quorum call:

a senator: mr. president snr. the presiding officer: the senate's in a quorum call. mr. whitehouse: mr. president may i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: thank you very much mr. president. i'm here today for the 111th time in my "time to wake up" series urging this body to wake up to climate change. it is happening all around us and it is happening right now not in some distant future. and the warnings of what's to come if we fail to act are sobering. congress has the ability and the

responsibility to change the course that we are on but we can't do it until senate republicans step up and start debating real solutions. smart climate policy can align with conservative values. conservative values like prudence in the face of risk. like protection of property rights and individual liberty. and like market-based solutions for solving problems. senator schatz and i have proposed a fee on carbon emissions, correcting a market failure that currently allows major emitters to pollute for free. while forcing citizens,regular citizens, to bear the physical and financial burden. even if you're a tea partier why would you want a big special interest to be able to distort the energy market and make regular people pay the price for

the harm they cause? other than special interest politics it makes no sense. this market incentive would work it would reduce emissions. a recent report on our bill shows that it will reduce carbon emissions 45% by 2030, more than the president's clean power plan does. it will also generate significant revenue over $2 trillion over 10 years to return to taxpayers. with $2 trillion you can lower a lot of tax rates. i hope our republican colleagues will give this bill a serious look. former congressman bob ingless a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, described our bill not as an olive branch but as a olive limb we have offered to republicans.

yet still in this chamber all we hear from republicans is equivocation and denial when it comes to climate change. we hear republican senators trumpet industry-backed reports that point to the costs of action big ignore the terrible costs of inaction. they only look at one side of the ledger. if accountants did business that way, they'd go to jail. but that's evidently good enough for republicans in the climate debate. we hear senators using cherry-picked data. they'll take a graph that goes up and down, up and down on an upward trend and pick a high spot and a later low spot and from those two selected points they'll say ah-a, see -- ah-ha, see there's no increase. an expert witness would be thrown out of court for that nonsense. but it's evidently good enough for the republicans for the

climate debate. we hear senators ducking and dodging on this issue exclaiming that they're not scientists. but then they won't listen to what they're being told by the people who are scientists. we hear deniers denigrate scientists ignore basic established science and venture lieu loopy conspiracy theories about a great hoax, one that the united states military and every american national laboratory and nasa are the all evidently in on. seriously? and they say this with no shame for the smear it bliez -- it implies of some of our most reputable scientists. again, that's good enough for republicans in the climate debate, i guess. we even had a senator throw a snowball on the senate floor because he thought the continued existence of snow here somehow disproves climate change. truly, i do not make that up. meanwhile what we see all

around us shows us that this is happening. simple straightforward measurements show that the climate is changeing around us. -- is changing around us. one summary is the annual state of the climate report by the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration and the american meteorological society. the report reviews dozens of climate indicators, from ocean and air temperatures to extreme weather events. it doesn't get into forecasts or projections. it discusses what we are observing and measuring now. the state of the climate report shows that 2014 was a benchmark year for the climate and not in a good way. the article in "bloomberg news" summarizing the report's findings was titled, "the freakish year and broken climate records." mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that this article be

placed in the record at the conclusion of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: it's author, tom randle, sums up the state of the climate like this -- two words -- "it's ugly." i have to agree. from record temperatures to record sea levels to changing weather to retreating glaciers, climate change is evident across an array of measurements and observations. we are watching our planet change before our very eyes. let's see what these measurements say. well 2014 was another record year for global temperatures. noaa and nasa both concluded that 2014 was the hottest year since record keeping began in 1880. this chart shows where temperatures in 2014 were warmer than the 1981-2010 average -- that's the red -- and where they were cooler than the average -- that's the blue.

the eastern part of the u.s. and canada was one of only a handful of places around the world that saw cooler than average temperatures. but while it was cool here in 2014 almost everywhere else in the world was feeling the heat. all you have to do is look at the data to see it. it's a massive sea of red. and 2014 does not stand alone. 17 of the 18 hottest years in the historical record have occurred in the last 18 years. the past decade was warmer than the one before that, which was warmer than the one before that. and so far 2015 is on track to be even hotter than 2014. all of this is measurement and straightforward fact. of course, as humans we don't experience annual average changes in temperatures. we experience the weather. and we are beginning to see climate change affect weather patterns all over the world.

this chart shows the number of extreme warm days and the number of extreme cold nights since 1960. the number of hot days as you can see is climbing, and the number of cold nights is decreasing. both are symptoms of a warming planet. this matters because those very warm days pose human health risks and can be downright dangerous for people who don't have air conditioning, especially for the young the old and the infirmed. extreme heat can stunt crops and drive down yields and it can stress livestock and other animals. cool nights are important too. it's the cold nights of weather that help control the mountain pine beetl and ticks and other pests. with fewer cold nights, the mountain pine beetle has wreaked havoc in the west over the past few years.

last week my senate on the cliep -- colleagues on the senate climate task force heard from david engel about climate change affect on hupt -- hunters. they're no longer seeing the game they used to see. joe ryan, the eager county commissioner in colorado said they're already not seeing as many skiing days. not good for the iconic ski industry. over in new hampshire out-of-control tick patterns are attacking the moose. a single moose might carry tens of thousands of ticks on one moose. it's sickening to see and it's no good for the new hampshire moose watching industry. yes, people actually do that. and between mud and the snowmobile trails and fewer sicker tick encrusted move, it ain't look -- moose it

antilooking good. this chart -- it ain't looking good. this chart shows how many war glaciers around the world have last each year since 1980. last year -- here -- the melting was equivalent to each glacier losing 33 inches right off the top. look at these losses. 31 consecutive years in a row of loss. last year's melt continues a sobering trend of heavier and heavier losses. the red line here shows the total amount of ice lost since 1980. it shows that glacial ice loss has been accelerating. average losses were about nine inches in the 1980's, 15 inches in the 1990's and 29 inches in the 2000's. and again, this is measurement folks, not conjecture. the oceans are warming.

why? well it's simple. as greenhouse gasses trap heat in the atmosphere, the heat is absorbed by the oceans. over 90% of the excess heat from greenhouse gasses that has been trapped has actually gone into the oceans. four out of five analyses say that the heat in the upper ocean set a record high in 2014. these data show the decades-long warming of the surface oceans. colleagues who still insist that the clay -- climate has not warmed in the past couple of decades, look at the oceans. that's where the heat went. this warming is changing the oceans and changing our fisheries. and because of the law of thermal expansion contributing to sea level rise. which is our next slide. in 2014 global sea level was at its highest point since we began

measuring it with satellites in 1993, shown on this chart. there's the measurement. 2014 saw sea level continuing to rise at a rate of about an eighth of an inch per year. we measure this in rhode island. sea level at the newport naval station has increased almost 10 inches since the 1930's. this matters when you have storms riding in on higher seas and tearing away more at our rhode island coastline. sea level rise matters a rot to my constituents. -- sea level rise matters a lot to my constituents. measurements are confirming what the scientists had predicted -- the seas are rising because the oceans are warming and ice on land is melting. the climate is warming because greenhouse gases are trapping heat from the sun in the atmosphere. again, these are irrefutable facts confirmed by experts and

scientific organizations and big corporations like wal-mart. here's the reason, mr. president. the main culprit lined the changes that we are -- behind the changes that we are observing is carbon dioxide building up in the atmosphere, which in 2014 reached record levels. the global average exceeded 400 parts per million in 2014. in context for as long as human beings have been on the planet, it's been between 270 and 300. now we're out of it by 100 over 400, and climbing. the global carbon dioxide levels haven't been this high in human experience, and where are we headed in 2015? well, these trends are likely continuing. scientists are already predicting the 2015 will eclipse

2014 in the record books for global temperature change. in 2015 we can expect that the teaches will continue to go -- the temperatures will continue to go up, the seas will continue to rise, and glaciers will continue to melt, and it won't stop unless we choose to stop what's causing it. we know our binge of carbon pollution is driving these changes. and may i say mr. president that today a news report has come out that shows that one of the biggest carbon polluters of all, exxonmobil knows that our carbon binge is driving these changes and spent decades covering up what they knew with a bunch of lies they launched to try to continue to sell their product. this is what folks who are engaged in climate denial are buying into, a campaign of lies from a fossil fuel company exxonmobil that itself knows better. and more on that story later.

we can't just keep our heads buried in the sand, mr. president. we have to wake up. we have to make up to the facts and we have to wake up to our duty. with that, i yield the floor and i appreciate the patience of my friend, the senator from utah. the floor is his. mr. lee: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. lie leemr. lee: last week i began a thorough examination of the facts in the case of planned parenthood and the scandal that's now engulfing our nation's largest provider of abortion. today i'd like to review briefly the evidence against planned parenthood evidence brought to light thanks to whistle-blowers and conscientious journalists working with an organization called the center for medical progress. after hearing that planned

parenthood, in addition to performing almost 1,000 abortions every single day was also selling the organs and body parts of its victims c.m.p. began investigating. c.m.p.'s investigation which it calls the human capital project lasted for more than two years. it'sit's findings have finally been published over the last few months in a series of video documentaries posted on the internet consisting of the interviews and undercover videos. the videos have sparked debate and controversy and have thrown the abortion industry and its political clients back on their heels. but thanks to an indefensible coverage blackout in the pro-abortion mainstream media most americans have never even heard of, much less seen, these

videos. based on the vote the senate took last month and in particular, based on the lack of substance coming from the other side of the aisle during that debate it's a good bet that most of our colleagues defending planned parenthood haven't seen those videos either. so i thought it might do some good to at least get the facts into the "congressional record" before we move forward. to date, 10 of the expected 12 videos have been posted on the home page for the center for medical progress. now, the first video was posted on july 14 and showed a lunch meeting between c.m.p. investigators posing as corporate buyers of fetal organize and planned parenthood's senior director of medical services. in the course of this business lunch, we learn from the senior planned parenthood official's own words that planned parenthood clinics traffic in the body parts of aborted

children as a matter of routine that planned parenthood keeps these transactions at the local franchise level for legal reasons that appear to be designed to sidestep corporate liability, that planned parenthood's abortionists may offer their surge surgical procedures, allegedly after consent forms have been signed, so as to maximize the organ harvest from unborn children. this was the infamous moment when we learned that planned parenthood doctors can -- quote -- "crush below" and -- quote -- "crush above" the baby's most lucrative parts. and finally we learned that such alterations may involve performing dangerous and illegal partial-birth abortions. mr. president, these revelations by themselves, in and of them servings all by themselves -- in and of themselves, all by themselves shock the conscience,

but they were only the beginning. in the center for medical progress' second video released on july 21, we witness another undercover business lunch with investigators again posing as corporate organ buyers. this time with the president of planned parenthood's medical director's counsel. what we see in this video contrary to planned parenthood's protest stations, is -- pro-tess protestations, is without question a financial negotiation about the price of baby organs. they're not talking about compensating planned parenthood for procurement and delivery costs. no they're haggling. as the official, herself a medical doctor, jokes at one point, "i want a lamborghini." in another video released august 4, the vice president and medical director of planned parenthood of the rocky

mountains is seen not only discussing exactly this kind of market pricing but the need to conceal such transactions through message discipline. here we learn that planned parenthood physicians do indeed alter their surgical procedures -- quote -- "in a way that they get the best specimens." close quote. that is not to serve their patients but to maximize their sales numbers because as this vice president boasts boasts -- quote -- "my department contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization." subsequent videos have only corroborated these allegations. from the c.e.o. of stem express a major corporate buyer of fetal body parts we learn that, yes the price of fetal tissue is drivin' by supply and demand -- driven by supply and demand, not just cost reimbursements, and

sometimes this market goes beyond organs and tissue and actually traffics in whole unborn children. from a fetal tissue producer we learn that sometimes babies are born alive and are killed outside the womb because she says, it just fell out. just this week a new video showed a planned parenthood official admitting that some abortion clinics -- quote -- "generate a fair amount of income selling baby organs." and these are just the undercover videos, mr. president. other videos feature the heart-wrenching testimony of a former stem express employee who tells the harrowing stories of her work inside planned parenthood clinics. she tells not only of the screaming and crying of the patients but also witnessing

unethical behavior by the medical staff. and, yes mr. president the videos also contain horrifying behind-the-scenes images at planned parenthood abortion clinics, where the exploitation butchering and violence are worse than anything you can imagine. the images and stories will pierce the heart of anyone who has a child or has ever been one. but that's exactly why we must watch these videos, mr. president. for those who don't already know what abortion clinics are like and what they do, these videos must be seen to be believed. for anyone who has ever wondered why so many members of congress, so many citizens want to transfer taxpayer funding from abortion clinics to safe community health centers that actually practice life-preserving medicine, as proposed in the bill recently

introduced by senator ernst watch these videos and you'll know watch these videos and you'll understand. every new video brings further corroboration not simply of particular instances of blood-chilling behavior but of what appears to be a pattern and practice to endanger vulnerable women by manipulating surgical procedures after consent forms have already been signed, to perform abortions in a -- quote -- "less crunchy way." for purposes not of women's health but of greed to harass harvest organs from aborted children and sell them to corporate purchasers, and to conduct this grizzly business in secret to avoid public detection and outrage and quite possibly, criminal indictment. yes, mr. president indictment.

that the potential crimes of the abortion industry evidenced in these videos, will be the topic of my next speech on this scandal. for the behavior documented by the center for medical progress is not just stomach-turning -- it is that to be sure -- but it may well also be illegal violating not only the moral laws of nature and of nature's god, which we already knew, but also the criminal laws of the united states of america. i would encourage my colleagues and all americans to view these videos for themselves so that they too can judge for themselves. we should all be warned if videos are as difficult to watch as they are easy to find, but the price of self-government is

self-awareness. the american people need to know the truth about what actually goes on in america's abortion clinics, what lies are being told and what crimes are being committed in their name and in -- and with their own money. the truth about human life and dignity has the power to set us all free but first we have to tell it. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: we're not in a quorum call. the leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following house l concurrent resolutions which are at the desk: h. con. res. 70, h. con. res. 73, h. con. res. 74. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding? mr. mcconnell: without objection, the senate will proceed to the resolutions en bloc. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolutions be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m., thursday september 17. following the prayer and pledge,

the morning hour deemed expired the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following leader remarks the senate resume consideration of h.j. res.61 with the time until 11:00 a.m. equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. finally, that the filing deadline for all second-degree amendments be at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of senator daines. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. daines: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. daines: mr. president this generation is at the forefront of technological advances. in fact, it's making the united states and this generation that lives here one of the best networked in history not only

here but around the world. the need for new and better technology to accommodate such a generation has also left a gaping hole in the security of our country. in recent years cybersecurity attacks and breaches have multiplied and left american citizens incredibly vulnerable. make no mistake the cybersecurity of the united states is in grave danger. but unfortunately proper precautions and reforms needed to set a better course have yet to be taken. just look at last week's headlines. "usa today" recently reported hackers have attended a promise the department of energy over 1,100 times between 2010 and 2014. and these attackers have been successful over 150 times. in a 2013 breach, these attackers gained access to

information over 104,000 energy department employees. after these attacks the auditors noted unclear lines of responsibility and a lack of awareness by responsible officials. yet, nothing was done to mitigate the potential for future attacks. our government needs to stop being content with simply being reactive to serious cybersecurity threats. there are no deterrents or consequences to these foreign attackers. not one person in the department of energy has faced consequences. the c.i.o. of the office of personnel and l management, the o.p.m., remains in charge after one of the largest hacks on federal employees. in an age ruled by technology, it is our responsibility to make sure we take the necessary steps to protect the information of the american people.

this past monday i held the first biannual montana high-tech jobs summit in my hometown of boozman at my alma mater montana state university. we had over 600 montanans attend. we need to be more disruptive of the status quo of the technology sector rather than passively sitting by as other nations innovate and leave us behind. we need to encourage stem education in our classrooms and bring more people into the sciences and technology sector. in my home state of montana high-tech jobs are growing ten times faster than the statewide job growth rate. last year alone 40% of the wage growth in our entire state took place in galvin county, the county where bozeman is located and has become a hub of technology.

yet, too often montana kids have to leave to find work. we need more high-paying technology jobs in montana. during my time at the cloud computing company right now technologies, which was founded started up and grew to a company that was acquired by oracle for $1.8 billion called right now technologies over the 12 years i was there i saw firsthand how montana is becoming a leading hub for innovation and high-tech job growth. montana has a qualified workforce and unparalleled quality of life that makes our stays a wise investment for tech companies. in fact, we're the campus of our software company is located in bozeman, we're minutes away from the gallatin river where the movie "a river runs through it" was filmed where brad pitt made his debut.

this is a state where you can combine the quality of life, of fishing, of hunting back packing, mountain cliej -- climbing and spending time outdoors combined with technology because millennials want to be able to have that quality of life. they also want to have a worldclass career in building global companies. this tech summit allowed our nation's tech leaders to share their views and experiences and encourage our future tech leaders to lead. it provided a unique opportunity for our state's tech and business leaders to learn from one another. we had a great slate of speakers and panelists from across the technology industry. leah fulsome senior vice president for cloud operations for oracle. dr. newman, the new deputy administrator at nasa. we had two of the five f.e.c.

commissioners. we had dowk bergman former c.e.o. and chairman of great plains software. great plains software was started up in north dakota. he grew that company. it was acquired by microsoft in 2001 for $1.1 billion the largest acquisition at that time for microsoft. and now doug's cofounder and partner of arthur ventures and chairman of the kilborn group. we had craig barrett -- i should say dr. craig barrett who received his undergrad masters and ph.d. at stanford as a professor at stanford for ten years in met lurch -- mettalurgical engineering and went to intel and there rose all the way to the c.e.o. in fact, worked with gordon moore who became a c.e.o. of intel, who was famous for moore's law. mike gogan the managing direct of goya capital a company that

was an early investor in companies like google, youtube apple, pay papal. we had women lansing -- we will will lansing c.e.o. of fico. we had matt rose. an executive chairman. we had panelists as well who explored issues of critical importance to our cybersecurity structure and economy. all of these convened on monday and you don't think about the gallatin valley being a hub. as the world is changing, you have places where the quality of life is exceptional where you're an hour away from yellowstone national park and can grow world class high-tech companies there. we heard from cybersecurity professionals, from microsoft from facebook, that we need not only to run faster technically speaking, but work together

between the private and public sectors to fend off potential hackers. we heard how technology is removing geography as a constraint. we heard how companies are adopting innovative cybersecurity practices to keep information safe while maintaining global competitiveness. we learned about the importance of maintaining and advancing our technology infrastructure. and the factors that affect start-up companies' ability to grow, attract investments and create jobs. we have great technology leaders moving our country forward and working to prevent -- to protect our country. but we need to run faster than those who are seeking to destroy us. we need to ensure that we don't have burdensome regulations facing our entrepreneurs and our companies. we need to continue to encourage policies that drive innovation. thank you. i yield back my time.

the presiding officer: under the previous order the senate stands adjourned until a vote on advancing that is scheduled for thursday. this provision was added to the iran nuclear agreement measure after an attempt to disapprove the resolution failed the second time yesterday. life coverage continues numbers return here on c-span2. >> next the florida bait on

whether they should continue the debate on the iran nuclear bill or move on. this is just over one n hour. w this issue with iran is one of te the most significant foreign policy issue that we likely will deal with while we are in the ab senate so i think it isssue important while this is it before us to spend as much time as possible talking about thisl issue. focusing on and debating this issue, making sure everyone understands o what the contents of this iranian deal is. let me walk through for a few surit moments lay out why we are where we are today. first of t all four times the here presiding officer is new here, bringing a wealth of national security experience prior toing serving here, but what brought us here really was us acting in

an almost unanimous ways to put sanctions in place, four times.evel this body, four times since 2010 working with ten working with the house of representatives put sanctionso in place because we knew iran was doing things that were going to be damaging to thencons world. we sanction them, we punish them, and we put sanctions on their economy, and we did that collectively.able we acted in unison, it was thosef sanctions that we put into place together that brought iran to restles thes. table. the state of their economy their standard of living, so iran said it's time to talk. when these talks began our our president stated that what we would do in these talks is and

iran's nuclear power. al - and for what it's worth people on both sides of the aisle celebrated that goal. and dean iran's nuclear program. kno for people who may just be tuning into this, i might remind people that iran has 19,000 centrifuges right now, right now, 10000 of those are operating, they built unde ir ground bumpers so it's hard to arak get to and hard to take those-r-a. out. they built a plutonium facility called ar ak. all of it was done violating unctic security councilal n resolutions. everyone here understands fully that iran has zero need for any e of this. t iran has one one nuclear

facility. one.or everyone knows it be so much cheaper for them to just purchase enriched uranium to feel that one facility. aro but they say we want to bepes, t leaders in medical isotopes. this for what it's worth, if iran wanted to really develop the expertise around medical isotopes, they would have 500ause centrifuges.t. we all know the purpose of this program is not for civilian- in t purposes it has been to cause them to be a threshold nuclear country. we know that, everyone knowsnegotiations that, they know that, we know know that, everyone in discussions knows that.ar we know what their goals are so when the president says in these negotiations what we are going to do is and iran's nuclearbecame very program, most people in this

body would celebrate.t he began the discussions as he exeve started moving along it became apparent for those of us paying wha attention that what he planned to do is enter in to an into executive agreement. now there are three ways you can by enter tinto an international agreement. one is through a treaty which requires two thirds of approval by this body. r a treaty is interesting because it binds future presidents. take it binds future congresses. but the president decided that was not the route he wasur going to take. and the second route is that congressional executive d agreement. it is not as strong as a treaty but it does create a law that is

binding on future presidents and future congresses. the pres. decide he he was not going to go that route. the pres. decide he was going to do this unilaterally through an executive agreement. an executive agreement is in something the president can do if he chooses on his own. t hi the problesm with it is itstandst doesn't survive its presidency. in this case however as or everybody analyzes steel ay everyone understands we lose our leverage over the next nine months. we give it t away. when people in this body began to realize that we brought iran to the table and at least played a heavy role in bringing them to the table and when we realize the president was going to use a national security waiver to waive away congressional sanctions, so he could enter into a agreement without ever talking to us, we achieve something else that was very important. tha in fact it was the first time

that it happened since i have been in the united states senate. there is a lot of misunderstandings about this.ro the first time that what congress did on a stronglyticula bipartisan basis, we took powerr back from the president. we said mr. president, we knowhat you can enter into an executive agreement but in this particularan case since we put the sanctionst in place that brought them to the table-by the way over youris a objections, we want a chance to go through this agreement in 6 detail and either approve oreight disapprove but you have to present it before a senate have to sit before us 60 days. we want the right to weigh in as to whether we believe the substance of this deal is something is good for our nation. so we had 98 senators vote for this, one was absent who n supported it so that was 99.his

that was remarkable. on a by partisan basis 99 with. senators said no we want this toweelie lay before us because we believevery this is one of the biggest foreign policy issues we will deal with. we believe this is a vote w ofand conscious and we believe every senator, and every house member, which is unusual with this kind of agreement should be able to weigh in and voice their p opinion. we have gone through the deal, what is fascinating is, i on weong had almost unanimity on the fact that we should weigh in. it is my belief that in lieu of the president achieving the deal that he did the goals he stated

to and iran's nuclear program obviously we have done anything but that. what has happened is we have squandered squandered totally squandered an opportunity to unite this nation and others on ending their program and instead our nation, our nation with others and other great nations have agreed to a loud iran tolistic not only in their program but to industrialize it. to be able to deliver a nuclear weapon, we have agreed to let them do research and development, right now were letting them do it on the art to w use, the r sixes, and the are faste aids art aids which we know arer.d

multiple times faster. we have led to the conventionalfor weapons embargo and for some reason throwing it in for good- measure, we are allowing them for the first time to begin testing. and so what has happened is now, in great in this body there is some tepidly the support, i see my friend from michigan over there and i have other friends and i haven't heard anybody say this is a great agreement. what they say is a not a surly the senator from michigan but others say well we are where we are. we are where we are.imes this is not a very good agreement, it's flawed. c even though congress, 200 times fds sent agreements back to the congressional branch, in this case we are where we are and oura are friends with russia. by the way has anybody seen what c

our friends in russia are doing right now? anybody see what china is doing right now? building their third airstrip in the sea. on. people say well our friends and our allies, what would we do about our friends and allies? here's where we are. quo i could go on and on, i cannot believe our nation, our great and, nation with our friends from great britain, germany andtuty france, and china and russia, a squander an opportunity. they had a rogue nation with the route on its neck and weze squandered the opportunity and now with our approval they can industrialize their program. they don't have to violate the terms of this deal, they could could just honor the terms of this deal. their economy will flourish. b

by the way it's hard for me to believe this but most people understand that we are givinge lifti them back $100 billion of money. fm we are going to do that in the next nine months. we are lifting the major sanctions that crippled them. we are doing that without us even asking them to do much. from that point on, by the way on that since the leverage shifts from us to them. were very concerned about what they're doing in syria. we are very concerned about what be they're doing what has below and in lebanon. with hamas allowing rockets to be fired. were concerned about whatke they're doing in bahrain and we have thousands of men and women in uniform trying to keep open.

we'v we are concerned about that but you've in nine months if we express our the concerns, what are they going to do? aga they're going to say well we have all their money you lifted arse sanctions if you press against us for violations of this agreement which i'm minorded we we will start a nuclear program again. it's unbelievable we have ended up in thisss place.athe what is happening on the floor we have a process in the united states senate that says at the end of the date by the way we've had a lot of debate on bod this, 12 hearings.isernati we've had hearings of the body, thi as a matter of fact i would sayn this body knows more about this international agreement than any international agreement in modern times. as a matter fact, thanks to usas

pushing back against this administration, the american people know more about this agreement than any agreement in modern times. it's an amazing thing. thank goodness we passed iran's a nuclear review act otherwise none of this would have been no. none of this. where we are today is, where the biggest policy to come before us, we want the american people to know where we stand on the substance of the deal.ho here's how this in it works. what a bill becomes, what about comes before us and right now since there is a strong bipartisan majority of people who oppose the steel the two most knowledgeable democrats on foreign policy issue ranking member, and the former chairman and ranking member who know more about foreign policy than any other democrat in this body both

oppose thet deal. we'en so on a strong bipartisan groupte we think we can do better. bill just like the 200 times we have sent agreements back. clo when a vote comes before the united states senate we have c these rules a rule that says there is a closure vote and what culture means is it says okay we need we've heard enough aboutt we've this, we believe it's time to take a vote. i just heard the senator from illinois say we have been talking about this way too longea and it's time to move beyond it, he left out a minor detail and that is it takes 60 members of members the united states senate to say we've heard enough about it, time to vote. what is happening is we have 42

members, all of one party that are in the minority, 42 senators that are saying no we are not going to allow this to move to a final vote. we are not going to do it. now we know it's not about t debate as a matter fact the second-highest officer in theeat democratic side says we need to move on to theire. business. it's time to move on to other business and what we need to do is vote. let me tell you what is kin happening here, it is taking on kind of a tammy wynette kind of flavor. let stand by herwe man.l wi a let stand by our man.an to we don't want the president to at deal with the resolution of disapproval, we want to protect

him from that. we don't want to embarrass him that there is a bipartisan, by the way the smartest, most well versed deep and foreign policygram. on his side of the aisle agreement with the vast majority of the senate, 58 senator sayingld be this is not good for nation.sote this does not and the program. by the way, if this ended the program we would be having 100 sd a senators to vote to approve- a this. the pres. achieved his his disapproval to stated goal but since that isn't t the case we want to send the resolution of disapproval from the president. we have 42 senators on one hand saying let's deal with funding government and on the other hand are not agreeing to a finals fac vote. we have one more chance. i want i've to say that we have a lot o gotf partisanship that happens here,n i got it, it happens.

i would have to say on this case , majority leader haste allowed me to work with my friends on the other side of the aisle. he has allowed me to moven this my through in an appropriate way.iksome and every juncture when mying friends on the other side of the aisle felt like something wasn't occurring that was addingerve unnecessary temper, or maybe morit something was getting out of citut line and we needed to. con >> which.ion cent

>> this partnership with c-span is so important to us because like the national constitution c-span is a private, nonprofit with an inspiring nonpartisan indusy to mission. it was founded by the cable television industry to provide balance on edited coverage of public events. youe just heard the national constitution senators motto and we believe there's no better way to educate the public about the ocs constitution and the historic lfe cases to give it life. that's why this series is such a thrill in such a privilege to do with c-span. it is now my great pleasure to pleasure t introduce my friend, colleague and visionary leader of c-span who has made this series possible. please join me in welcoming.

[applause]. good evenin >> good evening and thank you forfo being here. i'm i'm a native philadelphian and i'm happy to be here.me tot. how many c-span watchers to have in the room? great, most of you think of c-span as congress, public policy events. for 20 years we have been doing major historical series. in fact mark, has been apr producer for most of these over the years.[ apause ] about a year and a half ago we a just finished one and we enjoyed a great deal. it was biographies of the first ladies. it was a year-long project ont c-span and we are casting about what to do next. i was invited graciously to join

the board of trustees of the national constitution center for their annual dinner in washington d.c. one of the speakers got up and told the story of virginia versus plumbing. a dramatic story about police bursting into the bedroom of mr. and mrs. loving who were an interracial couple in the 1950s, arresting them because it was against the law that time. her point was so many of thetoes vacation that get to the supreme court have very traumatic stories behind them. by the time it goes through the appeals process a lot of it gets lost.t it shouldn't because essentially the supreme court is us. so i came back rather on fire about this as mark will tell pr you.

as you know c-span has been lobbying for a long time to have cameras in the supreme court something that has been elusive. we struggle to bring this up in court to the public. public. p what we do every fridayut afternoon when we release their out audiotapes, we put pictures to those and tried to do the bust we can to tell about the cases on the docket. this idea of putting together ampact t series looking at landmark cases would allow us to tell you, who o are interested more about the history of the court, it's import on society, the impact they have had over time and the dramatic dramatic people stories. one of the things you learn is that this court is not open to just the wealthy and the powerful, as you will learn tonight petitioners from all walks of society. that is an important lesson pressed understand. what i want to show you next is out ofan that genesis of the in senator and talking to my colleagues about the fact that we should do this. i will show you the trailer that is going to c-s

introduce that october 5 series landmark cases, historic supremepati court decisions. let's take a look. >> no person haven't business before the hon. supply in court of the united states should go and get their attention. >> december 7 1959, petitioner versus arizona. >> it's probably the most famous case this court ever decided. >> judge harriet existed asas slave people here on land, whereized. slavery wasn't legally eff recognized. >> putting the brown decision into effect would take presidential orders. the presence of federal troops and marshals, and the courage of

children. >> we wanted to pick cases that change the direction and import also of the court society and also change society. >> so she told them that they would have to have a search and they demanded to see the paper to to see what it was. when she refused to do so she grabbed it out of his hand to look at it and stare at it.ehind the police officer handcuffed her. >> i can imagine a better way to bring the constitution to life them by telling the human stories behind great supreme court cases. >> >> the lawsuit boldly oppose therl japanese-americans during world war ii. after being convicted of failing to report for relocation, theyte

took the case all the way to the supreme court. >> quite often often in many of our most famous decisions the steps the court took were quite on popular. >> if you had to pick one t freedom that was the most essential to the function of a of speech. democracy it has to be freedom of speech. >> lets go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people who would stick together because they believe in a rule of law. >> landmark cases and the humanco case stories behind them. a new series on c-span produced in cooperation with the nationalen constitution center. debuting october 5 at 9:00 p.m. >> our partnership with the

constitution center is essential to this project because as you canma imagine narrowing this to 12 cases was quite a chore. clus we had help from many of the experts here. we also went tory people in the legal community and people on the right and leftourt to try to find a list that would be inclusive and representative of the great history of the court over this time.he some of you will quibble with our decision, i hope you do because that is part of the process here. to think about what the court has done andco which cases aretu really important, agree with us or disagree with us on the once we hai ve chosen. the constitution center has also been invaluable getting the word out, partnering with us for a w website that will be full ofti mat educational materials about the court.this all those of you with children we hope you'll introduce their teachers to this all free oftand how the charge. so all of us can betters understand how the court workson

in its history over the past 200 years. tonight we are trying to ask youabt to help spread the word about the series and plan on beingth with us. and c-span style these are allwe hav going to be interactive livee jo programs. we have journalists and historic city with all these cases and we are going to bring it to life byit. showing you some of the history behindwe it.t we also have some of the best experts at the table. they will tell us about the importance of these cases and to take your calls, answer questions on twitter and facebook, be part of it andth continue the education if you're interested. tonight we have had fun preparing for this, you willofpeand have a group of experts and yo historians will help you understand why we're so excited about this project.on i wto at this .1 other person toe presid introduce you to is our viceen

president of programming terry murphy. terry has been c-span with 34 years. he has the man behind all this. he helps bring our ideas to fruition and doesn't get enough credit. this project is very much his as well. at well. at this point i want to turn the mic back to jeff and learn more about this cases.u veryuc [applause]. thank you so much susan. you can tell by her excitement and enthusiasm for the series and now i am extremely excited and honored to introduce three of the most astute court watchers in america.eric [applause].

ladies and gentlemen this is aeay gr great group of friends and let let me introduce briefly because they are so well known toyal america. t neil was thehe former deputy solicitor general of the united he states. he has argued major supreme court cases, 24 of them in fact.or a he is now a law professor at georgetown university, up law partner, and he he happens to beto my brother-in-law. >> how do you think i got this hi job question mark.es well as we >> i'm excited to announce that if this series goes well thenthen neil and i will follow it withhat another tv series about the supreme court they'll be called brothers in law. [laughter]

>> next is my dear friend andar. first teacher of constitutional law, akil. you have seen him at themost scholarly advisory board. he is the most creative and implement social scholar of his generation. he has written many books he was here just a few months ago to talk about his latest one i which is i can't keep track of the title, the law of the land. includes the bill of reits, america's constitution, a biography, america's unwritten constitution. you know this is an educational enterprise. please read his books because it's the best way to learn about the constitution. they will transform your knowledge of the constitution and fire you with a passion for learning more about it the way it has me for my entire life i'm

so grateful to this great scholar and teacher. thank you. finally we're so honored to have judge michael baylson. he was appointed to the u.s. district court for the eastern district of pennsylvania by president george w. bush in 2002. he sits nearby at the federal courthouse near the constitution senator. he has an extraordinary career which includes serving as an assistant district attorney under arlen pect u. ey >> 's u.s. attorney for the district and he is up for a great discussion a few months ago with judge ted ray cough about whether the u.s. sentencing system is broken and needs repair. we are glad he is here as well. we are not quinn to get through all 12 cases and in addition to giving you a flavor of the cases we also want to talk about what

it's like to argue before the court. what is like to hear the court cases reviewed by the court and the extraordinary historical and constitutional insights. we do need to begin with marv and many consider. >> you heard justice ginsburg say it was. far be it for me to disagree with her. i am maybe going to qualify what she says. we are here to talk about the court and this is the national constitutional center. i want you to remember they're not the same thing. the constitution accomplishes three branches of government, this is a a wonderful series focused on the third out of three. from a certain perspective marbury which basically stands for the proposition of judicial

reviews in courts at appropriate cases and controversies can actually hold acts of congress unconstitutional. if they feel congress has acted in a way that is not constant with the constitution. marbury is the only case before 1850 the supreme court ever invalidates an active congress. a nation of validating but it only happened once in congress. it is a very technical issue most lawyers cannot tell you what was at stake it was original versus appellate jurisdiction.

the presidents of the united states, by contrast are vigorously enforcing the constitution with veto messages. 25 or so vetoes on constitutional grounds before 1850. one before 1850. one little act of judicial review and not so important an issue. presidents are striking to veto bills and what courts would have upheld. to put it into perspective from a certain point of view, marbury isn't even the most important constitutional decision of 1803. the most important constitutional of 1803 was the louisiana purchase. without that there is no united states of america as we know today. it is just a reminder reminder that as important as courts are presidents who under the constitution are supposed to choose the judges, there are three branches.

presidents make very important decision, judicial review has become much more important over the years. in today's world courts are viewed much larger than they were in 1803. today they are considering big ones like obama care in the death penalty, abortion, and all and all the hot button issues. that was not true in 1803. >> a great introduction and reminder that marbury has come to mean far more today than it did at the time. susan mentioned we are launching a website with great interactive teaching tools, one of the most exciting is one that will be launched tomorrow with justice breyer in attendance, i can preview it for you now before a live audience and this is the interactive constitution. it is an exciting tool because we have with the help of our

rents at the federal society which is the leading can liberal society, assemble the top scholars of america from all perspectives to write about every clause of the constitution. it's free online and you'll find it on the c-span website. i'm praying i'm praying it's going to work because i haven't tried it before. you can click on any provision of the nscotindd t top scholars agree about it and separate statements of how they disagree with it. i want to test drive it to talk about our next case which is lochner versus new york. i'm going to click on the due process clause of the 14th amendment. that is the one that was issued in lochner. here's the 14th amendment. first we have the text and it's important to read the constitution before you and it

says no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges of the in people of the united states nor should any state deprive any person of life liberty or. they are giving you their common view about what the due process clause means. they talk about a doctrine called substantive due process and they mentioned this case called lochner versus new york. they say that nearly decade of the 20 century they use the due process clause to strike down economic regulations. in this case is a symbol of the process. it is now widely reviled as it judicial activism. this is what they agreed on.

neil do you agree with our due scholars that lochner is wildly reviled and tell us why and what its current significance and constitutional debate is? >> so lochner is the case coming out of new york which basically says were going to protect bakers by saying they don't have to work more than 60 hours. it is challenged by the owners of the bakery who say we have agreed to a contract essentially, we should be able to annul laws a fair have them work when they want. the supreme court strikes down the new york worker protections and say yes essentially freedom of contract. it waives exactly what you heard the professor talking about this notice of judicial review. power of the u.s. supreme court by justices to validate something that is passed by a democratic process.

that's an issue whenever the court strike something down. so however you feel about abortion, for example, roe versus wade when it comes to the court strikes down the law and even if 100% of percent of people in texas wanted to restrict abortion because they believe in pro-life conception, seven justices there said no that's off the table and our democracy. this year we had a very strange example and i'll bring it back to lochner in a moment. supreme court who one of the most consequential cases in a lifetime, indeed maybe the only case that many of our case will know by name which is a birkenfeld versus which requires states to recognize same-sex marriage. i was in in the court when it came down at the end of june and judge kennedy read his opinion say yes the constitution requires that. then chief justice roberts read

something he may never done before he rarely will read from the bench he had vesely felt strongly about it. one of the things he said about it was there's no precedence for the idea that the constitution requires same-sex marriage. then he paused and i'm paraphrasing here, he said no wait, there is one precedence lochner versus new york. the idea that five justices or he called at five lawyers sitting in washington d.c. could tell the democracy that the democratic government that you can't do something it's it's off the table. you can't restrict marriage to one man or one woman. there is a real debate about the role of the court and when it is appropriate to strike something down. when i went to law school and i had the benefit of

studying with professor, because of roe versus wade and conservatives had a conservative methodology which was judicial restraint, courts should be striking down and invalidating laws passed by democratic majority. an extremely rare circumstances. that's with the justice has adhere to time and again in his opinion. there is no new strand of conservative thought that says no absolutely not. we should rehabilitate lochner. one of the leading proponents it arguing cases to the supreme court same use your power to strike down laws that are progressive. use the power of the court affirmatively as a source. >> that is a great summary of the debate, and that suggest as you told us that there used to be a consensus that lochner was widely reviled and now has a constituent and here we have nathan chapman talking about substitute due process and

criticizing it saying it has little in the context of the history of the constitution. speaking of judicial activism, i want to ask you about the case of miranda. that was famously attacked and it's time as an example of judicial activism. today it was reaffirmed by the supreme court after being criticized and said it had come to be accepted by the culture. a statement that caused someone's head to explode. he is not happy with it at all. let's look at the text of the fifth amendment which is a self-incrimination clause, i want to ask you about your thoughts about it. the fifth amendment says, on the smallest constitution you can

find a set constitution •-middle-dot work it says that any person be compelled in a criminal case be a witness against himself. the supreme court interpreted that as long as the sixth amendment was reading of the miranda rights. what you think about that. >> in 1966 i was a district attorney in philadelphia it was a very revolutionary significance. the supreme court reversed a conviction but not only reversed the conviction but enunciated a series of rules that police officers have to give certain warnings to defendants who are in custody before interrogating them. there is no precedence for this at all some police departments

had followed this but it had never been adopted as a rule of the constitution. the self-incrimination clause many scholars believe it should not apply to the near questioning of an individual when they have been arrested and are in custody. the miranda rule has resulted in millions of pretrial motions and courts across the united states because the rule was applicable across all 50 states as well as the federal government. before miranda, we had a general rule that in order for prosecutor to introduce concession and had to be voluntary. the defendant believe

this the statement was involuntary, which was a very flexible pregnant medic type of approach, the judge accepted that through testimony of witnesses then the judge wasn't obligated to suppress the statement. now, the the tide had turned and it became a question of whether specific questions, proper specific questions enunciated by five justices had been read to a defendant, and and the defendant acknowledged that he understood his rights and he agreed to talk to the police. that leads into psychology and i'm not a psychologist, i don't think miranda has really served what the purpose is claimed at all. there are many defendants who have committed crimes and they want to talk about it. they had been arrested and they feel the confession is the first

step in rehabilitation and in cooperation and that's what they want to do. the voluntariness is still the key ingredient. buti nothing to do with whether a statement is voluntary. and it has resulted in a number of people who have committed serious crimes going free because the police did not ask the right questions even though the statement given by the defendant was completely voluntary. we still have a problem in this country and that's with the conviction of innocent people. there's still a lot of innocent people in jail and we should achieve for zero tolerance and whether somebody has been warned of their rights has nothing to do with whether they are innocent of being eventually charged and convicted of a crime.

>> that's a powerful statement. i think those criticisms of miranda are shared by our conservative commentator paul giselle who is one of the leading critics and on the show we'll tell the human story behind miranda. an amazing story after miranda supreme court decision came down he kept getting into trouble, kept getting rearrested and was shot with a copy of his miranda rights in his post. an amazing story. neal you may not agree with all of the judge's comments. >> i want to supplement it. one of the gate things about the series it will tell the stories behind the case. some of the stories involve the advocates. in miranda someone rofoundly agreed with the judge and his criticism of miranda which is thurgood marshal. thurgood marshal will loom large in this series. he argued brown but he argued

miranda and argued against the defendant. he was the solicitor general at the time. the nation's top lawyer. sometimes called the 10th justice. certainly not when i had the judge. >> i called you the 10th justice. >> lawyer marshal told the supreme court actually that there wasn't a right to a lawyer if one couldn't be afforded by the defendant. that that wasn't something that was required. now, you know, it's very interesting thing for someone like thurgood marshal who spent his life on school desegregation and defending poor black americans on death penalty cases in the south. good reminder that advocacy in law doesn't always reflect someone's individual preferences. >> akhil you have bean critic of criminal procedure cases and one of the other ones we're talking about is mapp versus ohio. tell us about the facts of that case and then whether or not you're a fan of it. >> first a shout out to my great

students here. i think someone was telling me that thurgood marshal who held the job that neal later held as solicitor general he argued 33 cases before the supreme court. neal you're up to like 26 next week or next month? so with a-rod and other things keep a guy on this young man and i can tell you he's never use ad performing enhancing drug. [ laughter ] so, it is true that i am a critic -- i'm generally a huge admirer of the warren court and the warren court revolution. i'm a critic on procedure. i'm on the conservative side. in that, gentleman,judge, you made some thoughtful points about miranda. it's possible people confess to things or are perceived as

confessing to things that they didn't do because words are unreliable and in certain context where someone is trying to get you to say something, it might very well be that you confess or seem to confess to something you didn't do and so that's why miranda is a little complicated. i believe the purpose of the criminal justice system is to get at the truth and especially to protect innocent defendant from erroneous convictions. mapp is a case about suppression of reliable physical evidence. whereas miranda involves suppression of words a confession that may or may not be reliable. that's the question. but when we toss out the proverbial smoking gun, the blood stained knife with the defendant's fingerprints on it and the victim's blood on it, we are tossing out highly reliable

evidence, and in some cases when we exclude reliable evidence we make it more likely in all sorts of ways i can't go into right now that innocent people are themselves targeted as the suspects rather than the culprit who really did it. here's one other thing i want to you understand about mapp. mapp did not originate the so-called exclusionary rule which suppresses reliable physical evidence, it merely in the 1960s applied that rule against the states and here i just want to remind you all of one of the most important doctrines in all of american constitutional law is the doctrine that lawyers called incorporation. and almost everything that you call the bill of rights is actually strictly speaking not the biffle rights because the original bill of rights applies only against the federal government. congress shall make no law abridging free speech and so on. original amendments limited the

federal government and only the federal government but after the civil war we the people added this 14th amendment to the constitution and one important idea that i actually do believe in is that the fundamental privileges immunities, right, freedoms theretofore applied only against the feds now apply against the state. so i'm a critic not just of mapp but also of earlier cases saying the federal government in a federal criminal case is barred from using reliable physical evidence if it acquired it in a certain way. and by the way no framer ever believed in the exclusionary rule not sayingle one of them. no court in america excluded reliable physical evidence for the entire 100 years after the delaration of independence. kind of a made up rule. a rule made up during the lochner era to limit federal government and white collar pro se accusations and then in the 1960s got applied states. when you ally against states

we're not talking tax evasion but murder, rape robbery where there are victims. >> so it is important for you to hear akhil's extremely provocative views but i want you and susan wants you to educate yourself about the views on the other side and you can do that both by looking at the constitution, akhil writes about the privileges and immunity clause of the 14th amendment. but also every week c-span will bring together scholars and thought leaders and historians of different spechts to present the debate so you can make up your own mind. two of the 12 cases that we're talking about are considered among the worst in supreme court history, and i think arguably at the top of that list is dred scott versus sandford. it's an epithat i remember the president wral debate between john kerry and george bush the worst example of judicial activism is dred scott.

neal why is that the case and what does dred scott stand for? >> dred scott is the pro slavery decision that prompts the civil war. this is why it's that important. it's a huge big deal. it's important today because as akhil said look at the text of the 14th amendment,s he was talking about the due process clause. another part of the 14th amendment says equal protection of the laws to all persons. all persons. why does it say persons? other parts of the 14th amendment single out citizen for rights. equal protection clause reads differently? well why? dred scott versus sandford said that if you were a slave if you were a noncitizen, you had zero constitutional rights. none. and we fought a civil war in part about that, to repudiate that. when representative bingham wrote the text to the 14th amendment the draft he said i need 0 overrule the worst line in the worst supreme court case in american history that line

that said only citizens have constitutional rights. so now the 14th amendment reads the way that it does and that's why rights are given to us on ae more robust basis. now when i argue to the court i get a half hour to argue my case and the other side gets a half hour. dred scott's argument the first oral argument was four days long. then there was another argument for four days long. by the way the lawyer for dred scott was justice curtis' brother arguing the case in the u.s. supreme court with his brother as one of the justices hearing it. and, you know, he may have done a good job may not have but unfortunately the southern states had a powerful advocate who wasn't actually in the courtroom, president buchanan. he was elected. hadn't been sworn in. he went and lobbied the justices secretly to side with the

southern view in dred scott which they ultimately did and president buchanan's inauguration is on march 6th, 1857. actually on march 4th 1857 and the decision comes down on march 6th. he gives his inauguration speech two days before the decision comes down but knees what the decision says. he says it in the speech. so very different time period than now in which supreme court is more regulated. a real stain on the court's history. >> a couple aspects of dred scott. dred scott says in effect only citizens have constitutional rights and the 14th amendment says no persons who aren't citizens have constitutional rights. neal just told you that. dred scott said blacks could never ever be citizens. this is important because in about 20 minutes there's going presidential debate and one of the guys who will get up there -- this place has to be

nonpartisan but i don't have to be. one of the people who is going get up there will tell you that actually people born in the united states aren't absolutely entitled basically to be citizens. the 14th amendment says everyone born in the united states and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a citizen and that sentence was also about overruling dred scott. and so the resonance much dred scott for aliens and for people who were born in the united states, whoever their parents happen to have been is an issue we're still talking about today. >> that's fine. >> i didn't cross the line. >> in this house you can talk about any constitutional issue wish and you can express strong opinions. we just don't talk about politics. you've not done that and called our attention to text of 14th amendment all persons born in the united states are citizens of the united states and state in there they reside. go out and check out the statement on the citizenship by

akhil. wait i'm clicking. it says coming soon. akhil you have to turn in your citizenship clause. >> these guys were asking for extensions for their papers. now i'm begging from them. >> you got maybe three days because you've been doing a lot of work for us. the country is wait. soon you can read akhil. >> a dog ate my homework. >> you introduced me as a court watcher. i'm a court follower. as a district court judge i'm at the bottom end of the hierarchy and i got to follow the supreme court more than watch them. but i haven't given up my first amendment rights so when i come here i can criticize miranda but when i go back across the street i have to follow them. >> excellent. tell us, judge, many of these cases obviously originated in the lower courts and the human stories are often played out before you as a judge so what is it -- let's take the most famous, most celebrated case

that's brown versus board of education. district judges played a crucial role initially, many of them shoulding segregation and then had to implement it. >> i've had some of my cases go up to the supreme court and i've been affirmed but there are sometimes when the supreme court reverses what a lower court judge did and send it back you got to follow as best you can what the supreme court says the rule is. of course this applies -- there's an intermediate appellate court in the federal system called the circuit court of appeals. and that's where a person who doesn't like hat i do, they go first to the circuit court and which can affirm or reverse what a district court judge did and then a supreme court has what we call discretionary jurisdiction supreme court doesn't have to take every case that is that someone asks it to take, it has

discretion what to do. and it takes actually very few of the cases where people filed petition requesting that the supreme court hear the case. but when any of these cases reverse they go back to the district court which has to fashion a remedy and sometimes supreme court decisions can be very confusing. many of them as you know are 5-4. some are 4-4-1 which means there were four justice on either side and then one justice which happens to be no, secret, justice kennedy casts a vote deciding one way but his opinion real carries a significant amount of weight because he broke the tie and when that case comes back to the district court and i have a case like that involving lower marion school redistricting and i had to decide whether, what the lower

marie an school district did complied with justice kennedy's single opinion. in a case that was otherwise 4-4. >> what did you decide? >> well, i decided that lower marion had acted lawfully and my opinion was affirmed by third circuit and the supreme court refused to they are case. >> have you ever been reversed by the supreme court? >> not directly. [ laughter ] there have been some cases where they disagreed with something i did in a different case but not directly reversed. i've been affirmed four times. and the most interesting one was a case involving vaccine. can i have 60 seconds. >> sure. >> some of you know that congress set up a special remedy for people who claim they have been injured by a vaccine. and congress set this up to encourage parents to have children vaccinated.

and they set up a special court where if you feel you've been injured -- your child has been injured by a vaccine you can go to this special court, but -- you can get a remedy but your damages are limited. the individual who had filed in our court, he claimed that was improper and unconstitutional. and that he had been deprived of his right to sue. i rejected the claim, the 3rd circuit agreed with me and the supreme court affirmed that. >> great. i have to ask the oprah question, how does it feel to be reversed by the supreme court? >> well, you know, it's not something you go home and celebrate. [ laughter ] it's a learning experience. they are the supreme court. they get to decide. look we've had cases where in my court each of us worked individually. we decide a case ourselves. and there was a case that another judge had, it's a

post-conviction case where the district judge decided one way. it went to the 3rd circuit which first had a three judge panel reverse 2-1. then went to the 3rd circuit, which is all the 11 judges. reversed the panel 6-5. then went to the supreme court which reversed the 3rd circuit 5-4. who can say whose right or whose wrong in a situation like that? that's a true story. >> that's a great reminder of the important -- >> what about justice kennedy. >> who will remember that one. >> he's a great friend of the national constitutional center and there are good arguments on both sides much these cases. neal the oprah question to you, what does it feel like to argue before the supreme court? >> well it's scary every time. you know my first time it was a big case challenging president bush on guantanamo bay tribunals

and for the first two weeks i didn't sleep much being really scared about it. the court is snag in oral argument particularly this court over other historical courts. since justice scalia got on the court in 1988 it's extremely vigorous active bench. so much so i average about 70 questions per half hour argument. there's a real premium placed on conciseness but trying to figure out an answer that doesn't follow up another question make your points the most effective way you can. also something that you know that if you mess up it can be you know, the fodder for late night comedians and the like. it's an incredibly daunting thing. i have to say the overwhelming feeling every time i walk out of there as well, we have one institution in government that really works. i mean all nine of them they are bringing their a-game every day. the questions are super hard.

they are written by them. they are not drafted by the clerks. they read every brief. they in every case i've argued. that's a really magnificent thing. as an advocate, i worry about cameras. we were talking about cameras in the courtroom during the opening remarks. i worry about it. from a democratic perspective, i wish every american could see what i see when i'm arguing in front of the courtroom. it's it'd be a pretty amazing thing for the country to behold this institution with people on the political right and the political left. >> back to the cases. the first amendment needs to be discussed and the case we've chosen to illuminate is shank

versus the united states. there was a metaphor about free speech. akhil, tell us about the shank case. >> i think it is more on this list as metaphor for the importance of the freedom of speech more generally and not just vis-a-vis the federal government but more importantly against states. a lot of what you call the bill of rights really is state and local governments. "new york times" versus alabama, but it's the same free speech principle at the heart of the first amendment. i'm a little bit of the skunk at the picnic. marbury is important, but perhaps a little bit exaggerated in its significance. we talk about shank because a big law school is harvard law school and they've been cranking

out generation of generation of lawyers. enough with the harvard guys. here's the big point. >> akhil is a real populist. >> exactly. >> this brings to mind chief justice roberts had the famous question are the concerned the court is all graduates of elite universities and he said they're not. one went to yale. >> one the constitution was adopted, it was drafted right across the road. we the people of the united states actually did something. we do. what we did was debate the thing up and down the continent for a whole year in a conversation that was robust, uninhibited. there were people who were for

it. there were people that were against it. people said nasty things about ben franklin and george washington. governments are feckless and don't get anything done. they're back and forth, and no one gets shut down. that's baked into our constitution even before there's a first amendment. we have freedom of speech and press before the first amendment and what do the people insist on in this ratification process? dudes, you forgot the rights. the bill of rights comes out of that conversation. what is the first amendment? no abridgment of free press. what happens? government starts abridging free press. it is a crime to criticize the president and the congress. it's not a crime to criticize the vice president, who is the leader of the opposition political party. all these rules expire after the next election and that sucks. and courts, who are not doing

vigorous judicial review, uphold all of this. governments will later make it a crime to criticize the government and the courts are as late as the early 20th century upholding some of this. shank is that later period where, again whenever we're in wars and they try to suppress dissent, again a war and trying to suppress. shank is from that area. freedom speech is part of how we adopted the constitution. today, thank goodness they do. they do across the board. this is universally embraced by justices scalia and thomas on the right and justices kagen and

ginsburg on the left. we said again in the 14th amendment. it's now finally being taken seriously in a way that at the time it wasn't for shank. >> that's a beautiful way to state that. neal probably the second most reviled case on our list is core korematsu versus the united states. >> you'll get the stories in the segment later in the fall, but i do think the japanese internment cases are supremely interesting on a human level. the first one is gordon's case. gordon is an 18-year-old student at the university of washington, and he learns that the folks in washington have set an exclusion

order that because of his skin he could be curfewed. he had to be back in his room. ultimately, they moved japanese americans to these camps. over 100,000 japanese americans forcibly relocated out of their homes and moved into these camps. he's 18 years old and says i'm going to challenge that. he stays out past the curfew and goes to the fbi and turns himself in. they arrest him and put him in a trial in seattle. he goes to trial. he says i did this absolutely, but this law is unconstitutional. it singles me out on the basis of my race and makes a bunch of other arguments. the district court has none of it. says this is a time of war. we're not going to be second guessing the president and his generals who want to do this, so they uphold his conviction and

say you're going to be sentenced. the judge says the problem is the only prison i can sentence to you is a prison camp and it is 1,000 miles away in tucson arizona. you've gone through this trial. that's good enough. you can go home. gordon says, you know, i'm actually a quaker. part of my faith is that if i've been validly sentenced i've got to serve my sentence. the judge says i can't send you. i don't have the resources to send you to tucson. what does gordon do? he says, don't worry. i'll get there. he hitchhikes all the way to tucson to serve his sentence over 1,000 miles. he gets to the prison in tucson. he shows up to turn himself in. the warden says we have no record of you. he says, no i'm gordon. i've been convicted and so on.

the warden says don't worry. go home. they figure out who he is and he serves his sentence, but that's the kind of man he was. a man who didn't take up arms against the government or rebel in some way, but fought his challenge in the legal system. he believed so much in it and yet the supreme court didn't vindicate him and instead deferred to the president. there's a whole sad story line of why the court did that. it's very fashionable to blame the court, but a lot of the blame lies with the court and the solicitor general, the nation's top lawyer, who misrepresented what was going on to the supreme court and the solicitor general knew it at the time. he knew he was telling the supreme court things that weren't true about the japanese american threat.

jay edgar hoover didn't believe the internment of japanese americans was justified. how do they balance national security versus individual liberties in a time of armed conflict? >> neal told you about a japanese american a person born on american soil, whether his participant parents are citizens or not. it is a birthright citizen. the first sentence was introduced to overrule the dred scott case. now you understand the stakes when there's very loose talk about how people who were born in the united states are somehow not citizens because we have to inquire into the status of their parents. once again the centrality of birthright citizenship is a very important constitutional

principle linking back to dred scott and through the japanese internment cases and teeing up the conversation that's going to be happening in just a few minutes perhaps in the republican party debate. >> well speaking of that debate, like all good c-span shows, this one should end on time. but i want to close by telling you, ladies and gentlemen, both how excited we are and asking you to join us as pioneers in constitutional education. you have the opportunity to watch the shows every monday and then learn more. click on the links. click on the websites. read the decisions. read the majority opinions. read the dissents. make up your own mind. you don't have to be a lawyer to be engaged in this process of constitutional education. you just need to be a person. akhil mentioned justice