those the architects of policy. the downside of it is, it's almost theater. it's not necessarily real. we don't have as many real debates any longer because, in fact people are aware that they're performing on a very public stage. not that they weren't before either, but there was a limited audience. and i think that truncates the debate. i think it has a way of sort of

stylizing the debate in a way that deprives people of the real negotiations and conversations that are historically a part of any legislative production. >> the clerk will call the role. >> mr. akaka, mr. alexander mr. allard mr. allen -- >> the rules of the senate really perplexed me when i first came over from the house. i like order, and i like rules, and this is how you have a second-degree amendment and all that and having been a member of the rules committee in the house and now in the senate chairman of the rules committee, i kept looking and watching the institution and saying, you know, this doesn't make any sense. this is not roberts' rules of order, this is not the house rules of order, what are these rules? finally, i went to the parliamentarian and said explain to me, how does this place work? he said, well, there are only really two rules that matter exhaustion and unanimous consent. if you get the senators exhausted enough they'll agree unanimously to anything. >> that senate is the forum

where the people speak and where senators can speak as long as their feet will hold them. and if their feet won't hold them, they can sit down, get unanimous consent to speak at their desk. that is the protection of the people's liberties. so long as there is a place where one can speak as loudly as he wishes and as long as his lungs will last, we can be sure the people's liberties will endure. >> it was everett dirksen a republican leader of the senate in the 1960s, who said thinking about the members of the senate, you know what a diverse lot they are. o great god, what chore it is to try to harmonize their discordant voices, to bring them all together. >> the senate's great days of success, in my view, have not been because the rules were better or worse, but the quality of the people who served during

that time and understanding the role of the united states senate not as a partner with the executive branch or a partner with the house but as a unique place that has a coequal obligation to make sure the people's voices are heard. ♪ ♪ >> and the 114th congress will gavel in tomorrow at noon eastern, and we'll see the swearing in of members and the election for house speaker. you can watch the house live on c-span see the senate live right here on c-span2. and with the new congress you'll have the best access, the most extensive coverage anywhere. track the gop as it leads on capitol hill and have your say as events unfold on tv radio and the web. tonight on "the communicators," three technology reporters review the big issues of 2014 and the key communications and technology issues facing the new year. brian fung with the washington

post, brendan sasso with the national journal and kate tummarello with politico. >> i mean, the chairman isn't expected to unveil his proposal until february or march at the earliest which gives an opening for republicans in congress to introduce a bill about net knewalty of their own -- neutrality of their own. is that going to force the chairman to move more quickly or is it going to put him in a position where he'll have to do some horse trading in negotiation with congressional republicans, that's not clear yet. i think that's something we'll be watching early in the year. >> i'm expecting the fcc will come out with final rules on net neutrality. president obama, of course came out in support of reclassifying broadband service under title ii of the communications act which would, essentially, make it treated like a utility. of course, the broadband industry groups are fiercely opposed to this so there's a lot of pressure on chairman wheeler to go that route. so we'll see in the first few months what happens there and even once the rules are on the

books, this fight's not necessarily over. then there's going to be lawsuits, almost certainly, from the industry groups like verizon and comcast. especially if chairman wheeler does what the president wants. >> we're also talking about net neutrality against the backdrop of the communications act update which is this big, multiyear effort that republicans in congress have undertaken, and now that the republicans control the senate, we're going to see it there too. they kind of have that working as well. republicans in the house have said they want to get pen to paper starting in january so we could see some movement on that very soon, and that's a tool for the congressional republicans to use to kind of push back on any net neutrality rules they think are an overreach on wheeler's part. >> tonight at eight eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> and now religion in politics from the american revolution through modern times including religion in outsider candidate the mormon moment and energy politics. the danforth museum hosted the

conference which will be the subject of a future book. >> well, my name is brian franklin, and i am the associate director of the center for presidential history here at smu. i welcome you all to our conference as well which promises to be a very fascinating and enlightening time for all of us. i have the privilege of introducing our first panel of guests for the day focusing on the topic of faith and modern politics. first, we will hear from dr. kate carte engel, associate professor of religious studies here at smu. she is the author of a book which was awarded the dale brown award for outstanding scholarship. she has been a fellow at the american council of learned societies, the american philosophical society and the

center for study of religion at princeton university. her current project, "the cause of true religion," investigates the consequences of the american revolution for transatlantic protestant networks in north america, britain and europe. her presentation today is entitled "the founding fathers and modern america." our second panelist is darren dochuk. he's associate professor in the department t of history and associate professor in the humanities in the john c. danforth center on religion and politics at washington university in st. louis. in 2011 professor or dochuk published "from bible belt to sun belt." a book which won a host of awards including the american historical association's john dunning book prize for outstanding historical writing on any subject in u.s. history. dochuk is currently working on a book tentatively titled

"anointed with oil: god and black gold in modern america." his presentation today, "crude awakenings in the age of oil," arises from this project. our third panelist is dr. spencer fluhman, associate professor of history at brigham young university. he has held fellowships from the center of american culture and the joseph fielding institute for latter day saints history. his work -- book "a peculiar people: anti-mormonism and the making of religion in 19th century america," was published in 2012 and won the 2013 mormon history association's best first book award. his presentation is entitled "never ending mormon moments." our fourth and final presentation from this panel comes from dr. charles irons associate professor of history and chair of the department of history and geography at elon

university in elon, north carolina. his first book is into it led "white and black evangelicals." his work has appeared in the journal of southern religion and more than a dozen other books and journals. his current research is on the complicated process through which black churchgoers withdrew from white-controlled congregations following the civil war, and his topic today is religion and the outsider candidates. allow me to offer a quick note here about our process for this session and our sessions today. each of our guests in turn will give their presentations, one after the other, without taking much of a break in between. and after these four presentations, the moderator -- in this case me -- will open the floor to you, the audience to be able to ask questions or make comments which you can direct at a particular panelist or at the group in general. we welcome these comments, we

welcome these questions and we encourage you to participate with us. it is now thankfully time for me to step aside and let others speak more intelligently about faith and modern politics so is let's welcome together our first guest dr. kate carte engel. [applause] >> thank you, brian, for that introduction, and thank you all for being here today and joining us especially for this first session so early in the morning. it's such a pleasure to see so many distinguished psychological is lahrs and friends here in the -- scholars and friends here in the audience and also on the panel, so welcome all. what i'm going to talk about today is a conservative christian reading of the american revolution and how that influences modern politics. this is certainly a topic that's been in the press lately. in september and october of this year, both colorado and texas saw very public and very

political struggles over the proper teaching of the nation's history. the college board, a private organization that administers the widely-used advanced placement tests used in high schools, released new guidelines for ap u.s. history. conservative pundits accused the new curriculum of promoting a disdain for american principles and a lack of knowledge of major american achievements. and those are the words of a member of the texas state board of education. explicit mentions of religion in the discussions about the ap u.s. history standards were mostly relegated to the fringes creating the impressio of a secular debate. but if we look into the complaints against the curriculum, we can find strong resonances of what is, i would like to suggest, a religious practice shared by many conservative christians. the active and repeated study of the nation's founding through a form of historical reasoning derived from reading scripture has produced a unique identifiable and exclusive

narrative of u.s. history that stripped of its religious connotations influences public life and public debate through discussion over the ap u.s. history curriculum. before i get started, i want to give just a couple caveats. the first is that conservative christians are in no way alone in their interest in the founding era. obviously, through trends the recently called founder chic, many americans have been very interested in the process of the revolutionary war and especially in the lives of some of the founders. so when conservative christians have created their reading of the american revolution, they're participating in a larger national conversation on this subject. second, i want to be careful about how i'm using the word "christian." obviously, american christians are an extraordinarily diverse and broad group of americans numerically, litically theologically. what i'm focusing on today is a vocal and important subset of

that group. many christians who want to pursue interests in the founding err can through -- era can through sites find their way to academic scholarship and certainly, christian historians have played an active role in mediating between the academic community and christian interest in the subject. so i don't want to minimize those important trends. i'd like to focus on today a vocal and distinctive reading of the american revolution that coexists with these other trends. many biblically-minded protestants use the concept of a harmonious reading to the entirety of scripture in order to manage passages that would otherwise be difficult or contradictory. the concept that scripture interprets scripture suggests that, in the words of mega church pastor rick warren, the bible is its own best commentary, a point he lists as second among six principles more interpreting scripture. the concept is repeated widely

in various guides for understanding that complex text and it's linked to the protestant concept of by scripture alone. if the bible is the one sole source of truth, then it must provide all the tools necessary for its interpretation, and the overall meanings of the entire text must harmonize. the idea that scripture interprets scripture is a method of historical analysis as well as a form of textual reading. some moments events and passages of the bible are far more important than others to understanding the principles of the whole. the interpreter determines what these are through his or her knowledge of both the whole and the principles. applying this strategy to a relatively recent moment in history, like the american revolution, requires a two-step process. first, the knowledgeable writer introduces the era with a clear sense of its guiding meaning. then, with that meaning in mind the practice of reading the founding era can be undertaken. i'd like to suggest today that

the practice of interpreting the american founding as having consistent and identifiable principles transforms both the purpose of learning about history and the kinds of evidence used and, furthermore, that by studying the past with the same practices they use to study the bible, conservative christians make reading the more than revolution a religious act. now, these readings of the american revolution begin and end with principles. not just an interpretation but usually in structure. the american patriots' bible published by thomas nelson press in 2009 begins with the seven principles of the judeo-christian ethic which readers are are told were the core beliefs of our nation's founding fathers. when those men, quote gave us documents such as the declaration of independence, the bill of rights and others, they had to lean upon a common understanding of law government, social order and morality, end quote. it's not necessary for the importance of these principles that they be uniformly

representative of the revolutionary public opinion or even the founders as the authors are quick to point out. the important element is that they are guiding principles. the authors of this text continue, whether each of the founding fathers was a christian is not the issue. their writings, their statements and their votes evidence that the majority of them embraced these great principles as the basis for a civilized nation. as might be expected, pedagogical texts forefront principles and finish tests forefront principles in equally stark ways. the list of seven principles of liberty in the conclusion is not original to the authors but, rather, is taken from a widely cite ared and circulated work "teaching and learning americans' christian history." if we try to sum up the principles that appear across all these different texts and distill them into a common core conservative christians

generally agree that the principles the true meanings, lessons and motivators of the founding era were a high level of protestant devotion and strong protestant institutions, god's covenant with the american people the powerful flowering of an undefined liberty -- depending on the writer either perm or economic liberty -- and the faithfulness of the founding fathers. because they motivated the canonical event of the american revolution they must be applicable to public life today. so how does the american revolution look when viewed through these principles? what is the history of the era? the dominant trait that must be noted first is that it is nonchronological. guided by a focus on principle, conservative christian historians are generally more comforble writing in a thematic or topical vein rather than using a narrative or chronological approach. thus, peter lobach's massive biography of george washington

for example, discusses the early life of washington but then moves through washington as a series of roles in a topical fashion. his primary goal here is to focus on washington's character as it appeared in different situations, but the consequence is to take the man out of time. michael novak in his book, on two wings, uses a similar strategy when he frames -- and this is his heading for the substantial section in the book -- ten questions about the founding. and david barton's highly influential wall builder web site avoids narrative in the favor of narrow topical question and answers that move seamlessly between different time periods. despite this nonnarrative approach the key moments in a christian reading of the revolution can be teased out. the story begins with the pilgrims and the puritans. indeed, the founding of plymouth becomes the first act in the revolution their war. the narrative then leapfrogs to

the conflicts with great britain, but it focuses on two key points specifically; the importance of public prayer and then the personal piety of particular leaders. the crisis endured by washington's forces at valley forge, because it brings these two different trends together, is the pivotal moment in the narrative. from that terrible winter in 1777 and '78 writers turn quickly to the revolution's fulfillment in the constitution almost ten years later or, more frequently, to topically organized analyses of the guiding principles. the prominence of the puritans to the american founding emerges from many sources. america's providential history a textbook for home schoolers has a chapter entitled "the pilgrims: a model of christian character." the following chapter then covers the founding of all 13 colonies in at least some detail but concludes with a section that clarifies the preceding confusion of colonial origins.

we can see a consistent christian dominance in the settlement of every single colony, the authors claim. the puritans then provide their best evidence. a joint statement made by all the northern colonies in the new england confederation of 1643 would just as well have been made by all 13 colonies, they claim. it stated: we all came into these parts of america with one and the same end and aim, namely to advance the kingdom of our lord jesus christ and to enjoy the liberties of the gospel in pure the i and peace. civil government is a reflection of church government, the writers explain, implying by this assertion that this is the meaning of the entire colonial era. the revolutionary war functions as a climax rather than as a primary narrative and peter marshall and david manuel's enormously influential 1977 work "the light and the glory," as its authors use roughly half of their pages to describe the pilgrims and the puritans. the story regularly shifts in

time between the authors' search for meaning in the present and a richly elaborated narrative including details such as the color of the wake behind the mayflower, the facial expressions of historical figures and even fictionalized dialogue. the reader is invited to lose herself in the drama of the past and yet reminded that the purpose of the reading is to discern the meanings of monumentally important events. this continue alltel scoping -- continue alltel scoping creates highly readable prose, but it also obscures the temporal illusion between the early 17th century and the late 18th. describing the mayflower compact, marshall and manuel provide a perfect example of how using principle to interpret history alters the framing and texture of event. the authors write that the pilgrims drafted a document that was pragmatic, realistic and expedient. yet it also, quote, embodied the same principles of equalityand

government by consent of the governed which would become the cornerstones of american democracy. this analysis is then immediately amended with a parenthetical reaching far further back into history as the authors assert that the true origin of a compact's principles can be found with the ancient hebrews before skating forward in time to quote the declaration of independence's opening lines. in the space of one page, the authors demonstrate the centrality of pilgrims' expedient document from a history that stretches from biblical times through the influence of jefferson's words up to our present. interestingly, the document itself and the question of what specifically is meant by "principles of equality" amidst language that stresses submission, obedience and the sovereignty of the king is not parsed. the exgeneral call point has already been made, and i have to say reading this kind of text is really quite exhilarating as the author is invaded to make comparisons between widely

disparate moments in time and widely different documents that resonate quite deeply, but your attention is forced to connecting the principles between these different moments rather than invited to engage in any more plotting narrative of history, how is this particular document framed within its particular moment. we can see this process again if we look to where the narratives go next. from the pure stands we jump to the -- puritans we jump to the war years of the revolution and we often jump over the declaration of independence. the declaration of independence. >>, of course is a sacred texts is then treated separately rather that situated in its immediate pragmatic context of grappling with the complexities of making the step of separating from england. the war years have two primary characteristics. first, a culture that valued public prayer and its consumerty and, second, leaders who valiantly and successfully struggled as men to live up to the great responsibilities god

had given them. michael novak in his "on two wings" lists seven events that reveal the power of the second wing, and for novak the first wing is liberty and the second wing is humble faith. each is a demonstration of public observations of christianity that shows in novak's argument that faith was a primary motivator of the american revolution. now, for this analysis to work one must remember that what is being motivated is not specific historical action such as anger over the massachusetts port act or frustration with an occupying army but rather the american founding in its greatest terms. values like principles become actors in history. now, in his declaration novak actually lists the declaration of independence as one of his events that show faith in the founding era, and he argues that the declaration of independence is itself a prayer, and he makes this argument by telescoping back to the mayflower compact. and so doing the exact same

connecting that manuel and marshall had done starting with the mayflower compact and jumping forward. so the various elements of the canon are continually reinforced through the repeated appearance. the second characteristic of the war years is the piety of the nation's leadership. george washington offers perfect material for this narrative because he was intention intentionally silent of most summits of religion. rather than offer examples of his own words, the authors focus on the dilemma of how a man of such greatness can even be known, including glowing retellings from after his death. having constructed a devout and sober leader in washington, valley forge -- interpreted as the great crisis -- become the central moment of the revolutionary era. it brings together the lessons embedded in the teaching about washington; the importance of prayer the key role of faith

through difficult times. marshall and manuel and countless retellers recount a apocryphal story of washington bough his head in prayer at valley forge. though the great man sought privacy, he reportedly was seen by a neighboring quaker who then spread the word. the story of the general kneeling in the snow in valley forge is of a man who, in a time of crisis turned to his faith and his bible to act decisively. it has led to some of the most widely reproduced artistic images of the revolutionary era expressing the core meaning of the nation's defining moment for many americans both within the conservative christian community and also beyond it as well. and that core meaning is that in this case a nation was united in a time of trial behind a christian leader who looked to god. by retelling the story christians assert the importance of that ideal to our own era and with these truths

established the nation is founded. after valley forge after washington prays at valley forge, we actually have little further narrative of what happens. at this point the war ends and we jump usually to topical reframings of the constitution or the application of the principles that have been elaborated to the present. so what's left out? of course, many of the complicated moments of the revolutionary era are left out. the most obvious one is slavery. the substantial portion of the american population that was not onboard with the patriot movement also missing, but there are other elements of the popular imagination of the american revolutionary era that are also left out of this retelling that make the christian narrative of the era particularly distinctive. the boston tea party, washington crossing the delaware all of the battles. these are missing from the telling because they don't fit within the guiding principles within the way these authors want to promote. the constitutional convention and the ratification process. this last one, i think, is

often -- when i hear academic historians talk about the founding era and how it appears in popular imagination, this one is particularly surprising because the ratification process probably provides the best evidence of christian voices seeking to shape a christian christian nation. but that piece of the story is left out. these omissions are not a problem, however, because the meaning of the era is clear, transcendent and timeless and, indeed as all true scriptures must be. conservative christians have canonized the era and have described it asen era replete with define inspiration. the result is a kind of historical reading that explicitly and strategically minimizes not only conflict, but, indeed sequential historical process in favor of positive and useful meaning. the obvious applicability to the present -- and here we should think of in the present tense the importance of devout christian leaders the a love of

liberty and a unified nation favored by god -- the current applicability of these principles provide the purpose for studying the e rah, and -- era, and until they are universally embraced they also provide the need to repeatedly study and con contemplate the era. the purpose is not to gain knledge, but to bring about prayerful change. the ritual and repetitive circularity is no more problematic than when it is applied to devotional reading of christian scripture. this is history as religious practice, as much as it is religion as a political act. and the alliance between the two provides an important intertwining of the religious and the political in the early 21st century. thank you. [applause] >> good morning. good to see you. i'm going to take a few minutes and talk about pipelines and

protestants, just a few of those in these parts. in early 2012 amid the unprecedented heat of one of the strangest springs in history barack obama set out for oklahoma to jump-start an energy tour. the politician had work to do, win re-election, and seemed unfazed by the blistering temperatures and torrential storms that made march feel like july. and so, at a rally in curbing, oklahoma, obama talked energy. flanked by steel pipes, he laid out his plans for america's future. first a tribute to folks who drilled the nation's crude then an appeal to their vote. over the last three years, i've directed my administration to open up millions of acres for gas and oil exploration across 23 different states. we're opening up more than 75% of our potential oil resources offshore. we've quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high, we've added enough new pipeline

to encircle the earth and then some. obama's statement for, as he called it, an all of the above energy strategy, came last. the plan was fourfold; more jobs for hard working more thans more oil -- americans more oil development and infrastructure with government's assist more drive towards renewable energy and care of the environment and more domestic production and less dependency on foreign oil. we've got to have a vision for the future, he implored, that's what america has always been about. that's how we have to think about energy. god bless you god bless the united states of america. now, obama's faithful cheered his sweeping promises for more who wouldn't, yet as policy the speech clanged with a few incongruities. could americans truly get more of everything with little cost? how might an open-ended energy policy benefit the earth? or reverse global warming whose effect obama's overheated

listeners were sweating out? republican and democratic naysayers questioned the president's speech and pondered whether all of the above would result in none of the above results. now, to be fair obama's talk was boilerplate designed to rally troops, yet his speech also illustrates tentative thinking. when he won the democratic primaries in 2008, he predicted that in his administration the rise of the oceans will begin to slow and the planet will begin to heal. yet in cushing amid evidence of rising waters and a wounded planet, he preferred to boast about pipelines encircling the earth. his broader record further reveals uncertainty. in the struggle over transcanada's keystone pipeline for instance, which inspired his oklahoma visit he has spoken for and against the enterprise, urged construction in some sections, delayed in others paused for environmental reassessment and infuriated activists and canadians -- tough

to do -- [laughter] with his indecision. the president, one can say, has been trapped repeatedly in the conundrums of energy politics. but it's too simple to highlight the disjointedness of obama's agenda for his conundrums are products of profoundly complex circumstances. defying neat partisan categories irreducible to culture war, blue/red divides, energy politics are naughty, drawing into collision multiple ideals. no simple matter of pose self-interests, in other words energy politics are totalizing and existential. it has always been that way especially with oil -- my focus for today. since the dawn of their oil age americans have viewed the black stuff as more than a source of fuel. it has defined their diet and sent them to war, allowed regions to flourish others to fall generated anxiety about america's place in this world

and its people's prospects in the next. so considering oil's ultimate significance it's no far reach to conclude that present day energy politics in which obama is embroiled carry religious weight. this is, indeed, what i'd like to conclude, what i would like us to conclude today that our struggles over pipelines also represent a clash of competing carbon gospels stemming from particularities of place, their renderings in se cred terms and the dis-- sacred terms and the future that frames their political possibilities. so in order to nudge us to this conclusion, i'm going to glance just very briefly, i think, as four gospels evidenced in obama's speech, the four points that i just highlighted, all of which are pressing on obama's current struggles with the keystone debate. highlight briefly their awakening, the moment at which this new thinking new imagination about pipelines and oil emerged and mention a few

prophets who set these in motion, and then i'll pause at the end for some fuller appreciation of the president's dilemma. first, first crude awakening that which kind of stimulated a proagainst the petrol machine -- protest against the petrol machine. at the heart of obama's predicament is a quest to help petroleum's underclass, landholders, oil patch workers and average citizens in close proximities to pipelines whose cries for access to the economic promises of oil and protection from overbearing oil companies reverberate with a familiar populace beat. and here again if you look at recent struggles over the pipeline in the dakotas we see ranchers joining native americans to protest the way in which land is being taken from them. this is combined with anxiety

over jobs, just how many jobs will or will not be created by the pipeline. these entwined concerns bringing together kind of interesting and curious coalitions of activists which have made oil patch locals of all political stripes -- ranchers, native americans -- a hesitant majority convinced of only two things that oil companies cannot be trusted to care for the land and labor pools they seek to tap and that local people deserve the fruits of the resource development that's disrupting their soil. in this rhetoric they echo a disquiet that has reverberated for over a century which takes us back to the first crude awakening in the early 20th century which raised this disquiet and created an intending gospel of protest against petrol capitalism. it was in the early 1900s that americans came to terms with their energy revolution and its first victims and, of course as we know those who have read history textbooks, the first

victims were those rank and file producers and locals who struggled under the weight of john d. rockefeller's standard oil. now, a devout baptist rockefeller was evangelical in his view of oil. besides deeming his extraction of crude providential, he believed his corporate ventures were designed to rescue the oil business from chaos. this christian certainty gave him a courageous persistence and capacity to think in strategic terms but also a messianic self-righteousness and contempt for those shortsighted mortals who made the mistake of standing in his way. the mortals, of course saw him differently, clawed back with moral critique and their champion was ida tarbell a journalist whose name we all recognize from textbooks as the woman who destroyed the standard trust. but what is less appreciated is the degree to which in this moment tarbell's actions grew

out of her wrestling with god and the ghosts of her youth and i don't have time to walk us through her history of fascinating biography. someone who was raised in western pennsylvania in oil country, two methodist parents, someone who took her methodist faith quite seriously. she, in fact was very much part of the movement located just an hour away in new york. and it's through her experiences in western pennsylvania -- her father was an oilman whose spirit was crushed by the rockefeller machine -- she started to look at journalism as a possibility to combine her faith, her familial history and work that into a stinging critique of standard oil. we know the rest of the story. by 1904 she publishes "the history of standard oil" which identifies rockefeller really as the man who symbolized all that's wrong in national life at that moment, and then the

ultimate conclusion to this is the supreme court's ruling of 1911 which dismantled standard oil. the other legacy here, though, the one that she would be quest to future generations of oil's rank and file was, again, a doctrine of pristine or progressive capitalism. when fighting rockefeller, tarbell stressed the innately pure qualities of the local patch in which she grew up. her was not a corn -- hers was not a condemnation, but a petition to clean it up. she writes glowingly of men like her father "they looked forward with all the eagerness of the young who have just learned their powers." there was nothing they did not hope and dare. tarbell's faith in oil's first generation mirrored her belief in the goodness of her church and human ability to better society through smart application of biblical principles. it also matched her conviction that metro-captain --

metro-capitalism had to remain egalitarian if it were to thrive. she theologized -- [inaudible] shaped by her readings in christian socialism, she came to understand the struggle with standard as one to protect the value of small scale production by individual labors. she would write: god gave man the land, but man has to use his hand and brain in its cultivation before he can feed and clothe and shelter itself. it is the partnership of the two, land and labor which produces wealth. because of rockefeller, she lamented labor had been made dependent on capital by capital's theft of the land which god gave to all. so though she couldn't imagine it at the time her countering ethic of individualsism would endure among men and women like her parents for generations to come. this leads to a second and third crude awakening that i'll glance over briefly. standard, of course, was not

defeated. ultimately, totally by tarbell and the supreme court, fractured into 34 different countries, it, in fact, benefited from the diversification. in the 1930s and 1940s it's in this moment of chaos in east texas where new, a new oil boom is bringing kind of overproduction to the awareness of the federal government that the new deal is deciding to work with major companies to create some sense of order in the fields. here standard, the standards of new jersey california and new york are going to team up with harold icces to bring orders to the field. he along with others at this moment like eddie and luce are going to frame a new vision of what i would call a civil religion of crude in the mid 20th century in which government

working with major oil companies could encourage expansion of both christiandom and a gentler kind of democratic oil kingdom to the rest of the world. william eddy was one of the spokespersons of this vision rightings in 1940 as he was trying to open up -- quote, we serve the only totalitarian king need to coffer ourselves with tolerance reverence and charity and then wherever we walk we shall find ourselves on holy ground. three years later as a consultant for california's standard, he was surveying arabia for crude, five years later brokering a deal between america's president and saudi's king based on, in his mind, a mutual trust. his was a firm belief that an ecumenical big liberal religion

wedded to major oil, itself ecumenical could usher humanity into a new age. and the religious fervor has abated as witnessed, i think in obama's speech, its assumptions about washington's dominion over reserves bringing the federal government actually into the regulatory position that we see today. obama's gesture to this gesture to petroleum's benevolence and a closing ecumenical plea for god's blessing, i think we see the rem in and abouts of the second -- remnants of the second crude today. a third awakening follows chronologically in the '50s and '70s, and this is the rise of the wildcat oilmen we are familiar with in texas, of course. it was a response defensive to what haroldic keyes and the american government was doing, partnering major oil companies with washington to open up foreign fields. it was defensive in the sense

that independent oil producers here in the southwest especially felt that their vision of america, their vision of their industry was being challenged. a number of prophets kind of stepped up at this moment to champion the rule of capture of wildcatter a very evangelical ideology, if you will. one of them was robert kerr a more hopeful, on the to mystic positive -- optimistic, positive kind of wildcatter. as oklahoma's governor and senator in the 1940s and '50z, he labored to meet independent oil's needs and carry the mantle for the dispossessed working all of his connections to give small producers the protections they deserved. what's interesting here, too is how kerr finish a very prominent southern baptist -- was able to fold his kind of politics and his interests in the protection of independent oilmen with his faith and the ability of individuals to approach slipture

and christ on their own terms much the same way they approached subsurface minerals. there was also a harolder edge to this -- harder edge to this wildcat christianity that emerged in the '70s connecting the fear of peak oil, the fear that america was losing its ability to control its most valued resource losing that to the middle east to saudi arabia. that took the form of pre pre-millennialist dispensationallism. here prophets like john wolver based here at dallas combined the fears of peak oil with end times thinking that the end was nigh and that america had lost its ability to prepare for the end times in the right manner. why? because the federal government and major oil companies, of course, had stolen their authority and power. brings us to the fourth crude awakening, finally and this is the one that we are dealing with today, a carbon-free gospel, if

you will. despite his sweeping promises at cushing, obama failed to convince leaders of the current awakening, again whose gospel is car carbon-free. it makes no sense at all speaking of obama's referencing of improving the environment and renewable energy sources. drilling everywhere you can and then putting up a solar panel is like drinking six martinis and then topping them off with a vitamin water. you're still drunk, you have your day's full allotment of c and d. so the testiest of obama's naysayers are also his one-time champions. those leading kind of fourth crude awakening are environmental activists whose faith in reform was bolstered by obama's stirring speech during the '08 democratic convention but whose trust has been battered since. among them no one is more earnest than bill mckibbon head of 350 org.

mckibbon became an author/activist and then just an activist in 2011 just as the keystone dry sis was -- crisis was emerging, in his mind the keystone crisis. and since then, of course, as we know has led marches through washington through new york city just a month ago. with each step forward as an activist mckibbon has been more deliberate in reaching back into the repositories of scripture and back to the land's spirituality. his view of oil mirrors that of his muck-raking predecessor ida tarbell which whom he shared love of the bible and awe of nature's mysteries in a transcendent view of terrestrial things. through his writings, through his activism, he has managed to stir up a new constituency of activists, i think a very

interesting one. young evangelicals aligned with sojourners, many of them coming from the oil patch itself, including from texas. oil patch pentacostal and baptist youth have journeyed to washington to stand with mckibbon with nuns, mennonites quakers ranchers and age ding now communities -- indigenous communities. they have traveled to nebraska and texas to chain themselves to bulldozers, prey on pipe and use faith to subvert oil's order. and in all of this they see this as a great revival brewing of the kind witnessed in the 19th century, led by charles finney. mckibbon would disagree with the way in which zealous evangelical young people are still looking for the next revival. in his estimation the fires of revival are already burning bright. so barack obama you might say also senses the heat of these four reveils, these four awakenings. unlike mckibbon however, his

charge is manifold living with the legacy of several crude awakenings, his is a tough task that demands a careful sorting out which is why his all of the above energy policy has been a path of some convenience and why his energy dilemma could very well be his successor's too. but that's a misleading conclusion as well because change is surely coming. keystone's final decisions are impending, its destiny and the consequences for people on the plains to be decided soon. all the more it seems now that pipeline-supporting republicans have taken control of the senate. according to several washington insiders and pundits, the keystone was seen as the big winner on tuesday and one of the most heralded victories in gop circles. and, of course republican leaders have already promised to make the pipeline a priority with the goal of sending the president a bill to authorize its completion and daring him to veto it. whether lost or won, the keystone is only the tip of mounting warfare between

multiple parties, all of which hold deep convictions about the proper place of oil and energy in our new millennium. mckibbon's carbon-free campaign may end up losing the keystone fight, wildcatters may win, but his movement for reform is forcing many north americans to a place of reckoning where carbon emissions are concerned. the reckoning has produce surprising results and more curious evidences of new directions. even as the koch brothers and their lobby for pipeline-friendly initiatives have raised the ire of american liberals, in alberta -- home to the oil sands -- its green salvationist billionaires, borrowing from a canadian journalist, who seem threatening to the order. among the salvationist billionaires of whom the angry canadians speak are the rock fellerses and the pews -- rockefellers and the pews who are leading a wider tar sands campaign and in the case of the former divesting their oil holdings following the lead of

mckibbon's organization. rockefellers abandoning petroleum, i pews shunning the canadian oil sands, a very venture they created in the 1950s, such are the striking signs of revolution that would surprise ida tarbell and worry beyond measure the likes of john wolver. change is what we write about, so too contingency and the fleetingness of tidy, analytical categories. even a quick glance at these four turns in the life of 20th and 21st century oil should remind us of that. we're privy to a host of characters and dynamics that don't necessarily line up with our conventions of religious and political history. the spiritual calamity of oil in these moments created flashes of insurgence that really shattered familiar binaries, and bound uncommon faith partners along with the nonreligious together behind shared ethics of place

capital, labor and custodianship. the degree to which these insurgencies will disrupt our familiar narratives and categories and create political realignments going forward is a question yet to be answered. what is striking, finally is the way in which those locking arms over pipelines in protest have kind of created a transcendent ambition and worry for many americans over the issue of oil. we shortchange our histories of modern america when we don't calculate the deep structures, meaning those living in oil-rich zones ascribe to their labor on and below the land and measure the length to which they will go politically to protect their rights to these encounters. we also fall short by not allowing for dense complexities in the relationship. big oil versus the people, oil, we've seen has a way of eliciting divergent imaginations. for rockefeller it was industrial america's life blood,

for tarbell, oil meant the excrement of the level and notions of work and family, patterns of time and the nation's proper engagement with the world. it is in the contestation within oil culture that we can identify the prompts for some of america's most profound the political and religious turns. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for being here. in the 2012 presidential election both candidates that did yously avoided mention of mr. romney's religion. though banked and cooled by both campaigns, religion nevertheless spilled out hot everywhere. the obama campaign fumeed when romney in a nod to protestant evangelicals told sean hannity that will obama wanted to make america, quote a less christian

nation. asked about the statement romney said he wasn't familiar with what he said but, quote, i stand by what i said whatever it was. [laughter] tellingly, even with such nonstatements about faith in the air, neither could quite take mormonism head on. those official silences stood in tension with the wave of media obsession that conjured a mormon moment so-called, that filled periodicals and news programs with profiles of the church of jesus christ and latter day saints. is there a relationship between that and the political silences surrounding it? this morning i contend that the specific form that american engagement with mormonism has long taken, that of the expose encourages reflection within the study of religion and politics about the meanings of religious secrecy.

what can we say about the repeated keeping and disclosing of mormon secrets? or put more crassly what does it mean that americans have long demanded that mr. romney account for his underwear? [laughter] journalists in 2012 were thrust into the basic paradox of this history. is mormonism an exotic creation with strange rituals and secretive patriarchs, or is it the quintessentially american religion a patriotic if bland church extolling large families and capitalist achievement? in part it is mormonism's limittalty that has marked it for such continuing political controversy. it's seen as both christian and not quite christian. somehow more or is it less than one? today i offer secrecy as a key fulcrum for that limbalty.

mormonism's secrets have do you wanted it as a problem for americans and for scholars alike, but at the same time mormon secrets have helped make a distinctive mormon people possible. seen in this light, the consequential effects of secrecy give us more than additional details to round out a religion's historical portrait. rather they provide us the gritty mechanics of power itself. how it is constituted and contested. and since mormonism's stubborn concealment impulses run right into the teeth of our scholarly and democratic projects, they beg important questions of both american politics and those of us who study them. many religious traditions acknowledge some kind of hidden knowledge just as sacred space can enclose secrets and mark membership in a ten low kiva or mecca. so it has been with the mormon

temple's spatial restrictions but especially during periods of social or political strain religious secrets can signal danger. this was true of earliest christianity where the -- [inaudible] kept the faith's mysteries from nonbelievers and initiates alike but also drew allegations of subversion in the american context. similar dangers were perceived in the 19th century mormons, with row monocat -- roman catholics, the science temple and the nation of islam and with the chu. of scientology -- church of scientology after world world war ii and with muslims after september 11th 2001. mormonism may seem to be an especially secretive faith, but it did not emerge that way. the historical, almost accidental presence of secrecy in early mormonism blossomed as the tradition entered a second stage in the 1840s when church leaders put secrecy at the

church's administrative and sacramental core. polygamist marriages, elaborate temple rituals by 1850 mormonism teemed with secrets. through this robust but hidden substratum mormons redefined christianity family, sexuality time and human bodies themselves. indeed where mormon conceptions of space and time had earlier worked on the axis of a holy sit sit -- city, the 1840s innovations sent the projecten a new footing. -- project on a new footing. now the saints' own bodies formed the holy of holies within the sacred spaces. appropriately, mormons both donned ceremonial clothing for the rites and wore special underclothing thereafter. mormons could scarcely jettison

their secret things without pulling the foundations out from under some substantial ritual and theological structures. it is not surprising then that ex-mormons have known have long known exactly how to leave or exactly where to strike. the secrets were just waiting to be exposed. secrecy is, thus, functioned as a lever for rmon identity, marking passageways both into and out of the religion's beating heart. mormons prize their pioneer-era temples for their rough hewn beauty and the s-baked powers of will that have called them up from the desert floor, but given the history i'm narrating here, their similarities of form speak an altogether different sermon. they are, after all each castles as sit a dells of the secrets they call up defiance resistance and entrenchment. ..

with 1300 mormons in prison many more disenfranchised into church property in federal hands still they hope for a workable middle way. only when back channel communications warned that the temples would be subject to federal seizure did the great

accommodation come. th secretary of interior said in august of 1890 that he would not abide the earlier agreement sparing the temples and the church presidents famed polar get me manifesto came just days not weeks later. even polygamy which they had sworn couldn't be given up without wrecking everything turned out to be expendable when compared with the maintenance of the places. 1904, some sustained the program in secret polygamy in the decade and a half following the official disavowed some 300 at least. an expectation that indicate a return short of that a more congenial supreme court. the quiet resisting went hand-in-hand with the strategies at the same time including to the u.s. senate. the hearings offered the exposé

drama on the grand stage. before the senate committee came the dissolution professor to rehearse the temples notorious vengeance. for the gathered senators to judge. it had at the senator compromised his national loyalty because of his temple vowels? the founding prophet took the stand for the church and said so that you should receive the revelation commanding your people to do something forbidden by the law of the land which would be the duty to obey. the politically savvy church presidents fired back they would be at liberty to obey which they pleased. there is absolutely no compulsion. both sides learned the script and they knew their lines. the national reform association has helped lead the

anti-polygamy crusade though the main goal as it is stated by the association was a constitutional amendment declaring the nation unchristian. even after the polygamy concession. it is with the bright young thing who was among the first to receive a phd and earned an academic reputation as a geologist and had become the gentleman theologian. in 1912 he published the house of the lord which offered the most complete descriptions of temple worship to date the book had been prompted by a scandal. antagonists pretend to publish surreptitiously taken interior unless they paid a heavy tea ran some -- hefty ran some.

and was tasked with writing the accompanying text. if you live in the place where the new mormon temple was built, that is a direct result of this kind of sense of kind of a proactive publicaffairs sensitivity. the resulting back and forth from the text came to the head in 1919 when he showed up at the third world conference in pittsburgh and was eventually allowed to speak to the association for five minutes. but the speaker following suggested that he be stripped to reveal that the temple undergarments bearing the marks of the quotes. it was an hour before he was able to slip away. 1982. that evangelicals have noticed moreover the church announced

the newfound growth and confidence in dramatic fashion with a 1974 dedication of the temple just north of the capital it is rather conspicuous on the way the temple mimicked the salt lake temple but with a shiny modern sunset update that many saw as an unmistakable assertion of power and presence. surging the political conservatism dead mormonism no favors with protestant evangelicals who responded with an invigorated movement. the energetics produced a book and movie combination in this particular moment the god makers which became a touchstone for evangelical opposition. the film complete with spooky music and animated segments was condemned by the anti-defamation league and the national council of christians and jews of its

effects were substantial. the film was to the reenactment of the temple right. the voice introduces the viewers to the secrets. what you are seeing is an authentic first-hand ever on film reenactment of the secret ceremony. 200bsking inthelow of the olympiin 2anytook hegg othctaeamricfith. th208cl n tchiolme i 20 mrie aly itti twa that. several upgraded it to the decision to portray the temple ceremony in the 2009 big love episode had something to do with the california political activism area to the episode provided some new ones for the right with the character voicing the comfort of many mormons

associate the temple worship that the particular selection from the ceremony formed a conspicuous poke in the ie indeed to the ritual nerds. he remained a recognizable performance style. into the memorable enactment of the routine the reporter after showing clips of the ex- mormons reenacting the guy then discontinued penalty of. after being reminded of the discontinuance committee interview pressed but what is mr. romney have taken these thousand past before the changes to the ritual.

footage of the entire temples or money secretly filmed by an ex- mormon to the worst kept secret never before seen videos of secret mormon temple rituals. ritual exposé. i offer these words as a storyline for minority faith in america. americans of the u.s. religion crafted details of pluralism democratization. the individual making spiritual choices from the history recounted here and stew a generational course of dissent from those two factions. on the one hand this is a story of the mormonism but chipped

away at its secrets. it pushes the scholars onto unstable ground. how should one study or narrate what partisans want to keep hidden as an article of faith or expos exposed as an active democratic righteousness. scholars of religion, journalists and political commentators that seems to me might seek that space between taboo with regards to the secrets. we must position ourselves so as to better explain what is at stake indicating and the exposing across time and in the presence. thank you. [applause]

>> continue with the theme of the outside of religious candidates religious candidates from outside the protestant mainstream and merge that line of inquiry with another kind of more theoretical term of american history recently for the last several decades scholars of history have had kind of a definitional crisis of the challenges defining the religion of that recourse to the metaphysical terms. it doesn't end here. now what about those categories in relation to the religion. so i am taking these two

storylines, one one of the minority religious candidates and one about the variations in the secularism. the secularism had developed in the christian origins and was in fact universal and fully separate from christianity. what appears universal in the united states context is actually secularism so i reverted i'd refer to that as the protestant secularism. so the history recently offered genealogies of this modern secularism in america 2011 in the early 19th century and the culture and redemption is a literary historian who charged from the founding to the present secularism and within the

protestant secularism to scholars have noted politicians and others interested in the commerce or the political stability tended to distinguish between good and bad religion by how effectively the practitioners in the given tradition honor the boundaries between internal transformation and external action. john kerry did just this in that in the 2007 interview for the religion life project one thing the practices together and emphasizing the distinctive work of religion that happened in the walls of the psyche. it doesn't have to be per se. it can be the way of life, confucianism, buddhism, hindu. there are many ways people choose to have a guiding set of values in their life and for many it is organized religion and for many it is not that i would suggest this respectfully no matter what religion or philosophy organized or otherwise people adopt they almost always have a golden rule in them and if you were legitimately practicing any of them and practicing them well

you would tend to be a pretty good citizen and a pretty good person. it is the good traditions that may be of their own in this model but they translate them into the reasonable argument or the values when engaging those outside of the tradition. in the areas of bad religion and contrast, they do not register the key change as they switch between the external and internal domains. the good religion is good in the measure that it tends towards the invisibility or at at least be uninterested with protecting or preserving an ostensibly neutral space in which converted and unconverted me do the work of commerce and government. they have enthusiastically supported essentially the protestant system. it's the same boundaries that they don't always serve their religious interests per se.

what i hope to do today is basically take the lessons and apply them to the most foundational central actors in the national life of the presidential candidates. so the other books i've been talking about ten to write about the deep careful readings of the literary texts were hugely abstracted analyses of new machinery and new print culture. i am saying the story they are telling about the protestant secularism is clear and revealed in the most highly studied actors in the nations history all taking this narrative and applying it in a different context and it begins as almost every narrative of the religious and politics. for thomas jefferson to the cluster of the outside religious candidates in the 21st century the candidate presidential

hopefuls reinforce secularism and to some extent the more fluid concept of the law and the rhetoric and policy choices fought against any form of the religious coercion having only reason and a public debate whatever the dogma announced the quality of opportunity for people of all under the deceptive show and is maintained a remarkably consistent witness. the good religion belongs in the individual conscience as any debate or a values. thomas jefferson said the pattern for the candidates outside of anglo-american protestant traditions actually shared more in common with the fellow evangelicals citizens and most historians are prepared to acknowledge. jefferson is already the tolerating figure in every account of the the church and state relations in the united states since he did have some of the most important documents they used to understand the origin origin of the first amendment and the statute for the religious religious religious freedom in the band or a letter. but it's not simply semantics to say that jefferson was also a principal architect of the protestant secularism.

the riddle in jefferson's case is how someone who didn't self identify as protestant could nonetheless give the words and legal form to the core conventions in the generations were protestants have embraced as their own. in the public and private writings and the possibility to the priestcraft leading many to characterize jefferson as more secular or modern damn it appears. he was nonetheless the scottish commonsense philosophy and therefore anticipated to be posture of early 19th century evangelicals and this is particularly meaningful right against the modern work in the 18th century instead of 30 or 40 years earlier. they did tracy very similar route to the evangelical secularism several decades before the protagonist did so without the additional stimuli of the bill of new machines.

they have the fundamental self-evident truths and similarly on matters of religion distinguished morality by the truth claims of the natural philosophy they have the reason is divinely appointed tool with which any individual could evaluate the proposition. the confidence in the photo citizens ability to use reason to unseat all and this is the key to the true religion had enormous implications to the relationship in the religious and secular as constituted in the united states. as evangelicals would do in the century, he advocated what we now conceive of as the secularism and the principle not to destroy christianity but decided to protect the liberty of the individuals exercise his or her reason to discover nature's god in the elegant and insightful sidestep around the explosive debate of the meaning of jefferson's wall of separation metaphor they offer a persuasive interpretation of the letter explaining the

distinction between protecting free thought for its own sake and for the sake of facilitating the spread of true or good religion. jefferson believed in the church and state he could protect the inquiry and by doing so made the process that purified christianity house in the reason rather than faith would become america's civil religion. the senate actually followed the famous wall image. when jefferson offered the hope that comic book if hearing this expression of the supreme will of the nation and behalf of the rights of conscience i shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments attended to restore all of the natural rights and convinced he has no natural right in opposition to the social duties. in their version of the american secularism they have such religious sentiments as would render them more useful as citizens. as the political candidates sitting president and retired

statesmen, jefferson left plenty of evidence backing responsibility that conforms to the reason and implicated citizenship. in the election of 1800 day had seized upon jefferson's published remarks to argue that the candidate was dangerously indifferent to the protestant christianity in the de facto national religion. in fact jefferson had used rather strong language to make the point that the legitimate power of government extended to such acts only at his injuries to others. the supporters of the state-sponsored religious establishments that comic comic book and it does me no injury to say that there are 20 gods or no god. after, jefferson was both smart on the criticism he and eager to find common ground on the cantankerous political parties but it's only just emerged. this is not only the context for the letter but it's also the context in which he set about for himself and private cancer how far far of the reason for taking towards the christianity taken towards the christianity

that was taught by the president of it works out the syllabus of the doctrine which he mailed it to benjamin ross confessing and a cover letter to be a christian in the only sense that jesus wished anyone to be sincerely attached to the doctrines and to all of those describing to himself every human excellence into believing he never claimed any other. over the following years he cut and pasted extracts to make the philosophy of jesus in predecessor to the more robust jefferson bible. jefferson was clearly interested in discovering the way of approaching religion or what not lead to sectarian conflict in government. while there is more to say that jefferson, the central insight that he personally endorsed and went his support to the version of secularism that was anything but neutral instead he protected the space and endeavor to the normative particular kind of protestant religious activities including engagement with text on the transformation and voluntary association of the committees. moreover, jefferson tried to

reasonableness to gauge of good or permissible religion and struck out violently against any attempt even private ones to constrain another's conscience and in september 1808 out the proposition clearly. pledging to use all of his power to fight against the attempt to introduce the religious establishment. he said it better of course. he said i swear upon the hostility of any form of tierney over the mind of man. when subsequent candidates found themselves in his shoes as members and representatives of the religious traditions and overwhelmingly protestant country, they followed his pattern of advocating for the space at the table. in a way it actually infringes the interest in the secularism. john kerry, mitt romney and barack obama the candidate the century operating outside of the white protestant traditions have affirmed the strikingly parallel language the protestant secularism and added in the american law and culture and and they used the bully pulpit or at least relatively privileged

spots on the campaign trail in the 24 hour media 24 hour media cycle to define the country which in and in the terms that which produces internal transformation and involves only voluntary associations as consistent with reason and to any distinctive moral code. under fire or suspicion kerry, romney and obama deliberate at least one landmark religion speech built such and deliver and analyzed as such in which they describe using rather precise terms religion as a private exchange which translates into politics rarely by expanding the believer sense of the public good. moreover they offered nearly identical definitions of good and bad religions that are quite capacious. but really congruent in terms of the foss process. they addressed. kerry addressed the commitments more directly in 2004 in the time that he and george w. bush would dad walked in the polls of

49% each. he chose to give a speech in florida ground zero for the democrats to defeat the 2011. and sunday no less. the democratic nominee walked a delicate tightrope according to the scripture putatively but underscoring every time that his distinctive religious experience was only internal and more profound impulses towards the common good were the only external markers of his face. he prayed and wrestled with catholicism during the vietnam war he said that was ultimately able to affirm its resulting in, coconut the sense of hope and belief in the higher purpose. at the rhetorical center of the address he quoted from the book of james saying it is end enough to see that you have faith when there are no deeds. he used this as a pivot from private experience to public action. for me that means having and holding to division of the society of the common good where the individual rights and freedoms are connected to the responsibility for others and it means understanding the authentic role of leadership is

to advance the leadership of each of us and the good that comes to all of us when we work together as one united community. while the largely dispelled the concerns about the roman catholic president would abound through the influence in american politics, the decades before coming kerry felt compelled to look at the issue. as he interpreted it, the roman catholics were obliged to the moral lives wives but not attempted to act on others specific policy positions advocated by the church leaders. reminding the auditors in the controversy that has committed so much over the summer. this is when the ships debated whether or not they should borrow kerry from the coming of the college of bishops decided no but several local bishops, three or maybe for decided that they would until he repented and others have different positions. he said quote, i know there are some that have suggested a public official i must cast votes or take public positions on issues like the woman's right to choose or set themselves a search to carry out the catholic church. but then trying to adhere to the

boundaries of good religion by refusing to constrain another's conscience he said i love my church and respect the bishops that i disagree. he continued my task as i see it isn't to write every doctrine into law and it isn't possible in a pluralistic society. they reinforced the secularism that had characterized the presidential politics since jefferson. republicans nominated a candidate from outside of the traditional fold when mitt romney was at the highest office in 2012. mitt romney was there several times in the campaign. not completely silent, but he had made a signature statement earlier during the republican primary for years previous. the primary field that concluded mike huckabee and outspoken baptist romney attempted to the concerns of the leadership in the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints in december of 2007. he did so not by defending the mormonism per se that he did say you're right he refused to address the distinctive doctrines. but he did reaffirm the model of

the secularism and firmly placed the latter-day saints in the category of good religion. he used different personal anecdotes than anecdotes than anecdotes and carry data that otherwise echoed a anecdotes than kerry did otherwise that go to very closely all the lines of the broward county speech and voting the sequencing he went off his discussion of faith by ensuring the american people that he would never allow the religious authorities to take policy positions. no listener was beyond the 1960s beach. let me assure you that no authorities in my church or any other church for that matter both over exert influence on the presidential decisions. it is already there in the church affairs and it ends in the affair of the nation. mitt romney further vowed he would guard against any legislation routed to closely in the distinctive doctrines of any tradition. i will put no doctrine of any church above the duties of the office in the sovereign authority of the law he promised. he continued every religion has its own unique doctrines in history. these are not basis for criticism that he testified and. he returned verbatim to the script at this point almost

verbatim. it's kind of startling him of proclaiming the primary purpose of faith was enlarging the believers to have a common good and welcoming the fold of the good religion all those traditions to prepare from advancing the doctrinal ballot box. every faith i have encountered draws us closer to god. before cataloguing what was the most catholicism evangelicalism, with judaism and islam. it's important to recognize while the differences in theology exist between the churches in america we share the common convictions and there were the affairs of the nation concerned it is a sound rule to focus on the ladder on the great moral principles that urge us all on the common course. so the attention of this brief conversation isn't to theorize the new way of understanding the church church and state relations but to observe how the presidential candidates are at the very center of the national life in the most prominent actors in the shared experiences of citizens. having described and reencrypt

the boundaries of the protestant secularism and to note the irony of those outside of the white protestant traditions. it's been at this time i would like to open the floor for other people to ask questions and also just want to remind you that all of our speakers will be here for the entirety of the day and i am volunteering to them but i'm certain that they are willing to talk with you during the breaks before and after if you have questions that you don't get a chance to ask during this time. and also just a quick note if you would like to ask a question, we have a couple of guys here that have microphones. please allow the microphone to come to you so that we can all hear you answer the recorder can also pick you up.

>> a question that i thought was a fascinating paper. you touched on some of the things the people that you left out of the view of history unless i missed it in the talk if left out the first amendment and the religious freedom falls which makes a lot of sense because it is a tricky thing today but they also left out the great awakening which would seem to fit in with their version of history quite neatly. then a quick follow-up, do these books were the people looking at the founding era in the colonial era do they grapple with the problem of theocracy which is something people in the colonial era think about they certainly do but it's something prevalent in the political thought of the

reformation through the 17th and 18th centuries. it's been those are great questions. for the first great awakening yes it is a central moment for these thinkers and essentially george whitfield. some conservative pundits have argued the spiritual father is the title of the recent book and that he should be elevated to a particularly high level including attributing to george whitfield at the concept of the new birth which obviously far predates george whitfield. some evangelical historians have come back and pushed back on a little bit but yes the great awakening are seen as absolutely central events. just the question of theocracy no those are questions that are

not discussed and i think it's because of the focus on principle it is embodied in the first amendment and its right. then you apply at the subsequent moment, so the complexities that might come out of what the first amendment process of creating the first amendment in different readings those are mostly interested in the culture war context and the culture war of context is usually a little bit off to the side of the discussion because it is so admittedly political. so it is not favorite iced. >> i have two questions. one for kate and one for spencer. my first question is the link between -- i'm very interested in the link between the ancient

israelites and the mayflower compact and i'd like you to speak a little bit more about how they were linked. how exactly they justified justified about pulling a little more specifically i would be curious. and then for spencer. it makes a lot of sense given that press history of oppression how has the dialogue changed as becoming the american religion and how they talk about the oppression in of the past and then somehow becoming more.

the standards for 2010 which are now leading to textbooks requires the connecting as sort of an original thinker for the creation of the united states and for something that the teachers are grappling with right now of how to put moses into a process that by any reading was at least very distant from. it happened in part through the mayflower and it happens in two ways. one -- >> just a few moments left in the discussion hosted by the southern methodist university. you can see this and others like it any anytime on the website, c-span.org. going life to the discussion about executive action by

president obama on undocumented minors in immigration law overall. this is hosted by the association of american law school. live coverage continuing on c-span to. >> i am an associate professor of clinical law and i'm very pleased to be moderating the panel. you've been hearing about immigration issues throughout the day and the panels could and the panels could be the in-depth case study on the president's views of executive authority in the immigration arena. so a lot of what we are going to be talking about is about the presidents actions in the backdrop of the congressional dysfunction. it's been nearly 30 years since the congress last had a major overhaul of immigration legalization system back in 1986. it's been nearly 20 years since the congress made major changes to the way the enforcement system works. the truth of the matter is in the recent years essentially

what we have been seeing from congress at best it has been some piecemeal sporadic action but really in the last few years it's been focused mostly on the complete stagnation and this has had real-life consequences certainly there's something to be said about the idea. maybe that is just part of the process into something the president should be taking more heat but at the end of the day real lives are being affected over 400000 people are detained each year we have approximately 11 million undocumented individuals living in this country without an avenue for regulating the status. so the american families and the communities that are being affected by the issues, people in the states, people across the country dealing with the visa backlogs or family separation

the idea of waiting for action is a really tough pill to swallow so that's why we have been seeing the forms of action other than congress whether it's the states doing things on their own and whether it's the president doing things on his own so today we are going to be talking about the president's particular initiative, and although we are going to be focusing mostly on the controversial programs that is the production for childhood arrivals and the action for the parental accountability. and it actually is that actually is the newest set of things we have been seeing focusing on the discussion but in the reality the president's first act of executive authority in immigration were not these forms of programs that were aimed at expanding people's ability to stay in the u.s., to come forward and affirmatively apply for temporary retreat from

deportation which is simply what it is. it was the president taking a relatively aggressive stance on the enforcement initiatives leading to over 2 million people being deported under his administration in history. talking about the presidents actions in the context of being just about kind of the right kind of basis of expansion. looking at one side of the claim and at what the president has done up until now is to expand on lots of the deportations. part of what we may get in this panel is talking about the idea that when you de- prioritize they are also de- prioritizing other people's deportations. so people on the old sides of the issue i think should think about the president's authority very carefully, and that is what we are going to do today.

so joining us to unpack these issues as a great panel of scholars who have been writing about these issues and are going to be sharing their work. louis and clark law school and the clinical clinical professor professor of law at penn state law school. the way that we decided we are going to dig into these issues is actually to divide the discussion somewhat. it's really to take us through the debate over the locality. both of the scholars have already written a great deal on these issues and have taken different sides so this is going to be a fun discussion about what really makes but

kind of criteria we have to look at when we are thinking about the lookout of the industries they question about legal or historical precedents and what are the aspects of the programs again, daka and dapa to the question of what aliso they are going to present their views and ask them a follow-up question. and then we are going to turn to the professors to talk about the implications of the program. whether or not this program eventually succumbs to some sort of illegal talent or not. it's here. it has already at least affected hundreds of thousands of lives in this country. yesterday to affect the lives of people. as you know and as you are familiar, these programs don't create legal status. they gave someone a temporary reprieve from the deportation and work authorization but despite the fact that there is a kind of bo status formulation they are already affecting the

rights of many individuals living in this country. and that changes the way that we think about what's going to have been happen administratively or legislatively in the future. so people go through these two topics led by the panel and then we will open it up for questions from the floor. why don't we start and have you talk little bit about the history the context and the legal defense of the presidents actions. >> thank you for those remarks and also the professor for making the symposium a reality. i'm going to use my time to provide a brief definition of prosecutorial discretion in the immigration context. next identify the major pieces of president obama's executive action that relate to the

prosecutorial discretion and third, identify the history and theory behind immigration prosecutorial discretion and its relationships to know the november 20 actions. for us to get into the legal authority but largely reference the law professor letter that many of you may be familiar with defending the legal authority of these actions and then finally all in eight minutes to highlight some of the politics are, is it law come is it politics or is it just a policy debate. what is prosecutorial discretion it refers to the decision that the department of homeland security we've been using the word agency a lot today. so we try to be specific about which agency makes about whether to enforce the immigration law against a person or a group of persons. when an immigration officer from the dhs chooses not to bring a

legally valid charges against a person because of equities prosecutorial discretion is being exercised favorably. but it isn't just limited to what kind of charges to bring against a person if at all. in some special cases as we have seen the same person may be permitted to receive work authorization and recognize as woefully president. whether or not it is carried out invisibly through the enforcement or overtly through affirmative acts of discretion which by the way i see them both as decisions not to take the enforcement action. the discretion itself is tenuous. and if leads to immigration

purgatory where the noncitizen is able to reside in the united states without a fear of deportation. so with that, what are the major elements of president obama's actions that relate to the prosecutorial discretion? first policy change that we have heard about a few times today is the deferred action for the parental accountability. this program will because it has not yet been operational and able the undocumented parents to request t-shirt action in the cell for must be aggression if they can show the president in the united states for the last five years a qualifying relationship to a child that is a lawful permanent resident or u.s. citizen and importantly show that they are not an enforcement prairie among other requirements. a second policy change is a so-called expansion of the deferred action for childhood

arrival. this program was put into place in 2012 and enables certain people that enter the united states before the age of 16 to request the further action and work authorization if they are in school and meet other requirements. the changes made on november 20 were meaningful to the extent that the residency requirement and the age cap was manicured to expand the number of people that might qualify for daka. president obama announced a new priority memorandum which is effective today. the timing is perfect. and if a pair of the memo targets roughly three classes of individuals for removal. so as we think and we talk about the deferred action and the prosecutorial discretion, keep in mind that a significant policy memo that was also issued on november 20 prioritizes the

classes of people for the removal. is it, roughly the three classes include threats to national security including those of a felony conviction or an aggravated felony conviction different from a true felony conviction in many cases. a second class includes misdemeanors including those that have been convicted of a significant misdemeanor. and a third class includes the so-called other immigration violators including those that have received the removal order on or after january 1, 2014. keep in mind that any person who otherwise meets the publications that falls within the three classes is barred from relief. while many elements of this priority memo in the late many of the guideline factors that have been part of the preceding memos, there is one interesting point that i would mention here and that is the administration

desire to capture people who might be a priority within the prosecutorial discretion framework meaning that within this memo the administration says there may be compelling circumstances where you have a felony conviction but for the equity or the shimano. reasons it is nevertheless qualify for a favorable act of prosecutorial discretion. in this way the formula is not a one-size-fits-all approach and could create exceptions to the families narratives put forth by president obama. what is the theory and history for president obama's executive action on immigration? there are at least three theories behind the november 20 action. the agency has resources to

remove less than 4% or 400,000 people who fall within the deported population. a second theory and one that has not been highlighted today is the humanitarian one. there are significant humanitarian reasons why the prosecutorial discretion and t-shirt action in particular have been granted and used by the agency. and the third has been told today includes congressional activity and inactivity. when advocates become more demanding of an administration in the wake of the congressional inaction we see the prosecutorial discretion entering. so president obama relied on all three of these theories when he issued his november 20 action. as to the economics committee declared let's be honest tracking down down rounding up and deporting millions of people is not realistic.

as to the humanitarian reason for creating programs like dapa the president remarked icing the heartbreak and anxiety of children whose mothers might be taken away from them just because they didn't have to write papers. these people come our neighbors and classmates and friends, they didn't come here in search of a free ride or an easy life. finally, president obama discussed how the committee in congress influenced his announcement and remarked to those members of congress who question my authority to make the immigration system work better or questioned the wisdom of me acting where the congress has failed, i have one answer. pass the bill. and importantly the choice made by the president to base the prosecutorial policy on humanitarian factors like family relationship resembles the deferred action in the way that

it's been applied historically. one of the earliest documents used by the immigration agency then called immigration naturalization service was an operations instruction that allowed for the t-shirt action for the noncitizens who could show one or more of the following factors, advanced age from serious medical or mental mental healthcare health care condition. impact of deportation on a family or many years of presence in the united states. for the last several years i studied the dhs data and internal guidelines on the t-shirt action obtained through the freedom of information act. having looked at thousands of t-shirt actions processed by the department of homeland security, the recurring theme is a menace. the third action is granted to the noncitizens with dependents presence in the united states since childhood, primary caregivers medical conditions.

in sydney agency used oracle use of the deferred action for individuals. the agency has applied to the deferred action and other forms to group for similar reasons. a natural and quick settled question that i would end up with is the legal authority. and for those of you that want a treatise that is shorter than the law review i would refer you to the november 25 letter that was signed by more than 120 scholars in the immigration law primarily defending the legal action of november 20. the legal authority itself is rooted in the u.s. constitution and the immigration statute, in the regulations that are binding on the agency coming in on the reams of policy memoranda. as recently as two years ago,

the u.s. supreme court do when he did in arizona versus the united states that choice made by the department of homeland security begins with whether to pursue that removal at all. and while this point may be controversial, i can see it very clear in the statute that the congress has delegated to the department of homeland security the authority to make decisions about immigration enforcement. and we see that in section 103 of the immigration and nationality act. in another section 242 we also see this question of the review ability. they barred the judicial review of the decisions to initiate removal proceedings at add adjudicated cases and execute removal orders. how could such an important statutory bar to the judicial review has been public by

publicly congress if there was no contemplation for this idea of the prosecutorial discretion in the system? some of the politics have been highlighted today in including including the pending lawsuit by the 24 states, the related lawsuits that was recently thrown out by the dc court judge surrounding the shares merit copia county and we have a pennsylvania judge who decided to talk about and pontificate rather on the constitutionality of the prosecutorial discretion and individual case regarding a person that is subject to the sentencing for the illegal reentry. beyond the courtroom -- and i realize i'm over my time, thank you for this, professor we have in the hall of congress a fair amount of politics. we have just in the first month of action when it was announced

to house judiciary committee hearing on the lookout for the other programs and a floor vote by the house that would have declared the actions null and void. the politics are well captured by the exchange in the political stories the next day. it is the substance when asked by the reporter whether the republicans were taking those furiously, the representative republican from arizona, replied i don't even know who ted is. so the wall policy and politics i look forward to your questions. thank you for your time. ask [applause] >> thank you so much and next up we have people in support of the policies of immigration reform. but don't necessarily think the

president stayed within his bounds. so tell us more about those theories in the presentation. >> i also want to thank you for the wonderful job you've done keeping us on course today and putting together this fantastic program. it's about the action where it initlly the but kind of equitable discretion that has just been mentioned in a very vivid way. in the 1990s iran i ran a haitian refugee clinic in miami and st. thomas university school of law. at one point we represented a haitian guy who was an undocumented person. he's gotten off the plane i guess from haiti and didn't have the legal status. he was married to another person who was a lawful permanent resident and they have two kids that were born person to birthright citizenship as we all know they were u.s. citizens.

he was in proceedings. eventually he got a final order of removal in the baggage later to shove about the deportation office with no more than 30 pounds of luggage so that it could be sent back. we went to the deportation office in the case and we said look at the equities. he's he has a wife, two citizen kids. once the wife naturalize which would have been in a couple of months and it's going to be a relatively short time before he can get an immigrant visa. so why you exercise the discretion and let them stay. the deportation officer pointed to the sign she have on the office wall. that sign said how did he get in, let me help you out.

so think about that for a second as the perspective of the deportation officer. the deportation officer said the only way to help you is to help you out of the country. so we have no intention of exercising discretion on your behalf. it turned out that with the excellent interception who is now able to get a a congressperson to intercede and and get to the deeper traction for this client. that's what the third action can do and the power of the t-shirt action. i think that's a very important aspect of the immigration policy. but how do i get from their coming and they recognize the importance of the equitable criteria and the inferred action to the way that i am spending pretty much all my time when i haven't been at this conference in the past 48 hours which is writing an amicus brief for the

cato institute and the texas lawsuit to be tv addicts to discuss that and take it back even further than the '90s to take you back to 1965 in washington, d.c.. the u.s. senate the hearing of the senate judiciary committee on what became of the immigration and nationality act of 19653 of the most groundbreaking legislation of the past 60 years. at this hearing one thing that was discussed was an earlier draft of the bill to the currently outstanding draft which said that a parent could get lawful permanent residency pursuant to application by u.s. citizen child, any u.s. citizen

child. sam ervin from south carolina who some of you may recall was later the chair of the watergate committee was concerned about this which actively changed the long-standing provision of the law. under this provision, you could have a couple that just gets off the plane in new york city and they have a kid and then presto they are admitted to the united states of america. is that really the situation that this body wants to see? the other party in the colloquy was senator robert kennedy. it would be an even younger attorney general of the united states. bobby kennedy said no senator area this is just a drafting mistake. we need to change this because the scenario you described cannot possibly be the law to be if we cannot encourage people to come here have kids and then

become lawful permanent residents. wouldn't you know with complete or that today the assistant attorney general of the united states showed up with an amendment saying now if you own a petition for parents and you are a u.s. citizen you have to be at least 21 years of age. that had been the law before and that was the provision that was enacted in the nationality act of 1965. that is the law today. that portion of the wall most clearly is basically trashed by the dhs initiative. and i think it is a very important part of the law and the important part of the country and the framework that the congress has established to govern the exercise discretion in immigration law. congress said yesterday over 21 to present a scenario that had

been outlined. that's not to say that equitable discretion of the kind that may be received is a bad thing. if it is a good thing. but that is the kind of discussion the congress has always had in mind when it thinks about the third action and the way that it is acknowledged in the nationality act. the exceptions claimed to this wordy for action that has been broad don't stand up to scrutiny. so for example, you have the family fairness after the reform and control act but fairly fairness is a form of relief that is ancillary to the legalization of the media relatives of the beneficiaries who can't relief. they would've gotten relief anyway just under the ordinary working of immigration and nationality act. they got it just a little bit

quicker. and they would be held by those that have a far more remote claimed to immigration status. they are folks that are right in the crosshairs of the position that senator kennedy insisted on putting on the immigration and nationality act 65. there are folks don't have to that have to wait until the child becomes 21 and because of other provisions of the act having to do with the inability of the undocumented people that were just here in the u.s. and the bar on people that were unlawfully present as you know better than i even have 21 you probably have ten years you have to spend out of the country because the waiver doesn't include the parents or citizens. ..

the policy memorandum. in terms of the tenor of the memo the extent to which it makes permanent relationships a prerequisite or precondition. it is simply not true that those are the only types of individuals and have been considered in the past.

>> i think there is no question that deferred action has been used with people who do not have a pending claim for legal status. that is another case a much more recent. of one client who had an aggravated felony. it it turns out that she was older and confirmed. as a result i decided to grant her deferred action. a great result for her and her family and the kind of equitable discretion even from any viable claim for lasting status and has traditionally been exercised but that is different. and he also says it is

basically unreviewable because of a supreme court case that involves a challenge by death penalty opponents to the fda refusal to commit proceedings against a manufacturer of a drug used in lethal injection. the court said, we we cannot have people challenging every single decision made by administrative agency. the agency is in the position to know balancing the equities. the court said that when we decide the question of a wholesale application of statutory responsibility and subsequent cases the courts have said if you have a general policy statement

that does not partake of the intricate and ad hoc equity of the truly discretionary determination and equitable determination. instead it basically deals with the command from statute, the courts have very much suited this. that will be reviewable. it is important to do that. particularly where you have affirmed benefits like the award of employment authorization which is something congress has continually been concerned about. we will sanction employers. it is true the administration has the ability to give employment authorization to people, but think of it this way. can it give employment authorization to every single undocumented person in this country?

does it extend that far? the answer is no, and i have to think that it is. whatever that lead is, it is 60 -- exceeded by doppler which will grant deferred action. >> thank you. you. we will have more time for questions from the audience on this issue. now let's turn to the second half of the concerns that have been raised whatever happens with lawsuits they are here and it is already having a significant effect on people's rights. we will start with professor haynes the features of this program has started to create its own widespread

effects in terms of federal and state rights and how states have been dealing with this issue now that they have people who will eventually have individuals. so if so if you can talk to us about these implications and what that means for the way immigration law is functioning, that would be great. >> thank you for that question. i would like to start out answering your question by reading a federal register entry from 1997. a definition that i think is still in force today. deferred action does not confer any immigration status on an alien nor is

it in any way a reflection of an alien's lawful immigration status since deferred action is not an immigration status no alien has the right to deferred action and it is used solely in convenience of an indiscretion of and defers no protection or benefits. this position has always fascinated me. it is difficult to talk about deferred action without calling it a status. i think you refer to it as a deportation reprieve, but clearly it is more than that i work permit. last what those who have a green card receive. what i tried to do is define exactly what this paradoxical nonstatus is and identified three major attributes by deferred

action. they are temporary. second while they offer no rights and privileges they offer very few. they are weekly described by law particularly and memoranda and guidance is as opposed to statutes and regulations. when you use these attributes as a uide you realize the united states has been offering something like this for a long time. i must respectfully disagree the categorical is relatively not new. you see this sort of thing is very different and confusing and bureaucratic names over the years.

non- priority status parole, stays of removal, orders of supervision, and many, many different types of deferred action. they offered parole on a case-by-case basis in much the same way his later offered deferred action. the president was granting parole categorically to tens of thousands of people at a time and even after the passage of the refugee act presidents reagan bush and clinton continued to offer from people in a state of strife. now, in 1996 congress passed a series of reforms which prohibited the administration from granting parole accept on a case-by-case basis. that is how amped up.

afterwards what we start to see is the ins and the dhs offering deferred action categorically in much the same way it had earlier used benefits. we see this with self petitioners. and many folks, although eligible in theory were not able to do so. they ended up in the permanent limbo of deferred action status. now, the title of our panel asks whether they are lawmaking or not. the law provides stability allows people to govern their lives by calculating

what consequences will pertain to their action in the future. typically typically it lasts for one or two or three years and to this day if it wishes to do so it can revoke nonstatus. between lawmaking and nonstatus the latter is much more ephemeral. over the years the implementation has often been arbitrarily. for many years the ins offed ebd but refused to give it to salvadorans. challenges were filed.

people quickly realized it was difficult to challenge because they are completely discretionary and there is no real process. a formal adjudicatory system there is no real way to challenge the grant of nonstatus. an arbitrary or discriminatory way. generally eligible for benefits. the specific exclusion. conversely those who are eligible if they are able to accrue the ten years necessary given that we do

not no. in. they are eligible. quarters of supervision will never receive these benefits nonstatus has been around for a long time, growing rapidly. the principal one being that congress has failed repeatedly to enact reform which has caused a dysfunction in the system that the pres. is resolving the best he is able with these new programs, and t best that he can is nonstatus. another explanation nonstatus offers the opportunity for a type of plea bargain process that might make things more efficient.

lastly one of the impediments was the reluctance on the part of many to grant immigrant rights. nonstatus nonstatus is a way to keep immigrants in the united states in a status a status that will prevent them from exercising rights like voting. i do not want to diminish by the way that benefits come with this. this is an extraordinary opportunity for people to claim some legitimacy and dignity who have led life, as many have said command the shadows. nonetheless, persons will contribute to our countries tax revenue in many ways that will nver be given the full benefits. one benefits. one solution might be to

pass immigration reform. [applauding] >> thank you. now we we will turn to talking about the implications on how we think about immigration law generally and the prospects for future reform. obviously this program exists. they will have to figure out what to do with it.

>> well, thank you. thanks especially to the professor for organizing this panel. i realize very much that i stand between your vacation. i will stick to the time. i am much less concerned with the question of legitimacy which has been talked about at length. i am much more interested in examining what kind of legal rules they represent and how fragile our robust those

rules and programs are. so this is something i am co-authoring with an immigration law practitioner our project abhors the idea that immigration law is in a transformative moment creating a knew form of legal rules, something we are calling limits the law which results from the calcification of traditional avenues. i will talk about that and the layout characteristics that might help us think about whether they have a future. our theory is that they represent a knew currency of law that operates on the

edge of four outside of traditional law. what happens when you have major social change like the growth of the undocumented population the kind of social fulfillment that the dreamer's campaign has created, that legal change. statutes and regulations judicial court decisions. explained already today the calcification of legal avenues. i think that is the same. the massive grant of discretion.

the judiciary and, o coursefuamenll immis aoa fnis aann me endochge rog. limits all immigration law. so when the nontraditional legal structures. rules and processes that act and operate like law but are merely long like. there is a place you can find the definition. i think this is the most helpful. it describes something that occupies a place.

so the specific requirements and it sets them apart. the origin story the set of criteria and the unique procedural gateway. i think they are probably not the only forms and that people we will go further into it. it may be another example.

mandate continued detention of defendants on state and local police officers as well as a liberal immigration will. layout this law from other non- traditional. i will try to touch on them briefly. to characterize them a little bit. the first true the non- liminal lawyers portions the robustness, often that is where they come from. the last three bear on how likely they are to stick

around. what the rules. we have talked about that. they were grounded in deferred action but the programs came to life in ways we don't think of as law. a presidential speech, department of homeland security memo. and and by establishing a message of implementation. the benefits providing the designation. that name may have some significance.

also robust. strength in the real world that is long like. so this facts against deportation and an authorization to work and do what legal rules to. they contrast the illegitimacy of an unlawful presence. but rules are also formally put curious. creates durable law. it is hard to overturn court

decisions. in. technically it just requires a new executive proclamation, policy reformulation. even though even though president obama says all you really need to change this is a statute, all you really need is a knew policy and the declaration. but i think these are also functionally sticking meaning. despite the apparent fragility i think it will resist reversible and that that resistance to change results from either social mourns they grow up around these programs. i think that we will be hard

to reform. the gravity and momentum that results that these rules require through usage and the accumulation of administrative policy to practice is going to make it hard to reverse. that is what we no. i'm doing these protections from removal will meet with considerable resistance. they trigger this bias that we have against accepting decisions that would take away a position on privilege i think that will give us

enough to start the conversation. this is simply the idea that it is law in motion transition. [applauding] >> thank you. before we open it up for questions, i have one i am hoping that you can shed light on. it is a robust program. creating ripples facts. what happens if the program is repealed and how they

think about it given the fact that it could still happen. secondly, what we do with the fact that they leave out many people given how robust the program is. the enforcement for those were left out and does that mean in future administrative or legislative reforms individuals will be left out? is there anything we can take that can inform how we might expect the subprograms to flourish and i? >> i agree that these are

sticky there is past stupidity. we have to consider the possibility of duplication. so in order to get them persons are registered, fingerprinted. these features make it seem more like a registration program. the united states has a fairly dark history. one notable example being in the wake of september 11. now they did not have any type of executive dispensation and/or certainly less popular.

perhaps that is not a likelihood. it is more likely that these programs might continue indefinitely. the fact that the department of justice memo that people havepoken about it presently justifies the program. so the legality depends upon as having this large undocumented population. hyper enforcement because it is possible that it may calcify and pushing down even further those who are

left with no status whatsoever. there there is reason to hope for something better. likened it to some sort of legalization program but it is worth noting some of these led to passage of the cuban adjustment act and indochinese adjustment act in the wake of tiananmen squar. eventually replaced. a congressionally passed program. at at the end of the day political motivation might end up resulting in more and more people getting benefits

getting benefits two different ways and thinking about that. if the program were to end if the new administration comes in do you take away from people who have received it? do you take it away from people who have it? i think that would be tremendously difficult. it is hard to undo. what what might be easier to stay grandfather that population and. grandfather the population and that has it and then end the program because you do

not run up against that anymore. unless you think about it on a different level. i think the more time that passes if immigration law is doing what i think it does then the part that acts like legal rules and legitimizes the group of people it touches will make the program more difficult. so that idea we don't want to take away something that is already their and belongs to not just the individual but the group might operate. that's my prediction. and so i think what might happen instead is we would

actually get we would continue this transformative moment and law so becomes not just the program but if that changes in some way it is not taken away altogether and go back to square one. i think some of what je described in terms of people is a greatest oracle example. this it started out as an idea within the administration -- looking back in some ways. i'd think the likelihood of reversal is low and the likelihood of transformation is almost definite. >> one other example of

personal law. thank you. the revised memo several were rescinded and superseded by the new executive action on november 20. >> there have been programs going on for decades. most are based upon specific to that specific statutory authorities. from 1917 and tell the

1960s you have the proviso. unilaterally exercised by the president and specifically authorized by congress. >> several programs not pursuant to said 25 statory authority. yet it was widely granted. self petitioners were not pursuant to statutory authorities but the existing practice.

>> all right. we will open it up to questions from the audience. >> thank you for an excellent presentation. primarily directed to professor margulies. i want to push you to clarify the way you draw the line between case-by-case and categorical. the picture you paint is an appealing one. in the individual case but drawback was that could add up to is a picture in which you have prosecutorial discretion roulette. an example of skilled counsel. lots of examples around the country.

but if but if you look nationwide that might not be the case. indeed, that would be true if it was unguided for any criteria but even when there is guidance we have disparate results. referredo the indirection from enforcing priorities. but even short of that white is that not play into the analysis of whether the categorical exercise of the program to ensure uniformity is permissible. suppose we did not have the insurrection story but had a situation in which the

case-by-case exercise of discretion added up to a picture. it added up to that. would that can add up to a picture that would amount to an unconstitutional amount simply because of the picture that emerges in the aggregate conflicting with what he described as congressional intention. it is a hard one to sustain. i i am not sure how you sustain that. >> firstly, to be absolutely clear as a policy matter they are great.

i would have preferred to see a legislative a legislative solution to this pack in 2,006 or seven. i agree that there is great potential for erratic and random results to prosecutorial discretion. i had another case recently. we got back of one-word answer, no. you want at least more teure. i am all for that. my.is if you look at the numbers for traditional equity -based action the numbers are relatively small maybe 3,000 people over time

you have tens of thousands go through the district. the numbers are inherently small. this is an argument about what congress wants because that is the relevant inquiry. the policy that we think congress has sought to advance. the president never said he is acting unilaterally. he is interpreting statute. what congress intended is very relevant. >> for now i have several sets of questions to respond to just on inconsistency. you raise a good question. there is a position to be made that having a broad

program improves the possibility for greater consistency and efficiency and having sound procedures like something that has been absent historically promoting administrative law values that we find appealing. i would clarify that we are looking at a case-by-case determination that has been pushed back by critics. it is a real possibility. in terms of the we will of congress there is a real possibility that these

programs promote the we will of congress to the extent the appropriations congress has given are being used targeting the highest priorities. it gives the secretary of the the ability and authority to make decisions that immigration enforcement and very much capture and is consistent with programs. >> thank you. i have a question. i want to ask you about your article a few years ago called taking care of immigration law.

ultimately saying that it is not a justified exercise. justified as a matter of stewardship. the first decade of the 20th century. the preent justification in a similar sense efforts by states. i have two questions. why is your definition of prosecutorial discretion narrow enough it excludes stewardship.

that is how you define it. because i was curious. i agreed with the article. the second question what is it. justified with regard to stewardship rationale. and here on a question they asked us to connect with the previous question having to do with the causa trends if not outright enforcements. why is your position not applying?

>> great questions. >> that was tethered to the foreign affairs power the president and theas tethered to the foreign affairs power of the president, and the premise is that there is a zone of silence. and varied in the 19th century. so kidnapped. he had been in new york for a little over a year and that was enough to protect

him in the far-flung domain of turkey with the austrians had tried to kidnap him. there is a foreign affairs justification for that in the parole power. there are many things swept . it is difficult to apply to a group of folks who have been here often for years and years a much larger group, again, projected to be four and a half million. also, to me it was justified by a pretty evanescent or femoral justification these rudely at knox to obnoxious state laws. and and so i think that was one approach to getting the

states to set sit up and take notice that the federal government was going to set up and push back. many of the state statutes because the supreme court decision in arizona and other litigation. i am not sure about the rationale. i think you could argue the president has some wind down authority to conclude the program in a way that he did after world war ii sometime after which may mean that you would make it renewable for at least the recipient

as of some date let's say a year ago. the president has some discretion, but i worry the rationale is fleeting. the term comes from teddy roosevelt. i am a steward of the public obama typically will read a bit more. roosevelt allied stewardship you go to the people and if they say yes you do not have to worry. he did not do that. he outlined and initiated before the 2012 election. the people have a chance to vote. he did not not do that in 2014. he may do it. thinking about it.

that is the wrong way to go about policy and a democracy. >> quickly my understanding of stewardship is it is, it is linked to foreign affairs, federals and considerations but you distingsh it from problems. >> explained a little bit more? >> the difficulty when you have a presidential policy that applies to a large number of people creates the issue of guidelines and priorities and how they come effective. when roosevelt has a particular problem obama had a problem with regard to

maricopa county. president obama has an issue with regard to uniformed implementation of guidelines and priorities. i am not clear on stewardship that concept was in the umbrella of peak care especially because the immigration power is a broad power. i will sit down for the answer. i have been perplexed. i know this question may seem challenging, but i want to no. >> i am happy to talk with you later. you raise a great question.

i think it gets to the heart of policies that congress sort of hardwired into immigration and nationality and goes back to the mcallen walter act of the 50s and the 1965 immigration act. we don't want kids coming over here. leveraging his or her parents. that has been a wide consensus if you believe in plenary power congress has too much power congress

having power rather than the president. it is generally not a happy one. it is not for nothing, i think the opinion is even more. very flimsy, if not nonexistent evidence. there is a faustian bargain between immigration scholars that is something i am worried about. >> thank you. i want to thank the panelists and direct a

question and the comment. you may want to chime in. i am coming at this from a different angle. in terms of your liberal law don't no if that is any different than soft cloth. i thought it was helpful. in a common-law tradition how often practice becomes law. that is my question.

i was -- i have been struck by how many of the european democracies have done programs that are somewhat similar. having most recently studied the italian system seeing that the italian state has come up with ways to give people what is temporary protection which is morphed into a kind of status which is then morphed into a one-year residence status. doctor dohring to parliament for parasite it strikes me

as receive these types of programs and responses to humanitarian needs particularly in that refugee law world. very much focused on the specific legislative histories so to speak here that you think stands in the way of the program. larger and the more comparative context with the president is doing with the executive action now it is clearly different than novel. >> i think with our time we have left -- >> i will make it quick. >> the short answer is yes.

i am not actually quite done. it is one of the areas that i have started to delve into. and very briefly the reason for that i think it is more robust and more resistant to change. and maybe the speed at which law may move may differentiate it. >> thank you.

[applauding] [inaudible conversations] >> the 114th congress cavils in this tuesday. watch live coverage of the house and track the gop led congress and have your say as events unfold. uconn chris best access.

>> and we would like to no what your top issues are. go to our facebook. ..

i'm in a position where they will have to negotiate with congressional republicans. i think that's something we will be watching early in the year. >> i'm sick and he will come out with final rules on net neutrality. present a bum of course came out in support of reclassifying broadband service under title ii

of the communications act which would essentially treat it like a utility. of course the broadband industry groups are fiercely opposed to this. they put a lot of pressure on chairman wheeler to go that route. we will see the first few months what happens there and what the rules -- once the rules on the book then there's going to be lawsuits almost certainly from industry groups like verizon and comcast. especially if chairman wheeler does what the president wants. >> we are also talking about net neutrality is the backdrop of communications which is a bit multiyear effort that republican congress has undertaken and now that the republicans control the senate they kind of have that working as well. the republicans have said they want to get pen to paper starting in january so we can can see them moving on that very soon and as a tool for the congressional republicans to use to push back on any net neutrality rules and overreach of wheeler's part.

>> back in november more than 300 members of the u.k. youth parliament ages 11 through 18 gathered in the british house of commons for their annual policy debate. the studen debated topics of consideration for the 2015 national campaign. they began the session with a tribute to the 100 year anniversary of world war i and later students debated career and work experience and voting rights for teens. the speaker of the house john bercow recited over the session. >> good morning. please take your seats. first of all, welcome. i hope you had a great day. this is the sixth annual sitting at the u.k. youth parliament here in the chamber of the house of commons. i have the pleasure and

privilege of cheering your proceedings each time. i hugely look forward to doing so again today and i think i can say with confidence that you'll have fun and find the whole experience very rewarding indeed indeed. certainly we are grateful to you for taking an interest for treating this place with respect them for wanting to be here. we want you to be here. this used to be -- the issues debated today were of course as you know chosen by the annual make your mark ballot by 11 through 18-year-olds. lesteremember reporting with some pride on your behalf the number of votes cast have almost doubled from the previous year. the british youth council reports that this year the number has almost doubled again

with 875,000 young people casting a vote. we say the words thank you and the word congratulations to rarely so i want to be the first here in the chamber to say thank you and congratulations for everything you have done not only showing your own interest but in gendering interest amongst other young people. i think it is enormous leap to your credit and you ought to give yourselves a big round of applause. [applause] [applause] i am glad that you are getting into the spirit and a very early stage. i said that you would choose and havehosen the topics to debate debate. in doing so you are also of

coursehoosing what is to be your priority campaigns friends, 42015. there is another element to the proceedings today. this year's youth parliament marks the introduction of the memorial award. that is an award that will go to someone who makes this speech as debate lead that is thought to be the best and the speech from another nypd will also be recognized. he very died this year age 59. as huge numbers of people gather here today and many outside of this place will know paul was one of the driving forces behind the u.k. youth parliament at the

british youth council. he was passionate about the organization. he was full of enthusiasm. he was an example of others to follow and he is very much missed. today's proceedings will be broadcast live on the internet. i know you have had some preliminary so i will keep the preliminaries to an absolute minimum. i just want to say two things. first of all nypd's who wish to speak should stand in their place so in that sense members of the youth parliament he will be following the practice in the house of commons where people stand constantly and that is because they arerying to capture the speaker's eyes. that is what i ask you to do as well. and i hope you won't mind if i say please speak only once. once you have spoken although your enthusiasm is respected

please don't try to get called again because i've might accidentally call you again and that's a bit unfair for the people who haven't had a chance to contribute. so you may have to stand great deal before getting called and it's not possible to accommodate everybody so i will try again in as many contributors as possible possible. secondly nyp's should say their name and region at the beginning of their speech. otherwise those taking the official report will not know who they are and perhaps you can remember just to pause for a moment before starting to enable the microphone to be activated. without further ado and with huge appreciation from me and i am sure from you, i call someone who has now served in this house for 25 years to who has

previously led his party who has served as ford secretary of our country and is now a hugely respected leader of the house of commons. please give a very warm appreciative welcome to the right honorable william hayes. [applause] >> thank you. >> mr. speaker i'm delighted to add my welcome to members of the youth parliament and i think you mr. speaker and all the officials and offices of the house -- house who have helped to make today possible as well as many of the volunteers who volunteer their time to welcome members of parliament this morning. i think they all deserve a round of applause as well. [applause]

it is my absolute pleasure to welcome you all to parliament as leaders of the house of commons and as leader of the house i am both a representative of the government in the house but importantly i also represent the house of the government and i will make sure relevant government ministers assess your debates and everything you say today so that they can read it and they are going to whether they like it or not i can assure you. this chamber has a unique atmosphere and it has an extraordinary history and you will become part of that history today. we often hear that people are bored or disenchanted with politics in our country and many people are. but it is here that laws are passed that affect every aspect of our lives and will do so throughout your lives. how how much students pay when they go to university what sort

of national health service we have, how we made our future energy needs and the impact that has on our countryside or our planet. these are all issues debated and decided here and we need some of the best and brightest minds among us to be attracted into politics for the common good. and we deal with fundamental questions of our identity, our rights and responsibilities, the nature of our society and the future of our country and the world. i am standing down from the house of commons in a few months time in the general election. i will have served 26 years as a member of parliament by then and and -- started off as a 16-year-old. which is still rather embarrassingly played on television from time to time. you have seen it i can tell. i had lots of hair could have

lots of hair that clothing that went out of fashion 30 years ago but i got involved as a young person as you are doing and if somebody asked me today 37 years later would i do it again, i would say yes because my experience in here and the last quarter of a century shows to me that you can achieve things in parliament and in politics that you cannot achieve in any other way. in 1995 i took to the house the disability discrimination act. i wrote it and pass it through parliament which over the last 19 years has helped improve the lives of tens of thousands of disabled people in this country. i am proud of having been able to do that but i couldn't have done it if i hadn't been a member of parliament. those people who tell you not to bother or not to vote or not to take part can never achieve

anything like that or achieve any positive change of any kind without getting involved. the other thing i want to tell you is that you would think sometimes to media comments that you have to go to a particular school or come from a particular part of the country in order to succeed in politics. take no notice of that whatsoever. i came from a comprehensive school in rotterdam and south south yorkshire. i just met one of your members who came from rodham. there he is. there he is in the back row. where members often said actually over there. i came from a comprehensive schooln rodham and i have been leader of the opposition and foreign secretary and i have never found and a door to me or any barrier placed in my way. you can go to the top and don't let anybody ever tell you that you can't. in this chamber many of the great advances in human rights

and democratic governments have been made. it will be the house of commons in the corridor in the chapel which you have probably come through to this morning that the bill of rights was passed in 1689 the foundation stone of parliamentary sovereignty and the freedom of british citizens. it was here in the house of commons that the slave trade was abolished in 1807 after 20 years of effort and campaigning by william wilberforce. it was here that all women in our country finally won the right to vote on the equal franchise act adopted in 1928 and today you will debate the principle of whether suffrage should be extended to all 16 and 17-year-olds in our country. more recently it was here in this parliament that we passed the marriage same-sex couples act so marriage is open to everyone equally. and it was here as you are per call in a moment that the

house -- house solemnly waged a war or on the third of august 1914 on the eve of the first world war in which many mps want to serve and more than 800,000 of our countrymen. in battle. r and peace continued to be one of the most serious and difficult debates in the house of commons. during my time as ford secretary we won the support of the house military invention in libya but we lost the posts and responding to syria with military force. these democratic decisions are the highest importance are made here. the issues i've mentioned are just a few of the reasons why politics matters and why your involvement in the youth parliament today is so important important. the fact that 865,000 young people make your mark ballots to choose this subject for debate today in the is a testament to

how much you have to say. this chamber must be just as relevant today as anytime in the past. these days we have questions, more urgent questions. the backbench business chaired by natasha angle by natasha angle from who you would tournament helped to keep this house at the center of debate in our country. parliament continues to evolve and democracy evolves also. learning during parliament because there's today is the campaign to do democracy and i encourage you all to be involved in that and the many events running up and down the country over the next few days. so i thank you all for being here. many of my colleagues and members of the parliament will look in the chamber during the day. one or two will be able to stay throughout the proceedings. i will be here for a little while and that i have to go to my constituency in north yorkshire as mps generally do on friday afternoons. so today the floor of the house

is yours. you will be debating the issues that are being debated in this chamber many times before, the constitution education, employment, mental health. he will bring to these debates are on views, your own experience, your own ideas. edmu burke one of the greatest parliamentarians in our history said 200 years ago parliament is not the congress of ambassadors from different hostile interests but a deliberative assembly of one nation with one interest that of the whole, the general good resulting from the general reason of the whole and in that spirit i wish you an excellent day's debate as i look forward to your contribution here today. we all look forward to the contribution you will all make in the future. thank you very much indeed. [applause]

>> william thank you very much indeed. next i called in her capacity as chair of the backbench business committee and today representing the opposition natasha angle. [applause] >> thank you very much mr. speaker and i also would like to start with not just chairing this but making this possible because the six years that we have had with the u.k. youth parliament the privilege that we ha all had to hear the u.k. youth parliament in the chamber would not be possible without the work that you have done and without enabling this kind of assembly once again that we are also privileged to to take a part of so thank you very much mr. speaker. i would also like to say a very big thank you to robert. i had no idea was your last

time. it will not be the same without you. this speech that you made at the beginning was a deeply moving and i think we will all miss it. th person following you has very large boots to fill so thank you very much robert. i also would like to say i normally do the windup because i get the chance to listen to all of you and your ideas and use them in a speech but this time i'm standing in for ashley eagle who took an opposite number. she is not able to be here today to send her great apologies good because she has been there every year and a great supporter of the u.k. youth parliament. to privilege to stand in for her and also i would quite like to be starting at the beginning rather than the end because at the end we heard all of your speeches and even though this is your first time you will be stunted by the contributions. they are short, they are polite, they are to the point. they are always, always pleasant so we are looking forward to

debate. i would also like to say a few words about the discussion we just have because there we have seen just like you're in a chamber where figured these contributions there we have seen 16 and 17-year-olds taking very seriously their franchise. i feel now the door has been opened and it cannot be closed. i think it's unfortunate we will be going into the next general election without 16 and 17-year-olds so i'm sincerely hoping it's the very last time. william spoke of his conference speech at the age of 16. while william was allowing his party conference i was busy parting company with my school are not very good terms. think these days people call it a difficult transition to adulthood and in those days then

those days which is called of being expelled from school. [laughter] while william and i have taken opposite powers in getting your both of us know what a privilege it is to not just be here for to serve and to serve our constituents and the best ways that we can. every year i come here and every year and struck by how different you all are and what different walks of life you are life you are presented like william s. doesn't matter what school you come from. you come from all different schools in the come from all different backgrounds but over the last few years certainly the types of people who have become politicians merit significantly. we now have a lot of people that come from a background where they went to school and studied politics at university. they have become researchers and advisers and mps and ministers before eventually becoming ends -- mp ministers themselves but i think having people in parliament to know what they're doing is a very good thing but i

think also it would be very nice just to widen the spectrum a little bit. i think we need to widen the field of candidates and we need to widen the kinds of life experiences that people have. politics is more than just about making speeches in this amazing chamber. it is about the people we meet and the people who influence our lives. so today i hope when you go back to your constituencies and you use the experience that you have gator today that you use it to enrich the lives of not just yourselves but all the people around you because that is what politics is about. with that i wish a very good luck and i hope you can live up to the high standards the u.k. youth parliament has had in previous years. i look forward to you speeches so i will sit down. thank you very much. [applause]

>> matassa thank you very much indeed for what you said. nyp's i will alert you to the presence of parliament and a moment ago we were joined by tessa month liberal democrat for wells and it's great that she has come today. as i say i will mention others. we will move on on in the moment on in a moment that i too just want at this stage to mention the presence of the officials box which we don't normally refer to the positions of stephen benz. stepn benz who is the son of the late and great tony benz who served in parliament for the best part of half-century. stephen is regularly and then out of this place depending on

the causes dear to him and he loves parliament. his father loved parliament and his father served parliament with great distinction throughout his political career. it's a pleasure to be joined by you and tha you for coming and showing your interest and respect for young people. without further ado i call belly of the southeast of england to come forward and read a message from the prime minister. ellie, welcome. [applause] >> welcome to the house of commons and congratulations to you all. this year if you have engaged a record number of young people to debate on the topic of debate today. over 870,000 votes were cast through the ballot at clear demonstration that young people across the country want to have a say on the issues that matter to them. this is a historic building and the debate you are holding today will be recorded alongside

thousands of debates that have taken place here over the years. 2014 is a particularly historic year that commemorates schools. it's absolutely right that you have chosen by paying respect to market vacation. members have given their lives to our freedom. this day is important. you are the future. it's important that your voices are heard. today is an excellent opportunity. the minister for civil society and review policy is very much looking forward to hearing from you and i've asked them to call batman today's debates but i wish you the best for a great day in parliament and i hope for lisa muddy the experience will inspire you to go on and become a permanent residents of this house in the future.

[applause] >> elly thank you very much for those well-chosen words. we have also been joined by the conservative member of parliament from south haton north, caroline oakes up there in the gallery. caroline again thank you for sharing your support for the u.k. youth parliament. it's much appreciated. members of a youth parliament will now make speeches to commemorate the centenary of the start of the first world war. at the end of all of the speeches i think there are about 13 of them there will be i hope you agree appropriately a minutes silence. first i call from east midlands mr. eddie fennec. [applause] >> my name is eddie fenwick and

i'm from nodding share in east and whispered without doubt world war i was one of the most terrible and significant events to ever affect europe's history. i would like to jill triplett -- choubey to my great grandfather bravely fought for our country in the first world war. he was in france when he was gassed publicly he would survive. he lived on and later declared peace to my village. there can hardly be a city street in east midlands that did not provide the regiment. altogether some 140,000 men may be from nottingham derbyshire saved the regiment. ..

previously unimagined scale. we should never forget those who fought for their sacrifice. the east of england was devastated by the fst world war. thetwo regiments lost in total 6075 soldiers. many families lost more than two members only a fraction in the whole of east england one family sent off six brothers, two uncles, and a cousin. a cousin. only to return the life

which is just one example of the devastating effect. the first world war was the most devastating of its time a nation bereft and families grieving. the soldiers did not die in vain. because of the sacrifices we live in general peace. [applauding] >> thank you, brandon. [applauding] >> i am of representing. on the battlefield.

the heavy artillery. four officers and 100 soldiers have the duty of firing for general missed tons too heavy to be pulled by horses. he fought in many battles where he watched the disastrous british advance. the germans had constructed deep shelters where they remained during the bombardment. they brought out machine guns and mowed down supporting ranks. not politically descriptive. on receiving the news he simply loved such good. he was a man with a dream of running a farm with a wife and children. my great-grandfather.

by the end of the war he had been promoted to major. number one is my favorite. nothing men will not do provided there is good object in it. thank you. [applauding] [applauding] >> thank you. these are very moving speeches, indeed. next ms. abigail cooper. [applauding] >> thank you. i am proud to represent the northeast. the great war had a major impact over 51 battalions

29 serving overseas. places we go on holidays nowadays. the largest regiment in the uk. five victorian crosses including one to a man a man who repeatedly risked his own life to rescue injured comrades. they achieved 67. it struck over 17,000 of their men 17,000. december 16, 1914 is scarred in their minds. 112 civilians nine soldiers 340 buildings just tried.

the society we live in now and would not be here if it were not for them i would like to end by saying that they gave there tomorrow for our today, lest we forget. [applauding] [applauding] >> anabel, thank you. next line from the northwest of england. [applauding] >> thank you. in every generation there are those who stand apart step up raise raise their hand put on the uniform and lay their lives on the line. during world war i thousands were recruited. in one street alone 160 men signed up from just 60

houses some of them under the age of 19. as we remember their stories, we should remember those boys who became men and return home heroes. women were mobilized and took on the job of supplying soldiers with goods needed. women fought in the munition factories ad coal mines and making gas masks. they, too stood up to protect this nation. to our veterans, the fallen, their families there is no tribute commemoration, or praise that can match the magnitude of your sacrifice. on behalf of the whole of the northwest and every

other person in this chamber we say two simple words. thank you. [applauding] >> rose, thank you. next, from northern ireland. [applauding] >> i represent northern ireland. one of the greatest war poets spoke to die for one's country. i see no glory honor in the needless deaths of millions. instead, i see an irreplaceable loss.

it will never make up for the deaths and sadness when i think of the countless lives lost for the unnecessary war grief stricken families innocent victims picking up the pieces of the mess they did not create. it is time to not sit idly by. it is time to stop looking for heroes and start looking for peace. thank you. [applauding] >> thank you. i call from scotland. [applauding]

>> thank you, mr. speaker. when talking about world war i i think it difficult. as many scottish soldiers died as there are grains in a square inch of sand. to do those grains of sand represent? the people behind the poppies? ordinary people who did extraordinary things. one bravely went over the top into action and refuse to stop, even when severely injured.

william angus was shot while rescuing an unconscious comrade from the battlefield, yet remarkably survived. a young smith just a teenager and was tragically shot by accident during christmas day troop -- christmas day truce. they represent those left behind. she would wait at the local railway station every single day. for a small nation in otland the war was devastating. twice as many casualties per head as england. i urge you not just to think about the tens hundreds, thousands but the walters, williams, daniels, elizabeth because remember, those individuals are what wearing

a puppy is all about. thank you. [applauding] >> thank you very much indeed. [applauding] >> thank you, mr. speaker. i represent can't in the southeast. heavily involved in the first world war. a lance corporal lost his life fighting for our country. my great, great uncle was one of millions of others lost their lives.

if i was to ask you what you are doing on six august this year, this year what would be the first thing to pop into your mind? in my local town the mayor organized an action committee to protect civilians in the event of an invasion. opened as a hospital supported by local donations and provided accommodations for 52 patients. next tuesday, the 18th of november when you are up getting ready for a long day ahead, the generosity of those all over the country who donated to keep there town safe the citizens who cared for the wounded. god bless them all. [applauding]

>> angel angel, thank you. we now turn to ms. ellie james from the southwest. [applauding] >> thank you. i am ellie james. imagine being on a train platform saying goodbye to someone you love. you never knew when or if you will see a return at all. countless goodbyes. each and every one. never no man was going to war. world war i. the great western railway.

these trains not only moved troops but horses ammunition, horses, ammunition, and medical supplies the driving force of work. the women had to step into many male positions often coping with anguish. one of the largest manufacturers in the uk thanks to the women. the railway formed the heartbeat of the community, a community, a heart torn apart from the human cost of war. one often associated with world war i. lest we forget. [applauding]

>> thank you very much, indeed. now, ms. miss joanna stallard. [applauding] >> thank you, mr. speaker. i am from north wales. i am honored to be standing here today. so many events affected the social history of wales during the first world war. known by many by his non- doubloon. he won the prestigious chair in the festival for his outstanding contribution for poetry. he was not able to claim his

prize given that he passed away before the ceremony took place. it it is a fundamental long-held tradition of people in rich themselves culturally and use recitation of the arts through the median of welsh. creating a society. not only contributed to this but gave his life for his country and people. today many pay homage to him by traveling to see the chair that was dedicated in his honor and many value and spend much time engaging in his poetry in wales. [applauding] >> thank you.

now from the west midlands i call mr. josh carpenter. [applauding] >> irreparable damage is an understatement. loss of life is an understatement. when britain entered the first world war hours after germany's attack on france all the regions of the uk pulled together for a common goal. my maternal great great-grandfather of mine served in world war i in france and belgian and one a good combat badge. he he was on the higher end of the age spectrum but was filled with patriotic duty. a farm laborer by trade he

enlisted, enlisted, and on christmas eve 1915 was deployed to the western front. thankfully he returned safely. unfortunately not every soldier's story ended with a welcoming home. a little close to home there was a powerful and resident of fact. a company produced just over one third of the ammunition ed in world war one by the allies just over a billion rounds in total. 500,000 eggs were requested weekly. egg collection points provided them collected from the farmers. there were many other factories and services that help the allies but their were too many.

one thing for certain the midlands and the uk were absolutely instrumental. [applauding] >> thank you very much indeed. now, let's welcome ms. miss aysha ahmed. >> hello. affected all corners of the uk and different communities across yorkshire. converted to make ammunition and produced over 6 million shells. in addition the national projectile factory started production well ahead of schedule unlike others which were delayed by labor

disputes. by the end of the year the factories produced ver two and a half million shells and the workforce was over 87 percent females. on the other end of the spectrum december 161914 the german navy attacked scarborough. many of whom were civilians. this was not an isolated incident. lasted four years, 14 weeks and two days. during that time over 1000 men were lost. we should all strive to never forget the events that happened. more relevant today than ever before. those men in service fought

and died to protect our civil liberties and so we should honor them by enshrining them in our memory for generaons to come. thank you. [applauding] >> thank you. members, i hereby ask you now to give an especially warm and heartfelt welcome to the person who we will speak to us on behalf of the army welfare service ms. miss anne marie downes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i represent the army welfare service. i find it hard when a friend

is deployed to a military war zone for begin -- for a year. i cannot begin to fathom what families felt during the first world war. i wear this out of respect for those who died in unimaginable horror but as a symbol of peace, the relative peace we live in today means i can go to school in germany and count young germans and turkish people among my best friends due to this respect and help the army has launched the initiative operation reflect encouraging military units to commemorate the first world war in a variety of ways. the poppy for me is also a

symbol of gratitude. it is about being forever grateful that when so many millions did not my dad came home. thank you. [applauding] >> thank you. members, we we will now observe a minute's silence. [silence]

[silence] [silence] [silence] >> thank you.

members, we must come to our last debate. we will consider -- i know all good good things come to an end. personally i i would love to have it over two days. [applauding] who knows what might be possible in the future. [laughter] i mean it. every day in the house people are attending who are not necessarily seeking to speak but it is in the nature of things that most people here today want to speak. my pain is only a small proportion gets too. we will now consider the fifth and last motion of the day.

now, to move the motion from scotland we are about to here from i hope that your huge enthusiasm mr. sinead ashraf. [applauding] >> thank you, mr. speaker. this year is the centennial of world war i. it has been 86 years since women gain equal rights as males and 45 45 years since the voting age was reduced to 18. women became of vice for our collective battle.

we we thankfully have not had to endure the same struggle. if elected to government we still have to see through these parties deliver on there proise. over the past year as our national campaign more has been done than the past 15 years of the uk youth parliament district. took faith. of vote and one of the most crucial decisions affecting the future. 81 percent of 16 and 17 -year-olds registered. 81 percent. this reflects a level of maturity and seriousness. today i call upon you

members of the youth parliament representatives to put your heart, mind, and soul as we enter into our 16th year of campaigning into ensuring it becomes a reality. allowing them to vote in the welsh assembly, scottish parliament, and northern ireland assembly elections to make change to the democratic process. the momentum is on our side. i argue to put your faith one more time for one more year. let's make sure we do not lose the momentum.

because we all hold so dear. i envision i envision a youth parliament a year from now standing in the house of commons, the magnificent house of commons being able to say our work occurred in and 2016. hopefully you we will choose to stand today with me and keep our national campaign so that finally at last, our our dream can become a reality. [applauding] thank you. ..

like getting married joining the army, et cetera et cetera. this doesn't begin to constitute an argument. this doesn't begin to engage the question as to whether or not giving 16-year-olds the vote now would benefit them or society at large. that's the question we should be asking ourselves. many argue that voting at 16 would increase the dismal numbers at elections. won't. just because 16-year-olds could vote doesn't mean they would. i'm not saying we don't know enough to vote. it's clear we do, from everything we have seen today. but from what young people up

and dune the isles don't believe is it our political process can represent these opinions. i have met young people it is clear we have opinions. but when all of seems to do is change the color of the prime minister's tie from blue to back to read again, it's cure they're disillusionment. that's the problem. that's what we need to address. the fact that the vast majority of young people politics are not worth their time. this policy doesn't again to address political disengaugement. just exten a broken' mistrusted franchise talk about tokenism. and let's address the mistrust, the misunderstanding, the disgust at our political system and then consider lowering the voting age to 16. we have already campaigned on this. we have fought this fight.

what more could we do? come 2015 if you believe the polls we'll have a party in government that would give us the vote almost immediately. why are we campaigning on something that is very likely to happen anyway. surely our resources, our time, our very limited money could be better spent fighting are aring for the living wage for most disadvantaged in our society. when people working three minimum wage jobs struggle to pay the bills bills and when young people have to choose between a warm meal and a warm home it's evident there's a problem. it's evident to me that as the u.k. youth parliament it's our duty to address such. i therefore urge each and every young person in this chamber to vote not for 16 but for something that truly needs our support, that helps the most vulnerable in our society and serve thursday people who elected us. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you for that. who from scotland would like to contribute. the gentleman here with the pink tie, i think, yes. >> thank you mr. speaker. i'm john are for glasgow and west. there was points made about what talk about as -- what can we really do, something is likely to happen doesn't mean it's going to happen. we can use that to see it. >> push and it make sure it happens, because we don't know that -- four years down the line not happened, and we've -- we can only point ourselves to believing we didn't use encouragement and what we had to push it and follow it.

so thank you. [applause] >> thank you. now, how about the contributor from yorkshire. the young woman whom i identified earlier. let us hear from you. >> mr. speaker, i am ever so proud to represent the constituency of -- now may i begin by aligning facts, that 94% of young people use social immediate media sites such as facebook and twitter, meaning 94% of young people witness some form of political activity every day whether it be through pages, statuses, through pictures videos, we witness political activity. so, this means that 94% of young people are engaged in some form of political activity.

i'm absolutely going to go as far to say that 100% of young people are engaged in some form of politics. it is inevitable the whole world revolves around politics. every single decision we make involves some form of political process. so why not? why not trust these people? why not trust 16 and 17-year-olds when witnessing all this political action we form morals we form principles, we form opinions that can easily be applied to a general election. now, mr. speaker kindly pointed out not that long ago i had the honor of listening to mr. speaker speak at the halifax minister, and this is where mr. speaker outlined engaging young people and modernizing the house of commons so that more young people are engaged.

mr. speaker himself said that young people are not disengaged in politics. that is a myth which i'm sure we all agree with, what with we've all sat in this room. so i fountain you let's rad indicate the enorm mouse social divide this country is witnessing, this nation is witnessing, between young people and adults. and let's get everyone together let's get people voting, let's show the world that 16 and 17-year-olds are capable, are responsible, and deserve the vote. get behind vote 16. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much indeed. now i think there is from the west midlands -- somebody who wrote to me, took the great trouble to write to me, zim. who is -- let us hear your

oration. >> mr. speaker. [applause] >> in this country, young people can marry at the age of 16. but we cannot elect a representative who can choose who can marry each other. we can join the armed forces at 16. we cannot choose the government to choose our -- we are eligible to pay taxes at 16 but have no influence on how they're spent. we are citizens and as citizens we should be allowed to vote at 16 and not allowing us to do so puts us in they same category as prisoners. if we give one 1545,016 and 17 years in this country the vote it would improve the voter turnout which is imperative for the country. and the votes of 16 have never happened and never well happen

someone said. let me tell you there is nothing in this country that cannot achieve, so i urge you to vote for this motion. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, thank you. now, british forces overseas another person who wished to contribute. >> i'm from north of -- ya. at the moment, 1.5 million people are currently denied the vote because anywhere underage. that one month they were been after someone just they can't have ahoice in how this country is run. you're allowed to join the army at 16. you are allowed to go and fight for our country, you're allowed to good and fight to protect us all but you don't have a choice in how this government is run. you don't have a choice in how our education is run. of course voting at 16 won't solve youth disengagement

overnight but can definitely help solve the problem. many teens probably feel disenfranchised from the society which is perhaps why they're causing things such as riots. 100,000 people in over done over 100,000 people in the scottish referendum voted which showed the interest in 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds voting. we are the next generation. that's why we should have a choice. [applause] >> thank you very much. what about the northwest? who have we got from the northwest? the first person i saw from the northwest, smiling at me in an original way, with the benefit of his owl. this is an owl. [applause] >> the wonderful display of what i will describe as ingenuity or personal enterprise in order to catch attention. let hear from you. it's going to be a hoot.

[applause] >> i'm glad you laughed at that. i look like an idiot if you didn't. i'm six of six. i can grow a fairly solid beard. i look like an adult think like an adult. so why can't i vote like an adult? thank you. >> thank you. very much indeed. now, what about us hearing from somebody from london. this young lady here. sorry, i'd love to have everybody -- so many. >> okay. thank you, mr. speaker.

and i -- you can leave home you can have sex you can even get married. you can even join the army, all this -- therefore if you are an adult at 16 then why is the government refusing to lower the vote to the age of 16? we are old enough to have a baby. but not old enough to vote. it makes no sense. [applause] >> thank you very much indeed. now, how about somebody from the southeast. >> mr. speaker mr. speaker. >> looking to hear from the women in the dark blue dress. waiving -- waving her arms.

[applause] >> abandoning impartiality for a moment i home hope you don't hero-worship -- >> sit in this parliament. >> some worries about you if you did. >> now, let's hear from you. >> thank you very much mr. speaker, i'm frock buckingham 'shire in the southeast. we cannot vote at 16 but people think that we require political education before being enfran chinessed at 16. that is then the value in education when there's nothing to put what we learned into practice. how can you then justify that thousands of adults who may have left school in their teen can cast a ballot in their general elections. would you deny them their vote? do you think a first, time voter at the age of 22 would vote on

citizenship lessons. we cannot delay this campaign by -- used the vote against us because argued the votes that is held by people and not by others is a form of power that can be used against others. this campaign is about giving voice, about stopping cases like in the iraq war, where british soldiers who are under 18, died without ever having the chance to cast their vote in a general election for the country they died for. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. what about the southwest of england? the gentleman jumping up and down in a mildly eccentric manner. just here with the light gray suit. david beckham look alike yes.

>> i am from devyn in the southwest. we are all young people here. young people deserve to vote. i would have loved to have chosen the government i would grow into, but i'm not going to. we need to take the initiative that we have a hand now. ever heard the phrase that nothing is impossible? well are this is possible. we can do it. we've down many things before. how many people would love to turn to their children and say, if it wasn't for us, you wouldn't be able to vote at the age of 16 or 17. that's why i'm 110% for this motion. [applause] >> thank you very much. what about somebody who wishes to speak from the northeast of england? the northeast of england. are you from the northeast? not from the northeast. yes. let's hear from this young gentleman from the northeast. [applause]

>> i'm don brown from darling nonthe northeast. so we have all heard the arguments, as it's been pointed another. not going to repeat them but so many great campaigns think how many people have said to you what you do is pointless. you're not going to make a change. you sit fog this room right now is making a change. so being in here, why don't you make a change f the 1.5 million young people who can't vote. on wednesday, i turn 15. my question, will i have to wait a year to vote or another three years? let's do this, all the scotts and jameses, let's have a revolution let's make britain great again. [applause] >> thank you very much indeed.

can we hear from somebody in the east midlands? yes. what about this gentleman here. your good self. >> thank you mr. speaker. vote at 16 is an issue which received much attention from myselfs and organizations and has become obvious an issue which many people young and old, areassionate about. however, do we really feel that by voting for this our national campaign for a second year wuld contribute significantly to making progress towards achieving our end goal. given that the youth select committee only recently finished their point issue, with restarting restarting the process beneficial? specially when we concentrate efforts on another issue. thank you. >> anybody from northern ireland wishing to speak in this debate?

your good self. yes. >> thank you mr. speaker. and i'm rebecca conly. i hold no out in my mind that the time will come when the vote age will lower with the recent success in scotland and the high percentage of 16 and 17-year-old voter turnout, as well as the urging climate for change in ireland, vote at 16 is inevitable. it was previously stated, vote at 16 is not in the manifesto of the leading parties so we need to ask, how much good can we do to something that that gotten beyond our grasp. so i urge please do not fall into the same trap we did last year. vote for something we can make a real difference on. vote against this motion. [applause] >> thank you. what about the east of england. you have been championing at the bit for some time.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm leah and i represent st. al bins which i at hartfordshire. at 16 you can have sex have a family, join the army, and i'm sorry to fall into a stereo type mr. riley, mam if you had a baby and couldn't vote for its future. i know i would be distraught because i'd want the best for hi child and not someone else deciding its future. and i have completely agree with those that say that 16-year-olds are mature enough to vote but what are those that aren't mature enough and those who are politically minded. think about those people. so -- [applause] >> thank you. now, i think we could usefully hear from somebody from wales. from wales.

yes, the young woman here with the flowery dress. yes. >> thank you mr. speaker. the u.n. crc article 12 says young people are entitled to have a voice. not being able to vote takes that right from a young person. at 16, can commit to marriage and sexual relationship. surely if they can do that they can write at check by the box of their choice. thank you. [applause] >> anybody else from london? good heavens. well i'm sorry this is really difficult. this gentleman has been trying for quite some time. i'm really sorry, let's hear from you. >> now, of course the main idea is that this issue affects every single person in this room presently. i'm going to skim over the other

points. as teenagers we like to state what is unfair and it's unfair you can work and -- but can't vote where the money is going. you not fair you can join the army but can't decide how the country is run and it's not fair you can have sex with area local m.p. but can't vote for who they are. [applause] >> now what do they say? they say we're not mature enough. so, on my 18th birthday i'm going to wake up and go oh, i'm 18 now, i'm mature, i know who i want to vote for. now i can vote. when y wake up on your 18th 18th birthday, does at really happen? i have heard a lot of people say we can't make a big enough difference. look at where we are and what we're doing? we're making a difference already. that's why i want to -- just

because we don't have a voice now depth mean we won't. it's important we push this because we represent the young people, and even though it's like it's in the future we need to push this through to the end. let's unite together as young people and show the world we're more than just kids. [cheers and applause] >> take one more speaker from northern ireland. your good self. >> thank you mr. speaker. holly morrison in northern ireland. now, i know my opinion is going to be probably an unpopular opinion but i believe that 16 years are not ready for the vote just yet. [applause] >> 16-year-olders very impressionable at this age. we vote how our parents voted. we have known no other way.

we don't -- just beginning to become our own independent person. how can we expect to vote for somebody when we don't know what they value from another time apart from -- they bring out promises but never actually act on them. if we take those at face value we could end up altering the system in a way that doesn't benefit either of us. it is true that voting increases with age. this won't happen if the younger ages don't want to vote. we become complacent like if we can get the votes, maybe we are like ya, we can vote that's it. it doesn't guarantee we are going to actually go out there and vote. it's all well and good for -- to support vote at 16 because we're interested in politics-but go out into the streets and somebody who other they would vote for i guarantee a lot of them would have no klueh.

we do not have enough education and knowledge about the parties. stay in school, physical education is not open until a levelful you can be very misinformed and spoil your votes. when the coming election just happened, when my mom and my brother andll were picking their candidates i had no clue how to vote. they asked me and i had no idea, and i'm 16. that would be the voting age. so maybe we're not ready for the vote just yet. we can't complain anymore for now. but maybe another generation can do it and we just neat to set the notion down for a while some campaign on something more worthwhile. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. now to conclude this debate mr. aiden ray from the northwest of england. [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker.

london cheers. okay. thank you. i don't want to die before i do my speech. now, then, this is not by far the first time we have heard this debate and many here have strong feelings towards the subject, should 16-year-olds have the vote. last year we decided to make this our campaign based on our passion and duty towards the young people we represent, with a youth select committee formed to act upon this. this month its finding were announced in a report with for main points. putin does not approve. 2. current public opinion supports the current voting age of 18. 3. there are lots of issues surrounding a reduction to the voting age which would have to be addressed prior to or alongside with a reduction to 16 to make the transition as smooth and democratic and

beneficial as it truly should be. and four is a direct quote from the report. we are very proud that the democracy in which we live and its history and traditions. we are absolutely convinced that 16 and 17-year-olds have the aptitude and the appetite to take a full part in our democracy, not only to include a new co hort of citizens in decisions about their lives and communes but to assure a better informed, more engaged generation is equipped to take our democracy into the future. however, i must emphasize that the question i've been asked today is not whether or not we support lowering the voting take 16. it is whether we truly believe that spending another 12 months texastively pushing for it -- actively pushing for it would by the best interests of those wore to represent. i previously ignored -- that is

now the center of the discussions on health. or to giving young people a stable foundation to not only build their own futures but futures of us all, the return of a practical work experience system and the ability to -- our most core subjects. are we going to see this through? show that drive and determines that i know each and every one of us here is capable of. last year, we were told to strike -- it is who have made the iron hot by striking. when votes at 16 was first proposed in 1999 the motion was defeated. 36 votes for, 434 votes against. now with the backing of two major political parties and support in wales scotland and northern ireland, is proof of a monumental change achieved on the hardwork of young people and organizations across the isles. so i ask you, is this mission

accomplished? is it time to move on to pastures new? to yesterday another glorious opportunity to stick it to the man? perhaps. no matter what we decide to campaign for, we can feel secure in the knowledge that parliament has one lasting legacy it will be one of democracy and a proud tradition of progress that has made britain truly great. thank you. [applause] >> aiden, thank you very much indeed for that. i fear you know i'm going to tell you that sadly must conclude the debates for today. we have had our five debates. never possible to accommodate everybody, and i say a heart-felt sorry to people who wanted to contribute and weren't able to do so. i'd love to hear from every single one of you but time

simply doesn't allow. they have been superb debates. fun, invigorating informative for you but also hugely valuable to members of parliament and to civil society as a whole. the more people who hear from you, the more impressed they will be. the youth parliament will now divide to vote on which of the five subjects debated today to select as its national campaign issue. in the lobby members of the youth parliament you will be given two ballot papers. one for the two reserved -- that is to say, u.k.-wide subjects -- and one for the three devolved issues. so for today's purpose i believe england only. you should place a cross in the box next to the subject you'd like to vote for on each ballot paper, and hand the completed

ballot papers to the doorkeepers in the lobbies. those doorkeepers will be visibly obvious to you, and in fact just in case anybody doesn't know who they are, if they would identify themselves. okay. hands up. okay. i think you can see who the doorkeepers are. thank you. very much indeed. afterwards, when you voted, please return to your place in the chamber. those of you on my right should leave the chamber by the door behind me. and turn left into the lobby behind you. those on my left should leave by the doors at the far end, and turn left -- far end there and turn left into the lobby behind you. members of house of commons staff will be on hand to assist

you. i shall disappear for a short period while you're voting, and then i look forward very mh to returning. we have further observations to be made in store for you, and i can now declare that the division lobbies are open. [applause] >> hi, thanks colleagues. welcome back. order, order. the youth parliament will now consider the third motion of the day entitled boy better work experience and careers advice." as printed on the order paper. to move the motion i call from the east of england, miss chloe screens.

-- stevens. [applause] >> thank you mr. speaker, richard branson alan sugar both started work at the age of 16. jack collins, started an an apprenticeship at 14. all successful because they masked nexts in the world above of work at an early age acquiring communication skills. the government claims our education is more diverse and better prepares us for life than ever before. yet, 76% of employers say we're not ready for work. schools want us to quote shapes spear. employers want us to have skills. if the aim of education is to prepare us for work, how can these two things become so detached? work experience is made optional in 2012. burning the bridge between education and work.

now 57% of companies say young people lack communication and teamwork skills. why is this? school is structured so your surrounded by people your own age. life is not like this. in the workplace you must work with people of all ages and all backgrounds to get the job done. would you learn to drive a car through thierry in learn to play football from a book? and you learn these skills by actively doing them. why do we about to learn work skills through active work experience? uky team needs to accept the battle to release young people from the classroom to taste the world of, and do things by working with schools and businesses to create a program around acquiring skills goals and networking. work experience has the capability to inspire young people give. the a goal at an early stage. when shopping we try before we

buy, make us more excited about trying a product. the same principle can be applied to work exrience. if we get a taste of the career we dream of having we'll be more motivated and work hard. if we have no goals. we have no reason to strive to achieve our potentials. without work experience, the vast majority of young people are unable to break into work environment network. work experience would get all young people the chance to stop building their own networks and their own futures. next year is election year, and looking to form what they stand for, and we need to make sure work experience is part of this. with effective work experience everybody is a winner. young people get good quality experience. employers have experienced workers. and schools have inspired students.

these factors make the campaign achievable, we need our education to prepare us for our working life. we may be able to quote shakespeare but if we can't communicate and work as a team we shall not have a chance. so the question is, work experience to be or not to be? you decide. [applause] >> thank you very much. a dramatic start to our debate and hugely enjoyed. thank you very much indeed. to oppose the motion representing the british forces your seas youth service, please welcome miss ellen charles. [applause]

>> thank you mr. speaker, truthfully, how many teenage have had quality work experience? were you expectations reached when you entered the workplace. no? the reason is we set expectations too high and the shattering reality we face, we are disappointed. not knowing what -- confused about what we have taken away. in the last 12 months youth unemployment rates have drastically fllen. between june this year, 468,000 young people have been recognized as being out of work. where have we gone wrong? not the lack of wore experience 59% of people have had some sort of work experience, however minuscule. work used to be necessary in school but now they do a not have to legally offer -- should

we change it back so soon? the government wants us to do well, want us to -- for the rest of our lives but first they want us all to build up our education, and -- before we're set free to start a career for ourselves. we leave work experience having spent days and ends making teas, coffees, filing paperwork rather than doing what we expect to be doing. you may finder find this useless but you need to open your eyes and realize we can only experience things to a certain point because, honestly, what else can we do? there is a really fine line between work experience and a company overstepping the mark. taking advantage of free labor. these organizations are hindering the quality we craved. this is a nationwide issue which conceals the real truth sounding the working life. we complained about work

experience. what do we want? does everybody know what they want out of this campaign? we need specifics before we can move on in a direction that will be beneficial and enable to us make a great change. companies stuck and burdened with the prospect of a young person entering their workplace. can the campaign change this so soon? as chloe said, 57% of companies believe young people are lacking communication and teamwork skills. we leave school feeling unprepared and unaware to the world that surrounds us. this does not resolve around work experience. this is a problem with the way schools should prepare us for a working life and how we achieve the skills we need skills gained through education and work. work experience is an issue in the u.k. we all know that. is it an issue which is big enough to be our main issue and our campaign? what could we do? and how can we go about it?

we cannot ignore the issue but before we strive to achieve and imback on our journey together we need direction and a clear path. thank you. [applause] >> ellen, thank you very much indeed for that. the general debate is now open. can we have a speaker from scotland? anybody from scotland who wishes to -- the gentleman with the red tie. >> mr. speaker -- help me out, life experience alternative and we need shrub to offer good advice before and after work experience, otherwise work experience is useless. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. now, can we have a contributor

from the southwest? who have we got from the southwest? a woman who is waving her paper in the air. let us hear from you. >> thank you mr. speaker. i'm shannon from plymouth, and i'd just like to say that people said before handed is it achievable? i'd like to say, yes it is achievable. i've done it on my own and if i can do it on my own we do it together it want to be a clinical schoolist and i went 0 my local hospital and was refused work experience because i was under 18. because there's not work experience i couldn't get what i needed. i was refused because obviously there's risks like being around drugs or patients. but just being in the experience, even if it is filing paperwork and getting coffee, you're in the environment you want to be in, rather than being offered work experience such as primary schools which do not coincide with my aspirations. so i worked really hard and

became a dmyp last year. i worked and put determination in and i gabeed work experience under 18 in any local hospital, and if i can do that single handedly, imagine what we can aachieve all together. thank you. >> thank you very much indeed. can we have a contributor from the northwest? what about the gentleman nearest to me with the gray jacket. yes, your good self. thank you. >> thank you mr. speaker. i'm from -- one of the concerns i have about the lack of work experience is the lack of experience and the effect of launching young people into the world of work almost unprepared. they will, of course, get some preparation from their parents, quick pat on the back you'll do well in the interview, smile wave just smile, in my case

don't smile at all. or do a victorian smile. this can eventually leave young people with a hostile outlook on work. and if you have a hostile outlook from the very beginning, they have a hostile outlook from the beginning to the end. they will see other ways to get round doing work and that is not what we want. this needs to be reversed. the first motion said, young people should go out and look for work ourselves. so what we achieve is our own. that's right, isn't it? we build our own house we expect to live in it ourselves. can't suspect a free life. must work for it themselves. we must all be prepared for the way on how to get that experience. it's that experience that enables us. we should all be given the

foundation. what we do from that foundation is up to us. but right now we are not even being given that foundation, and that, i believe, is major cause for concern. thank you. [applause] >> we need a speaker from the east woodlandded. someone who left inches, maybe feet off the ground and she is on the very back bench e.r.a. splendent in her pink top. your from east of england. oh, i'm sorry. well we may get to you. i'd like an east midlander. are you from the east midland? the woman next to you -- well, okay. no? fair enough. sorry. east midlands. let us hear from you, sir. [applause]

>> the process of work experience internships and people being exploited as a free source of labor elm over a quarter of businesses pay interns generally nothing, but sometimes just under the minimum wage. but 82% of senior business decisionmakers admit that interns perform useful necessary, and vital tasks for their businesses. is it fair, are we just going to watch our peers complete tasks tasks tasks for free that employers would otherwise pay people to do? even in parliament i read just this week a young lady was performing duties here for six months with only being paid two pounds. the burden is again passed to us as the power of persuasion, a power as a pressure group, the power of future members of parliament to make westminster know we're not company with the exploitation of our colleagues,

our peers and our friends. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much indeed. what about the southeast of england? who have we got from the southeast? and what about -- the young girl there -- long blonde hair. your good self. let us hear your message. >> well, i'm from the city of oxford. and i think it's going to be hard for me to imagine what fear feels like. i'm speaking, being quite a big person in a big room that is the house of commons. course i'm afraid. but even an experience like this, which is great it's -- what it's ing to be like. thank you. [applause]

>> you may call yourself small or i would use the word short but you stood tall speaking in this debate, and for the avoidance of doubt i've said this many times, i've always been short and i'm 51, and i remain short and given the know impact of the aging process, the great likelihood it is i shall be shorter still in the future. doesn't matter a damn. we short people should stick together. [cheers and applause] >> thank you for that contribution. how about somebody from london. have we got anybody from london? wow. this is just an explosion. we're going to hear from you please. i'm sorry. so many of you. we'll do what we can. >> casey turner from london.

i'd just loo tike say that everybody's life experience is different. sometimes it's absolutely great and you're encouraged to work word in your chosen career. have you ever thought that in work, are are you always going to enjoy it? always going to get the best opportunity? no. everybody acts differently to certain -- to different situations. these are good or bad experiences are what mold you into the common and employable, if these experiences are what you talk about in interviews, and you can say you have learn from them and gained from them. the good ones and the bad ones and that's why this motion should be strengthened. [applause] >> thank you very much indeed. >> now, do we have dish know kind asking this. i dope want anyone to be excluded. do we have a contributor from northern ireland?

have you spoken? we have not heard from you. i'd remember that purple tie if you had. let's hear from you, please. >> my name is christopher harken. i'm the -- i want to speak on behalf of youth action and i who had some great ideas on this and unfortunately couldn't be their share them with us today. they feel that one week work experience is great. going and getting some good experience in work is good. but they think that it should be more than that. they think that one week isn't enough to truly represent what the working life is like. so they thought that either you could have two block weeks where you see the development of projectscross the time, or you could try having a few hours a week for a period of several months or even a full school year. which would allow you to see the full development of projects and all the different aspects of

working life and all their different ways which would truly ayou to allow you to see how the job is done. [applause] >> thank you very much indeed. now would like to hear from a representative of the east of england. the lady in the pink dress. who has been famously patient. your moment has arrived. >> thank you mr. speaker. [applause] >> from east of egg land. i have had two experiences. my first experience being in secondary school. give you a piece of paper that says go out and -- i want them to think of me in rugby getting tackled. that's my as separation in life. my second is college. i was a bit hesitant but then they gave me advice, they gave me connections, the right people, and i'm going to tell

you, them ten days were the best ten days of my life. i can tell you now it impacted me i got my foot in the door. i didn't even know. hello? you heard my name? it was because people have knowledge. i was a young person who got the right advice because people took pride in me, people said you're a young person you deserve that inspiration, you deserve to be given -- and we all do. we are here representing young people. we need to give them the fference between education and employment, and this is our task. [applause] >> thank you very much. you were certainly worth waiting for and the action testifies to that. can we have a speaker from wales? who have we got from wales? what about the chap waving his

hands -- yes, you. thank you. indeed. >> one of the main issues in wales, we're a very rural nation obviously. geography is a factor in work experience. sometimes there aren't the opportunities there to make the work in the first place. i don't believe -- i'm not going to be voting for work experience. thank you. [applause] >> do we have a contributor from yorkshire? the young woman in the red dress. >> thank you so much mr. speaker. i -- work experience is vital to us. we need to accompany to the

advantages disadvantages and atmosphere of our career choices. we do not want to be in education for one decade two decades or even three decades of our lives, oly to walk blindly into a job. we shouldn't need to rely on internet research to decide our career choices. we need to rely on physical real life experience so we can live to the maximum of our potential. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. have we got somebody b interested from the northeast? the northeast. thank you. >> my name is marran from new castle and i'm just here to say that work experience is not even just for work it's also to get into universities. in the northeast we have this university which is amazing at met dissin some other -- medicine and other sciences but you need four week of experience

to get into the university that you do the profession you want to do. so i'm just their say that work experience is not jst important for jobs. often to get into university to get those jobs at the end. so it's kind of like a double effect, the first place you have to start. thank you. [applause] >> okay. anybody else from london? wow, this is just something else. okay. going to be difficult to accommodate everybody. this young woman has been trying for some time. i'd leak to hear you contribute. >> thank you mr. speaker, first i believe work experience is crucial. what i'm going to say is in conjunction with you've good grace you need work experience. we are the future work force. how can we go into work without any idea or any part of how to do goo it? it just does not make sense. what we need to also criticize is the education system. why is it not equipping us well for work sniff we have no work

experience why you not directing us well for work? giving all the knowledge and skills we need. why? also with the good grades we also need that, too for the work experience be good enough because some employers say you have work experience but not the good grades. why is the education -- we have been ten years in school setting up f failure. why do we go into exams with ten years of only getting an e or u. one thing i have to say is work experience is crucial and so is the education system and they should be linked together so that they can create an amazing work force so way can be the future work force, thank you. [applause] >> thank you for that. i must say today has been charactereesed by lits of pithy, punchy contributions. my colleagues and i could probably learn from it. it's really good.

got your point across in a short period of time. i want to hear from somebody from the west midlands. yes. now, the young person right at the back, the woman with long blonde hair, in the middle. i think from worcestershire. >> we make choices that affect us for longer than we have been alive at 16 and 18. and we need guidance and experience, and understanding or eastern a small exposure to the world they're enteng it's simply unfair. to take our chances based on factors that are not equal for everybody, such as parent support or school support isn't there and work experience should be come --.com essential.

>> to conclude this debate, i hope i've got this correct but if i haven't, please correct me. i called from london mr. iffy grillo. [applause] >> thank you mr. speaker. a myth. a 22-year-old who despite having a first class degree has been unemployed for 12 months. a 16-year-old who is quality -- alex a ten-year-old who doesn't believe in the beauty of her dreams, and so will never be sure who she wants to be. mr. speaker go to the house and tell them why work experience would help every single one of these young people. this debate is whether it should become our next campaign. so it could be a phenomenal charge to work with businesses. we can get businesses to help us

develop a national framework for quality work experiences and i would every young person should be entitled to. the same goes with career advice, but could we have this as a campaign when different areas heave completely different circumstances? i'm lucky fluff to be -- there's loads for young people to do but every area can say the same. how can we make this into a national campaign? maybe that the point. no young person should be held back because of where they're from. that's something we champion as a youth parliament. why couldn't we champion the -- through a campaign. even if we did manage to get work experience for young people, doing tea for two weeks is no productive, and we would be condemning young people to pessimistic paths that don't benefit them. but remember while

photocopying filing may seem mundane, that can be the dull reality of the workplace. not everyone who comes out with work experience feeling motivated and inspired. the same way not everyone finishes a day of work feeling motivated and inspired. that is life. [laughter] >> i knew that would get the support of this dock. that's life and it's essential to be honest with young people. when i was five, i was called stylish, and i was even called the next james bond but there were no work opportunities related to that. [applause] >> so i decided i would become the next speaker of the house. you know, young people are the future, have the power to change their present.

that's something we epitomize in the youth parliament. can we epitomize that for the campaign? can it help ameer daniel alex and the rest of the young people? chloe and i can show you the path. only you can decide which way your vote goes. [applause] >> the 114th congress gavels in this tuesday at noon eastern. watch live coverage of the house on c-span, and the senate live on c-span 2. and track the g.o.p.-led congress, and have your say as events unfold on the c-span networks. c-span radio and c-span.org.

new congress, best access, on c-span. >> former senator edwardbrook died at the age of 95. he was the first african-american elected by popular vote to the u.s. senate. the massachusetts republican was first elected in 1966 and served two terms. in 2009 he was awarded a congressional gold medal. here are his remarks from that ceremony. >> thank you for your very warm welcome...

majority leader steny, how are you? republican leader mitch mcconnell minority leader john boehner and minority leader leader. oh you are back. [laughter] my dear friend now and the

speaker of the house. what a wonderful thing it is to have as the speaker of the great house of representatives a lady. [applause] [applause] i don't think it will be long before the a lady is the president of these united states. [applause] patrick, thank you for your kind words. it is very wonderful that you came to share this great moment in my life with me.

you know how i feel about your family. you know how saddened i am they are not on this platform today. in case you didn't know it he started this together with eleanor holmes norton. he called me one day and said ed, come to my office. i would like to see you. i went to his office and he said we are introducing a bill to have you awarded the congressional gold medal. i was shocked. i was in awe but you can be sure i was pleased. [laughter] and ted says don't you worry about a thing. you don't have to talk to anybody. you don't have to do anything. i will do the senate side and

eleanor holmes norton will do the house side. and it happened. he had to get 76 united states senators as co-sponsors of the bill and poor eleanor had only 290 representatives. to represent the house of representatives. but they went out and did their work and before i knew it the senate had passed a bill. the house had passed a bill and then i just caught that called the other day and said there was debate on the floor. in order to use the rotunda of the capitol for this occasion and she said if you turn on c-span you will see it. [laughter]

it will be a very spirited debate and it was and the vote was 417-0. [applause] [applause] and if that isn't a way to win an election i don't know what is. [laughter] it's never been that easy. this would be a perfect day for me in my life if it weren't for the fact that my friend my senior citizen however much younger than i would be here on this occasion. we don't control life and death and we couldn't control ted's or he would still be with us but i

am really honored to have with us on this occasion his wonderful wife vicki who has been such a wonderful person for him. [applause] you came from near and far. he came from amsterdam holland a senator from the national summit in france and the distinguished senator -- senator of that parliament came from france and others came from all over from the caribbean, from california from miami from every place on earth that i have lived and i have lived in a lot

of places. [laughter] and you were here and you have made i'm not going to say an old man happy you have made a young man happy. and to have my family, my wife of more than 30 years who has given me the best years of my life. [applause] and sons and daughters stepdaughters and grandchildren cousins and aunts a so many many others. i can't begin to name it because it would take too long and when i think of the time the speaker has given to this and the other members of the senate and house have given to this i can't

intrude upon their job. this is a heady thing for me. it would be for anybody. i love this country. since the day i was born and i was born here in the nation's capital. on ocober 26, 1919. most of you weren't there at that time. [laughter] and i'm here to tell you that politics is not an evil thing, it's a good thing and when used properly it does good things. i hink of the awesome responsibilities of the house of representatives and the united

states senate and easy years that face us. three wars we were in and economy which has taken such a long time to turn around the lack of adequate and safe housing that weromised the nation back in 1949 clear air and clearwater a health care bill which i am sure none of you want to hear about on this occasion. i will give you at least a break from it and i would not be presumptuous to tell you what to do with it because i'm not se you don't know what you are going to do yourselves. [laughter]

you have awesome responsibilities. not only to the country but this world looks to you. i was happy when you told me just a few minutes ago madam speaker that the republicans and the democrats played ball last night and they played the capitol police. that was an awesome responsibility in and of itself. it only meant to me that when republicans and democrats get together ty can do anything. [applause] and the country is waiting for you to do anything. they just want relief.

you have that responsibility. you have that authority. you are the people on earth that are going to save this country and save this world. [applause] john you can't worry about disparagement. what is it, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen? we can't worry about that, mitch mcconnell. we can't worry about those things. we can't worry that you all can't get together. we have got to get together. have no alternative. there is nothing left. it's time for politics to be put aside on the back burner. [applause]

[applause] [applause] [applause] and we must lead by example and not by force. [applause] security is foremost. this nation must always be strong in the military if for no

other reason than to protect itself. it's got to come first. but we have got to know how to use it. we have to use our diplomacy more and more and more. we have got to stop these perils before they come before us and that it takes too long. we can't keep fighting walls. [applause] we have got hungry people to feed. homeless people. [applause] homeless and ill-housed people inelrs. [applause]

d unpeleo educated. [applause] and so, on this occasion i applaud thcongress for what it has done. all three branches of govement a onderfu fiinbyo unatrs lesl ach ing that congress can do that it can't correct. nothing. they have the power to do it. the president is powerful but he

has oversight by the congress of the united states. we are part of that. and the judiciary we must never politicize the supreme court and the judiciary system of this country. [applause] [applause] as eleanor holmes said, and i don't want to minimize this honor at all but when she first told me about it, i said eleanor, i will exchange the honor if the congress will pass

the voting rights act and the district of columbia. [applause] [applause] you know eleanor said one day to me, she called me and i have ménière's disease now. when i turned 80 i was still playing tennis and riding horses and living the life and then things began to happen to me health issues. and my mother, bless her heart live to be 100 years old and she said to me just keep moving.

don't give up. hang in there do what you can but don't stop. keep going. i tried to listen to her as best i can. eleanor called one day when i wasn't feeling too good and i said eleanor i don't know if i'm going to make it. and she said dai? you can't die before the congressional gold medal. [laughter] so i kept my political promise to you eleanor. [applause] i wish i could call all of your names and have you rise so i

could hug you and kiss you and so many things. you are friends and i love you so much. you are part of my family. you are an extended part of the family. i wish all affected happened but obviously it can't. but i wanted to know how i am truly appreciative that you have come these distances to be with me on this occasion. i'm going to conclude with the words of the hymn that i recite. my staff will tell you and i have the best staff in the world. i know all of you think so. robert and some of these others with whom i work have been wonderful. becca dougherty and all of the people who have done so much to make this happen. these words are god of justice

save the people from the walls of strife of class and fiction. make our nation free indeed. keep her faith in simple manhood manhood. stronger than when she began until she finds her full fruition in the brotherhood of man. madam speaker leaders of the congress, members of the congress my old colleague, my family and friends i accept this high honor the deepest humility and everlasting gratitude.

god bless you. god bless our leaders. god bless the president. god bless our country and this world. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause]

>> the chairman is and expected to unveil the proposal until february or march of he earliest which gives an opening

for republicans in congress to introduce a bill about net neutrality of their own. what they will do in response to that is it will force him to move more quickly or is it going to put him in a position where he will have to do some horse trading in negotiating with congressional republicans. that's not clear yet. i think that's something we will be watching early in the ear. >> imes expecting they will come out with final rules on net neutrality. president obama of course came out in support of reclassifying broadband service under title to the communications communications act which would essentially make is treated like utility. of course the broadband industry groups are opposed to that. there's a lot of pressure on chairman wheeler to go that route and we will see in the first two months what happens there and even once the rules are on the books the fight is not necessarily over. and there's going to be lawsuits almost certainly from industry groups like verizon and comcast especially if chairman wheeler

does with the president wants. >> we are talking about net neutrality against the backdrop of communications update which is a big multiyear effort that republicans in congress have undertaken and now that the republicans control the senate they kind of have that working as well. the republicans in the house have said they want to get pen to paper starting in january so we could see movement on tha soon announce a tool for congressional republicans to use to push back on any net neutrality rules they think art over reach. >> the 114 congress gavels and tomorrow at noon eastern. we will see the swearing-in of members and hand the election for house speaker. watch the house live on c-span and the senate live here on c-span2.

>> donald ritchie thank you for being with us on american history tv. the senate majority leader is not a decision the constitution but how did they live off? >> why was the president pro tempore and the order of succession but not majority leader? the speakers speakers of the house who have been the majority leader as their equivalent on the senate side. the speaker that has as written into the constitution and the president pro tempore is that no mention of the majority leader or a a minority leader that's because the constitution did not anticipate political parties. i think they thought there was

going to happen but they didn't want to encourage encourage political party so they made no provision for it. for most of the history of the senate we have no majority leader from 1789 until 1913. there was no majority leader in the senate. there was chairman of the committees who would take care of things on the floor. there was a chairman of the party conferences who would come out in open things up and close things the way they do today but nobody is sitting in the front row center seat trying to organize what happened on the floor on a daily basis. that changed in 1913 when woodrow wilson was elected president. he was the former president of princeton university. he had a ph.d. in history and political science. he had written his doctoral dissertation about congress and its strong ideas about how congress ought to operate. he also had a very ambitious legislative agenda. so he prevailed on the democrats who had just come into the majority to pick one of your

senators to be the leader to be the person you could take charge on -- of members of the poor. set it going to the senior said this -- senator they went to a junior senator. he was well-known because he had run for vice president on the democratic ticket in 1908 and this was now 1913. the freshman senator became the first majority leader of the senate and he functioned just about the way the majority leaders do today. he started out by opening things up during the day and scheduling things and closinghings down at night. when the republicans came in to the majority 1919 they said this was a good idea. so they picked one of their senior senators henry cabot lodge to help carry on those functions. they didn't officially have the title majority leader. they had a conference chairman and things like that. it's not until 1925 the charles

curtis of kansas officially was designated the majority leader. the fact of the matter is john worth kern and henry cabot lodge functioned the way a majority leader today. ever since then the position has grown considerably in power. although if you read the rules of the senate you won't see a lot of mention of the majority leader. a lot of it has just evolved over time. some of the powers come from the precedence of the senate rather than from the rules. lyndon johnson was probably the most powerful majority leaders used to say the single greatest power was the power of persuasion. howard baker republican who succeeded him a few years later used to chuckle and say the power on the calendar is often significant. there are a number of things and then in 1937 arrested vice president of united states john mas garner who had previously

served as speaker of the house. he gave the majority leader the greatest power of the mall. not by rule but by precedence and that was he realize control of the floor was essential for doing things in an official in the senate so john mas garner said i will grant the majority leader to write a first recognition. when all of the senators are seeking recognition i ll call on the majority leader first and then i will call in the minority leader. that means the majority leader can get the floor when he wanted and that's a huge influence. it has a lot to do with the way things happen in the senate today. that's also one reason you will not see minority senators presiding under the senate. there was a time when both majority and minority freshman would preside and then one day a member of the minority party was presiding. the majority leader sought recognition and that senator called on someone else. it was a little like -- there

was this huge eruption in the senate and a majority said from now on we will never be a minority senator the chair. except for the snow days when nobody was available you won't see a minority senator the chair because that's so essential to the powers of the majority leader. >> were in the senate floor to a funded my minority and majority leaders and how do they work together? >> the majority minority leaders are front and center. they occupy the two-front row center seats since 1937. the democrats were there early but the the republicans had to wait for one of their senior senators to retire to their retire to their leader up there but that whoever becomes later takes at sea. again around them for all of the senators by seniority so the freshman who just got elected will be way in the back in the corner and the senior senators are usually down in the center aisle or towards the middle. that is something that again if the presiding officer is looking over the body and the number -- number of senators are seeking

recognition the people front and center are the ones to catch the presiding officer's eyes and the people in the backup to shout a little little bit of weight arabs to get that kind of attention. that's one reason why people get to move to the front. they sign their names to show that they sat there. their names are in those front-row center seats. they usually seat by the party whip and behind them the most senior members of the party. that is ceded power guess you would say in the senate but the difference between the senate and the house is that the houses are rules from the chair. the presiding officer of the chairperson makes the rules and the speaker is a very powerful figure. the senate has ruled from the floor. the presiding officer for vice president president pro tempore junior senate are mutual presiding officers.

the real influence is on the floor. both senators are equal. some senators are little more equal than others in the majority leader is the first. >> what is the impact on the senate when there's a change in leadership? >> the senate is a personality driven body. 100 senators personalities are huge influence in the senate. even a small change in membership has an impact. large changes have large impacts especially in the leadership. there's a certain rhythm that is established by the leader. leaders talk about quality of life. they decide whether or not you will work on mondays and fridays, how late at night. they decide the tempo of the senate so a lot of it has to do with their own personalities. mike mansfield is very different from my robert burr even though they're both the same party. mansfield is much more laid back and burr is much more aggressive type leadership or you can see in the republican party as well

in the types of leadership of bob dole or trent lott or bill frist will each have a different style. they will have different tactics and so senator mcconnell and senator reid are both the whips of their party. they spent a lot of time on the floor. they both know the rules very well in each have images for what they want the body to do. it will be interesting to see with the switch in leadership if there is much of a change in the style of the senate operations. senator mcconnell gave a speech at the beginning of the last session in which he talked about what he would like to see in the senate. more regular honor, more monday and friday sessions a variety of proposals. i think he will carry that out in the coming congress. >> were going to hear from former senate majority leaders howard baker, bob dole, george mitchell and robert byrd. can you say a word about h2 and the kind of leader he was.

>> after 1980 there was a big shock when the republicans took the majority of the senate for the first time in 20 years. there was only one senator who have been around the last time the republicans have been a majority. everybody was a little bit stunned. no one had anticipated a change of that magnitude. even the republicans said they would take charge of the senate. senator dole was in line to become chairman of the finance committee and he said who is going to tell the longtime chairman of the committee? one of the things that made that transition so much easier in the senate than the similar transition that happen in the house in 1994 was howard baker was the majority leader. the incoming majority leader. he is what i would call an institutional is. he was the son-in-law of a former republican leader. he was the husband of dirksen's daughter joy. he eventually married his second wife who was a senator so he is

very much an institutional is. he loved the senate and the traditions of the senate. he understood it. he worked closely with democratic leaders when he was the minority leader so there was almost a seamless transition to it. i think everyone who worked at the time briefly great sigh of relief knowing that howard baker was coming and as the majority leader. he had a great sense of humor. he was a the type of person to grasp what was going on and trying to figure out what to do about it. he was a problem solver. not surprising when the white house got into trouble at the time of the iran contra they brought howard baker has a chief of staff for president ronald reagan. exactly for those reasons. he he also had a sense of real estate. traditionally the democrats had a nice pic of us next to the senate chamber and the republicans had a slower -- senator baker said i will not

change with the democratic leader but i would like to add to my seat. he took over quite a bit o territory and immediately said the republican leader has a large section of rooms on the west front of the capitol thanks to howard baker and the main room is known as the howard baker room. >> bob dole. >> senator bob dole came from the house of representatives as a fighting partisan. he had been the chairman of his party. he was the kind of person who could really debate ferociously and in the senate was really fighting partisan to get t a -- who realize things didn't happen often because in the senate because they were ramrodded through. they happened because they were negotiated through. you had co-sponsors and colleagues on both sides of the aisle. senator dole was the kind of

person they could sit in a chair with a yellow legal pad and a bunch of senator standing around him working on the amendments and the consent agreement to get them through. he was leader on two occasions, first in 1985 and 86 and then he was minority leader for number of years and they came back as majority leader in 1995 and 96. on all of those occasions the majority and the minority he was the kind of person who worked out typical arrangements. he also had a terrific sense of humor. he was wonderful to listen to. he enjoyed the history of the senate. he is to get the minutes at the beginning of each day and the senate bicentennial in 1989 he published senator dole's almanac of the senate. he got a great chuckle out of doing that and always wanted more.

>> george mitchell. >> george mitchell, if you just watched him he looked very professorial. he looks very calm and very mild-mannered. but if you talk to the senators they all said this is a very tough politician. this is a person a nose what's going on to do with scheduling and planning things and he was a very effective leader. but he was just is the opposite of what he appeared to be. he was a detached person. he was not attached at all. he was very much focused on what was going on. it was a time when the parties were changing when the structure of the senate was changing. senator mitchell was the majority leader who began to complain the most about how many blocks cloture motions there were and he thought there were more filibusters. he really tried to get around that but politics were becoming more polarized even then. he was a very shrewd leader and

he figured out a lot of ways to get around that. i think he has great respect from all of the senators and not surprising he went on to a career diplomacy after that brokering deals between catholics and protestants in northern ireland. he had that kind of juicial temperament that people trusted on both sides. he also had away of deciding there were solutions to these problems. >> and finally robert byrd. >> of all the senators i worked with i probably worked more with senator than the others in the same thing as truth my predecessor baker. senator byrd is a testament on a regular basement. senator byrd was unique in the senate. he never went to college but he took a class here or there. he never got a college degree. he actually went to law school as a senator at night at the american university law school who recognize his service in a

house in the senate as the equivalent of a college degree. he went on to get a law degree and he had president kennedy present his diploma as graduation. i have always thought that here he was in a body full of rhodes scholars and yale and harvard graduates and stanford graduates in all these ivy leaguers in people with terrific educations. he never felt inferior about that. instead what he felt was he never ended his education. he was always reading. once i rode with him to an event and in the backseat of his car was a copy of the dash monte christo. he said i never had had a chance to read it when i was younger. he was constantly reading. his wife complains that she could never test her dining room table because he was always bringing books on from the senate by brin elaborate congress stepped up and he was working on them. in 1980 by chance he gave his speech very impromptu speech

because his granddaughter school class was at the gallery. he gave a speech about the chamber. the historical chamber of the senate. several senators came up to him afterwards and said i didn't know that. i was very interesting. he began to get more impromptu speeches on everything the senate did on the parliamentarian and the chaplain and on the rules. eventually he came to the circle and sent for the bicentennial of congress which is going to be in 1989 i want to give a series of speeches published in the book of mr. the senate. so we work closely with them for about 10 years as he did that. usually friday afternoons when no one else had any business he would go on the floor and deliver his speeches. often he would memorize them. he went on to study british parliament. he was constantly studying. that gave him a huge advantage on the floor of the senate. he also studied the rules of

precedence. used to read through the president's book which is about 10 pages. every congress going over and looking for things. so when you are on the floor you are arguing with senator byrd on an issue he knew the rules and he also knew the history. it was a very hard combination to get around. very few people took on senator byrd in any kind of confrontations on the floor. he came into office as majority leader after being clipped and he was with for mike mansfield. mansfield was a very laid-back leader who thought all senators were equal and he was not their ringmaster in the senatorial circus. senator byrd admired lyndon johnson who is much much more hands-on leader. senator byrd also admired richard russell for whom this building is named who knew the ruleinside out. he spent a long time studying the rules of the senate and he

was determined when he became leader he was going to make those rules in the senate work more efficiently. he cras the whip a lot more than his predecessors had as leader. he was a very tough maneuver and negotiator. but he also worked closely with his republican counterparts. senator baker became the republican leader when senator byrd became the republican leader. they work together. they built the panama canal treaty together and it's only because because of the partnership of that happen. then when senator baker became the majority leader he had to face senator byrd this man he knew so much about the rules and senator baker tells the story that he went up to senator byrd one day and said i will make you a deal. i won't surprise you if you don't surprise me. and byrd said let me think about that pretty at the end of the day of byrd came back said i agree. that was their working relationship.

they did not blindside each other. that kind of cooperation helped to make the senate work even when they disagreed when they were fighting with each other. they did it by the rules and they respected each other as colleagues and adversaries. >> donald ritchie thank you very much. >> my pleasure.

>> the rotunda bridges the house and senate side of the capitol. it is here that you enter into the oldest part of the capital and into the senate wing of the building. and as you make your way from the oldest part of the capital into the extension built in the 18 50's, you see a stark contrast in the decorative nature of the old and new. in the senate of the 18 50's desire to showcase their part of the capital to visitors from around the world. it is into this artistic and architectural design where you will find the current senate chambers surrounded by ornately decorated halls and rooms and opened in the winter of 1859. >> i am always enthralled by the senate chamber itself. the walls themselves. if they could speak, what could

they tell us? what would they tell us? i think of the great men and women who have served their. there is something special. it's an empty theater in a sense. there's a certain feeling. you stop and look around and you look at the busts of the vice president. you look at the desks and you imagine the people listed there. a rubber tabs, the lyndon johnson, the hubert humphrey's the barry goldwater's, the people who have really had a huge impact on the institution in american political history. this was the chamber in which they fought their battles. there is a tribute that is paid to these people and their absences in the chambers. >> the senate is almost like a living creature. it has a template to it. it has an atmosphere. you can watch it and you can feel it and it's almost like a person.

if you treat it like you would treat another person i think he responds well. even when you are trying to make it do something it doesn't want to do. >> the real role of the senate is to be a form of the states. each state is equal. >> there are two senators from every state. each senator is equal to a degree with any other senator. each sator can speak as long as he or she wishes to speak. there is freedom of speech. freedom of speech runs deep in english history. roman history and colonial history and american history since the constitution came along. freedom of speech. >> the senate chamber open on january 4, 1859. on that day members of the senate as a body left their old

chamber which is now the senate chamber. they walked down the corridor and into the new chamber. there was excitement. there was enthusiasm about this new state. you go into the senate chamber today it's a little bit hard to really evoke the way that chamber would have looked in the 19th century. it has changed so dramatically. in the 19th century when the chamber opened in 1859 the room was was very victorian, highly ornate, all patterned carpet filigree gilding on the walls and a wonderful stained ass ceiling. the senate chamber was expanded during the 18 50's and it opened because as new states joined the union more states were needed. so in 18 50's congress appropriated $100,000 to build two new wings are the house and the senate and later the capitol dome. when you look out from the

gallery into the senate chamber there is a variety of things going on. really the layout that you see today is very similar to the layout and the old senate chamber. while decorations change the same formality that they layout has continued to what you have been in the center of the room is the dai at the dais of the presiding officers deperate in 19th century woulhave been the vice president o would frequently have that desk. nodays the presiding officer is more fruently a member of the majority party and they said that the presiding officer's desks were period of time basically up for seeing what's going on the chamber. you also have in the galleries the press gallery above the presiding officers desk on the third floor. around you as you look into the chamber or other galleries. visitors galleries, diplomats galleries in the band members gallery soap specific areas for people to go to view what's

going on on the floor. of course the room is divided into the republicans and the democrats. if you are at the presiding officer's desk looking out towards the senateon the left-hand side would be the republicans on the right would be the democrats. the majority leader and the minority leader are front and center right at the front of the room ithe center aisle. >> when i walk into the current senate chamber and i see 100 beautifully polished desks, i have a lot of different thoughts. one is that those desks are occupied by the latest in a long unbroken chain of senators going back to 1789. there would have been over 1880 members of the senate and they really have reflected all different shades of opinions of american life. >> the senate chamber's desk

they see in the senate chamber chamber that members use today are probably the most unique and most important pieces in our collection as far as decorative furniture. the reason being is that 48 of those desks were purchased in 1819 at a cost o $34 by new york cabinetmaker constantine. there have been desk prior to that tme. the british want -- march on washington part of the war of 1812 in august of 1814 set fire to the capital. although furniture was destroyed. these desks stayed until after that. math. in 1919 the senate required these desks. these desks are beautifully made, mahogany, and late veer. there are even grills on the sides of the desks. these were used for air-conditioning. the earliest air-conditioning system was here, one of the earliest in the capital.

i carved my name in the desk and kept the name for a quarter-century. their two.their two.names in the desk and i suppose in the history of these desks the history of the danley web -- daniel webster desk. he was such a tight when it came to public spending he had a top to put on the dessa gave him extra office space. his desk is the only one that is never lived up to hop on the desk. for those of us who've been here anytime the history of the desks and what occurred after them was significant. >> people come and walk around the senate chambers they will see a lot of marble busts and they recognize a number of these is presence of united states lyndon johnson and richard nixon and gerald ford george bush senior but they are not presence of united states. they are there because they are presence of the senate. they were vice president of the united states and the constitution provides the vice president be the presiding officer of the senate nd to

break the tie vote for the senate. for much of history that's all vice presidents get. that was their prominent and primary role. beginning in the 1890s the senate had commissioned a bust to be made of each of their race presence. the first 17 inside the chamber and then they are through the rest of the building. some of vice president of the united states left under a cloud. in 19th century henry wilson and skyler koufax were both implicated in the credit ovf scandal. in the 20th century spiro agnew had to resign from office when he was accused of bribes as governor. there are number of governors who were less than stellar but they are all in the collection because they represent the

office of vice president. all of them successful or unsuccessful are the lessons of american politics over time. it's quite fascinating. some of them are quite spectacular. the statue of theodore roosevelt is really dynamic as you would expect a theodore roosevelt bust would be. >> above the doors in the senate chamber are latin phrases as well as symbolic imagery. the marble relief by artists lead laurie were done in the early 1950s as was the latin motif. basically it was all part of the renovation of the chamber in the light late 1940s and early 1950s. imagery that you see his patriotism, courage and wisdom. we don't know exactly why the artists selected those three images but he was given a lot of latitude to decide what he felt would be appropriate to go on the senate chamber. these are quite lovely pieces.

the latin phrases and the first one is god has favored our undertakings. that's at the entrance doorway. the novus the dorm which is a new order of the ages. then you have in god we trust and finally over the presiding officer's desk is e pluribus unum, one out of many. >> the misuse of the senate has become a fundamental problem and i will tell anybody who supports the concept. >> i don't want to get too sanctimonious about this but i do believe in openness in government. i generally don't like secrets of any kind. i just think life is a lot easier if you live in an open book. i thought it was part of the

modern era. we weren't covered by media. there was only pen and pencil. it was the electronic age, audio, radio and the powerful medium television. i thought the people who couldn't come to washington from small-town usa should have a chance to see and observe what we do. in some respects i think it has adversely affected us. i think we do have more performing in the eye of the camera but i also think people on on occasion i've seen is at her best. they see that we work at it and we have legitimate disagreements sometimes without being disagreeable. it was really simple for me. >> it's good for the public to hear the debates that are going on so i say first-hand witness

to history to understand exactly what is occurring not just by reading the record but hearing the voices and watching the faces of those who are the authors and architects of the policies. the downside of it is that it's almost theater. it is not real. we don't have as many real debates and a longer because of the fact that people are where they are performing on a very public stage. not that they were before but it was a limited audience. i think that truncates the debate. i think it has a way of stylizing the debate and a way that deprives people of the real negotiations and conversations that are starkly apart of any legislative production. >> the clerk will call the roll. >> the rules of the senate rplex me when i first came from the use. i like to to order and i liked les an here it is in the ok of this is what youo and this is o y hve an amendment a all th.

gotohesna d vi be eero e s coite t hsendow stseat ketoong an wahi t instut w dke ase t rou inthhoseulo orr. wh atesthe le fillwenttthe rlmearn isedhe explained to me how this place works. he said there are two rules that matter exhaustion and unanimous consent. if you get the senators exhausted enough they will agree unanimously to anything great. >> that senate is the form where the people speak. senators can speak as long as their feet will hold them and at their feet won't hold them they can sit down. you get unanimous consent to speak at their desk. that is the protection of the people of liberty. as long as there is a place where one can speak as loudly as he wishes and as long as his lungs will last we can be sure

people's liberties will endure. >> it was edward dirksen a republican leader in the senate in the 1960s who said thinking about the members of the senate what a diverse life they are. oh great god what a chore it is to try to harmonize these important voices to bring them all together. >> within its greatest days of success have not been because the rules for better or worse but the quality of the people who served during that time in understanding the role of the united states senate not as a party with the executive branch or partner with the house partner with the house but has unique place that has a co-equal obligation to make sure the people's voices are heard. ♪ ..