governor refuses to acknowledge the existence of black people in the south. there were some black soldiers who fought for the confederacy but the vast majority of african-americans contributed to the confederate effort through violently coerced fund paid labour that was part and parcel of the experience dehumanizing intergenerational bondage. mcdonnell seems to think that that particular history is not worthy of remembrance. it is a flip erasure of black life, struggling, and suffering. on my father's side, we have traced our family tree as far back as we could to a black woman sold on the street corner of churchill, virginia. my father and his siblings and grew up in that neighborhood. they attended racially

segregated schools. despite being starved for resources by the state, my father and his twin brother went on to become college professors. my father became the first dean of african-american affairs at the university of virginia. [applause] and i grew up in virginia in the late 1970's, my teachers still referred to the civil war as the war of northern aggression. absolutely. the war between the states did not become the civil war until college. my interracial family experienced harassment and abuse during the decades that we made our home in the commonwealth. but, virginia is also the place where i made lifelong friends, and was educated by many tough and loving teachers. i came to political

consciousness in virginia. i can recall many phrases of the dog was wilder inauguration address, as the first african- american governor. my favorite moment, just seconds before president obama was elected, virginia turned blue. [applause] i share this personal history not because it is exceptional, but frankly because it is not exceptional. as african americans, by and large, current u.s. census data shows that we are increasingly southerners in the kind of reverse migration that is happening over the past decade. virginia history is my history. when the confederate nostalgic emerges from governor mcdonald, it seeks to profit from a history that is on recognizably

alien to me. a narrative of virginia that laments the end of slavery. that romanticizes traders action against states and memorializes sedition. my problem with that of the confederate flag is not about racism. it just is not. i have seen the confederate flag flown in indiana. i have seen it flown in michigan. i have seen it float in upstate new york. i have seen if loan in california. in a ton of places that have nothing to do with the civil war. the problem with the rebel flag is that we have decided that it is an equally patriotic flag to fly as the american flag. the issue here is not about racism.

the issue is about a willingness to allow a revisionist history about secession to be part of our profound american understanding. to fly the confederate flag is to make a claim for a history that is about breaking the country apart. yet, we continue to think of it as an equally patriotic choice. [applause] i think that we do this because we were in a rush at the moment of reconstruction to heal the fissures of the country. the time that was an exceptionally painful. one of the key elements of that feeling was to allow former confederate to tell the stories

of the former half of slavery in a way that recognizes them as the center of those stories. gone with that of the wind, "birth of a nation," these are the remembrances of that in fact our american understanding of what pre-civil war america was. and the moonlight and magnolias. the version of southern history that erases black suffering in order to tell this story about a time when things were simpler, better, and when black women made as pancakes. and [laughter] -- made us pancakes. [laughter] many, and her very -- mammie,

and her various iterations, was madison avenue's most powerful marketing tool. it is and jemima. -- and jemima -- aunt jemima. her ability to sell domestic product during a time when a fight domestic fear was under- skirted by faithful black women who willingly contributed their near-magical capacity to ensure that white households and families were supported. mammie did not exist. she is not real. yet, it was almost true that she would have been standing right next to martin luther king on the national mall.

just a few years after women got ,he right to vote in the 1920's the daughters of the american confederacy proposed a mammie statute to be erected in the shadow of the lincoln memorial. it was a tribute to all of black mammies who had served. let me be clear, these women understood that it was a tribute to the african-american women. the maids, the help that had served to them. the statute that would be erected there, the remembrance for all that they had done. the senate, which had repeatedly refused to pass the anti- lynching bill, was willing to appropriate funds for these purposes.

only because when it got to the u.s. house of representatives, african-american leaders and the church fought and kept it from happening. it is possible that the shrine but there at this moment could be a mammie statute. and it would be right there, next to king. the psychic assault that existed, how i would feel about going into washington, d.c.. i am a runner. the idea of what it would mean to run past a statue of them -- not an actual person. let me be clear, she does not exist. but she does exist in the american context of federate nostalgia, even at this moment, what i try to pretend was not

happening, and this film being hailed as a great reconcilable of racial banks, continuing to reproduce this notion that african-american women are primarily, sort of, magical creatures. capable of not only simultaneously solving the problems of women who have far more resources than them. and, without question, always loving the white children who are their charges. and, never experiencing sexual violence or violation by the white men, for whom they work. always in bodies that could never provoke sexual anxiety of any kind. and, capable of ultimately walking off, triumphantly, into

the jim crow south, unemployed, and we a ploy -- and we applaud. at the end, we applaud that a woman walks off into the jim crow south in a maid's uniform and the audience goes wild. this is, at our core, about our unreconciled anxieties about the end of the civil war. the third. contemporary african-american politics. i will move very quickly through the next two. when barack obama was elected to the presidency, he was elected with 95% of the african-american vote. meaning that about half of african-americans that typically vote for the republican party,

they showed up and voted for barack obama in this context. typically a round 80% of the african-american vote goes to the democratic party. and i completely think that condoleezza rice and shelby steele voted for president obama. colin powell actively told us that he was planning to. i think that the easiest way to read this is as a purely racial story. the story of african-americans and racial representation. it is not a bad story to tell. the era of construction was a moment when african-americans have the opportunity to hold office. to recall how extraordinary that is, entering into citizenship from a state of servitude, moving immediately into office

holding, it happens more swiftly 44 mark -- formerly enslaved black men than it did for white women who had been feet -- free for a long time. once they got the right to vote, there was a long lag in the states. it happened incredibly quickly between the 1860's and the unholy compromise of 1870. so, there is a deep and profound yearning among people of color and other, not only four substantive representation of political interest, but also for demographic and descriptive representation. a reasonable yearning. one that i do not know how to describe, except to say that only one time did i feel an absolute ceiling of the double-

consciousness of the notion for what it means to be black and american. the only moment when i ever felt this, in the inauguration, for one second it felt like there was no contradiction between the identity of being black and the identity of being american. by january 24th, it was all over. for a moment, there was a sense that descriptive representation could go together. i think that there is something potentially problematic about it being so powerful that it could be overcome substantive representation. this is the anxiety currently being expressed by my former prison -- former princeton colleagues.

i want you to remember that african-americans and republicans have been around for 100 years. there were republicans hundreds of years after there was a reason to be a republican anymore. republicans were approaching numbers like 90%. they were republicans because of lincoln. and the civil war cemented african-americans to the republican party for centuries. the clarity with which that struggle created a sense of solidarity for african- americans, the struggle for full equality in civil rights, and in the matter of a decade and a half, black voters, starting with the new deal, cemented by

lyndon baines johnson, they became democrats with at the same level of electoral solidarity. waste is a part of it, but this is also for african-americans. their response to the civil war and reconstruction. the notion that political power is actually not best wielded by splitting the votes between two parties and becoming a swing vote. rather, in warning the political party about its willingness to stand up for a fundamental freedom and right for the community. and as we look -- [applause] as we look at how african- american voters behave, we have to be very careful not to denigrate black voters as, somehow, under the spell of a

black president. a longer view of history shows us that this is how -- that this is representative of how african-american voters behave. the way in which the civil war continues to give us a legacy for white racial politics, since the election of barack obama exposed profound anxieties about american citizenship and its intersection with marginal identities, when i teach -- identities. when i teach race relations in the classroom, i tell them to write this down -- a race is a social construction. they nod their heads and they think to themselves -- she is not. i can tell white people from black people and brown people. social construction, what ever.

when i have to get my hair done, it feels like a biological reality. i cannot go into a white hair salon, i have to go to an african-american hair salon. the 2008 presidential election was such an opportunity for me on this point. i could actually show the hyper- social construction of a candidate. take those film strips from third grade, where they would show an apple tree grow in like seven slides. that is bought watching the social construction of the obama campaign was. it began during the primaries. this language that barack obama was not black enough. he grew up in hawaii. that is not very black. i do not know who goes to harvard. that is not very black.

[laughter] use of many americans explain why he was black. and that he could pass into klan and get information from either place. parking on the fence. all of that. and of course, then jeremiah wright appeared on the scene. suddenly, barack obama was way to black. -- too black. most black people are angry, but he is not. he is not angry black. you see? [laughter] but then, because we are in a post-9/11 america, the anxiety shifted from being black to a

question of islamic identity. he is a secret muslim. [laughter] not only do we need education in history, but we need a religious lesson. it is not actually possible to be a secret muslim. it is actually possible to be a secret christian. you can profess it in your heart and secretly walk around. in islam, you cannot be a secret muslim. it requires certain public acts. if you are not engaging, you are not muslim. it is very difficult for us to have that kind of conversation. we saw these moments beginning to it -- emerge.

this idea that he was too black, clearly just what american -- not a citizen. this was a reconstruction moment. for me this was the moment that reminded us, but the core of reconstruction was the definition of american citizenship. and the notion that the primary discourse about the president, that it would be a clear discourse about citizenship -- i am not making a claim on whether he is a good president or a bad president. whether or not he is effectively wielding power. but the anxiety that emerge within weeks, but that april,

2009, to party rally in texas -- the same place where rick perry suggested that secession was appropriate, it was april of 2009. barack obama was inaugurated in january of 2009. he might be a horrible president. but he wasn't in april. he could not have been. there was simply not enough time. he may be an exceptional and great president. but he was not in april of 2009. it was simply the speed with which the response occurred. it means that it could not have been about substance, policy, and governing. it could only be the reflection of the human being that embody the american presidency.

remember, at the end of the civil war until the compromise of 1877, blacks and americans agreed this -- black americans enjoyed this experiment. holding office, organizing, working as laborers and farmers. it was the kind of fragile political equality made possible only by the presence of the federal government. in 1877, the federal government abdicated its responsibilities to the citizens and withdrew from the south. it allowed local government and racial terrorist organizations to have a monopoly on violence, force, and coercion. for nearly 100 years. the current tide of racial anxiety and sentiment feels like

that moment that we southerners call redemption. the taking back of the south. in birth of a nation, the 1950 film that woodrow wilson showed in the white house, the film depicts a racist imagination this currently at work. but a kind of bigotry that means that no government could be legitimate, if it is embodied in represented by black bodies. so, those four. continuing anxiety, engagement with federal nostalgia, the way in which african-american voting is part of and responsible to the realities of the civil war. finally, anxiety toward the president has its roots in

reconstruction moments about what it means to share power with the formerly enslaved. drawing these parallels does not mean that moment = this moment, historically. changing across time is true. it is brewed for alan west to say that he is the harriet tubman of the republican party. it is not so much route because it says that black folks in the democratic party are on the plantation. it is true because alan west is no harriet tubman. he is not enslaved. he is that subjugated the way that slaves were. -- he is not subjugated the way that slaves were. when you look at images of lynching, i want you to remember that you almost always see the faces of the lin shares -- of the lynchers.

they did not need or care to turn their face away from the cameras. they were not ashamed. there is a moment of progress that occurs when, even if the lynching occurs, the people turn their face away. shame over racism is a kind of progress were the of marking. freedom is not slavery. the current prison industrial complex is horrible and not jim- crow. it is something different and worthy of new theorizing. but all of that still requires us to know the historical moment from which we have emerged. when michele alexander calls us out, it is to call attention to a particular way that the state -- not because the current conflict is jim crow, but because we learned something about it. we are not in reconstruction.

i can do this without fear of reprisal. yet, remember, our country comes from somewhere. i think it is a critical moment for engaging with this critical moment of more history. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> those of you that have to

leave right now, please do so quietly out of respect for the people that stayed behind for questions and answers. those of you that do, we will do our best to represent your collected questions. you mentioned celebration of the secession, i think that is the way you spoke of it. over time, mcdonald's issued an apology for their statements. my question to you is -- given all of the misstatements of facts in these boroughs the recollections, are there and the players that play, is there enough light on them, that there is a response to these things that attracts the public consciousness? >> this goes back to this moment

being, of course, different. it needs to be celebrated and recognized as we remain in struggle around these questions. the fact that we are appalled by it, the fact that it makes national news in a way that leads so many americans to pause and think that it leads so many americans to believe -- it is inappropriate to think of of fighting for the confederacy as an inappropriate choice. to pretend that slavery was not part of this, you have to be careful. you want to be careful about celebrating resistance itself. it is about the challenges. but clearly there is a different sort of moment of empowerment now then we would

have previously seen. that said, lectures matter. although a news story like the confederate history month it's exposed, the fact that there is this daily grinding of the general assembly that often does not, those mine sets are not exclusively cultural. they have very real policy implications. so the revelation of that sort of nostalgia in the perspective of mcdonald's winds up having an impact in the kinds of policies that they like to comment on. >> can you respond on why the south perpetuates civil war nostalgia? keeps fighting the civil war? as a native new yorker who has adopted this out as their home,

it seems that that is what is going on. >> another thing. it is definitely not just the south. they have an engagement that is more imminent and visceral. when you say the war in those places, you mean world war ii. but in some places, you are referring to the civil war. that is part of the cultural rhythm of the space. i am most frightened when i see the stars and bars, the rebel flag, in indiana. more afraid when i see it there than when i see it in south carolina. partly because in places like indiana, illinois, as opposed to covering a historic moment of

specificity, it can only be about aggressive racial statements. when my -- when it is flying there there are mixed, difficult meanings. when it flies from the door roomette notre dame, it feels like it is about -- dorm room at notre dame, it feels like it is about one thing. the sense of the need for the south to think about the confederacy as an equally patriotic choice is, i think, about change. post-world war ii germany is a fascinating study in how a defeated nation with a moral and ethical dilemma addresses the problem of national change. in germany during the world cup last year, people kept

apologizing to my husband and myself for flying the german flag. they said that they did not mortally behave this way. do not take it as an act of aggression. it is just about the world cup. americans are fairly aggressive flag wavers. i had not noticed it as troubling or problematic. but for my german host, there was still a sense of what it meant to be shrouded in a post- holocaust, post-world war ii europe. part of the ways that the defeated confederacy dealt with this collective shame around a loss of that war -- around the loss of that war was to revise history as though they had not lost it, or if that they had, it was a great injustice.

it is part of why slavery in its written out of the story. you do not want to say -- is too bad that you are not by slave anymore. what you say is -- it is to blend -- too bad that we cannot celebrate this particular sort of culture. it is about a profoundly unresolved regional shaming that continues. we keep shaming the south. that is why i started that new center. every political activity that occurs between washington, d.c., and boston, you cannot get to it on the hudson -- it might as well be california. [laughter] south of the mason dixon? it may as well be brazil. [laughter] we behave as though the only backwardsness is in the self,

even when wisconsin is involved with labor-stripping rights. we never say anything about getting those midwesterners to get their cultures together, but we do that with the south. >> can you talk about what this compromise is about? >> i have lost it a bit. from the end of the civil war until the election of 1876, the union armies were occupying the former confederate states. in their occupation of the former confederate states, they were making sure that black citizenship was protected. that black men could vote, hold office, and some nominal levels of integration were occurring.

even some integrated populist political movements were occurring in the early 1870's. of course, there were many white, poor farm workers but did not benefit from a system of slavery. in this context, the freedom to imagine economic solidarity with formerly enslaved people -- in 1876, basically you had something very equivalent to the bush for election of 2000. a contested -- bush gore election of 2000. a contested election. the republican party made a choice, at that point, to compromise and allow that as

long as their candidate was allowed to accept the u.s. presidency, they would do so under the condition of ending reconstruction in the south. in this moment, it was not clear who had won. the republican party cut a deal. let's take the white house and withdraw union troops from the south, let me return to a state of jim crow. when they took the white house, the end of that project, the end of the union army in the south, you begin to -- you did not really start in the 1870's, it is the 1890's that you start to see the imposition of jim crow laws. local, former, confederate states pushing to see how far we

can go. how far will the federal government let us go in rolling back the voting rights and economic rights of these new black citizens. it is why we have plessey v. ferguson right at the turn of the 20th century, celebrating this process of jim-crow. by 1905, you have a completely segregated system that does not get under term -- overturned until the 1950's. >> i do not know how to do this briefly, but property and voting rights for women and blacks took a backseat in civil rights, but women played a huge role in anti-slavery. how did women's rights and civil rights king racked the store away and politically -- women's

rights and civil rights interact historic plea, politically? [laughter] >> ok. [laughter] it is interesting to hear it phrased that way. dubois never imagined the problem of gender over later " -- across that. apparently they never thought much about class or any of those problems. a few things. entirelyhands are clean. the question of the intersection between -- i will put this as a white woman's rights and black rights -- i do not want to call it civil rights. civil rights is the broad category that is everyone's.

women's rights in this century, thinking that it focuses exclusively on race, but at every point -- this goes back to the federalist papers, a political process. not a pure ideological movement where we are coming forth from the minds of good people as new policies. at every point, white women, in their engagement for suffrage, were trying to think about the arguments they needed to make. there were points that were profoundly troubling racial arguments in their efforts for suffrage, saying -- how dare you give the votes to these beasts

of burden and not to your daughters and wives. troubling, right? [laughter] similarly, those that were fighting for universal male suffrage often made those arguments in line with that -- on the one hand, we want the extension of the universal suffrage, but it was made in clearly anti-woman language around suffrage. this story, about how the 15th amendment becomes an amendment just to extend universal male suffrage and not women's suffrage, is also reflected in our current politics around the painful process of the hillary clinton barack obama primary battle. the ways in which that force us to ask whose first, whose turn

is it, who is next. [laughter] we just never imagined -- let's get rid of all of the white guys. no return to that. [laughter] there is consistently this notion that there are limited resources that the marginal groups have to battle for together. a quick point about the supreme court here. tell me that justice o'connor has gone. please. [laughter] i do an experiment with my students. i was asked this morning that if i ever thought there was a black president, and i said i did not like the presidency.

here is my supreme court fantasy. i want you to remember that the supreme court operates on the basis of decisions where we have to reflect back on previous decisions. that is the fundamental theory of the court. meaning that we cannot think about it in its contemporary moment. it is always the entire court, moving forward. the accumulation of all of those decisions. if we were to think about gender parity in the court, it cannot be -- it cannot be achieved by half of the accord being female. it would have to be the entire court being female.

[applause] i make no assumption that an all woman court would have any particular ideological viewpoint. let me be clear. it would not suddenly become progressive. women are as diverse as men. but the idea that we can leave women a room -- alone in a room with no grownups to make decisions about the constitution -- but i will push you. i will not allow you to leave this court, in your mind. make every woman in that court black and latina. imagine having 100 years the of the exclusively judges that are women of color. now, make them all day.

-- gay. [laughter] if that seems like the craziest thing you have heard, our current constitution rests on an entirely white male, presumably heterosexual court. that is precisely the america that we live in. this is indicative of the fact that we are not quite prepared to say that we're women of color, for example, are equally capable of exercising citizenship without oversight. [applause] >> as tempting as it is to end with that, there is a point here that requires clarification.

are you suggesting that the 14th amendments gives the federal branch of the government the unilateral authority? >> i thought that president obama using the 14th amendment to raise the debt ceiling was an impeachment battle waiting to happen. i assumed that the goal was to get him to do that so that impeachment proceedings could begin. when president clinton, who i respect for a ton of reasons, said that he would cut as the state to use the 14th amendment, i was like -- of course you would not. you have to appreciate that this man was impeached and did not leave. he was like -- so what. [laughter] [applause] i work here. pshh. [laughter]

i actually assumed that if president obama -- there were a lot of calls to "go ahead and do with." -- do it." i do not think that the president would have been removed from office by the senate. but i think it would have been more weapons of mass destruction. we would not be talking about jobs or these other things. i would not leave the 14th amendment to constitutional interpretation. part of what it is doing there, even as it defines citizenship for american citizens, it also makes the claim that the state needs to be dead. it says that the state has a collective responsibility to pay its debt. >> ladies and gentlemen, melissa

erez. -- harris. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> a reminder that we will be live at the national press club, listening to ken burns, who will be talking about his new documentary about prohibition. until then, your phone calls from today's "washington journal."

writes. why haven't there been a tea party on the left and can the president develop a functional relationship, he says those questions are not asked very often. do you think there is the equivalent of 80 party on the left, or would you like to see more of a warrant? let's hear from the democrats' line.

caller: i think it would be a great idea to have 80 party on the left. -- a tea party on the left. more exposure to that health care act, not obama care. i can tell you three instances where it really helped out my family and relatives. i think it would be a great idea. host: what would the major tenants of it be? what would our people together? caller: kind of like the wall street protesters. the american middle class is slowly disappearing. i have been knocked down to about $28,000 a year, which is poverty level basically.

the death of the middle-class is one of the things that holds together the nation. [unintelligible] i know you do not give comments, but i'd like to hear what others have to say. host: we will put that question out there. a joke, in idaho. -- joe in idaho. caller: i and with the wall street protectors. they are the new left. -- i am with the wall street protectors. they are the new left. thank god for them. we need our sovereignty back. we need to get the trade agreement. bank god we have the people on wall street -- thank god we have

the people on wall street. i am surprised that the "wall street journal" has been ignoring them for the past few days. these people are the only one that are going to help us get our country back. the right is about big business, which is for enslavement of all of the middle class, what is left of it. these poor people in the united states need to look toward the wall street protests. we need protest's everywhere in the united states, any where there are financial institutions. the white caller crime needs to be addressed in this country. i wish to this station would do a significant program on these people. the: let's take a look at coverage of the ""the wall street journal"" across the country.

the protest in lower manhattan entered its third week. they tried to block traffic on the brooklyn bridge. a smaller scale protest continued plant on online in social networking site. they were gathering in chicago and other cities, but they were smaller. some are only in the planning stage. there are groups listed that are offshoots of the york protests. some began protesting outside of the u.s. including in prague, mel bourne, and montreal. here is los angeles city hall during demonstrations there. lincoln park, mich., republicans line. believe is called ""chicago the

tribune"" and most of the media. host: tell us more. is it only with the media? caller: i think their voices are well-represented across the board. i think the article written -- [unintelligible] it is the truth of what i am saying. that is all i have. host: take a look at the guests of a david gregory on "meet the press." >> what about this occupy wall street movement? demonstrations, arrests.

does the president need more activism on the left to say we need a piece ponce to what we are seeing on the conservative side it? that is a big issue if people will have the same enthusiasm. >> there is a conference this week on the american dream. i think the president has been hurt by the lack of an organized protests. the stimulus plan was not as big as most -- economists thought. it was pretty middle of the road. obama is a moderate sort of liberal. we want to push further than this. the whole discussion is skewed, because the media has been so obsessed by the tea party. host: that was "meet the press" yesterday. democrats line. caller: i thought that was

perfect. one of the things i was talking about with one of my friends about republicans and democrats -- democrats need to be more like republicans. do not give in. make it won a solid front. stick with it -- one solide front. -- a solid front. stick with it. this party is a group of a myriad of different ideas. host: you broke up on us. let's get this comment on twitter. here is what they write. dave, independent line, pennsylvania.

hello, dave. caller: there is a group called the blue republicans. you will find a lot of ron paul supporters there, who are quite independent. i did want to mention as well, two democratic voters. misplays the voting power they realized. they misplaced the voting power they realized. you want somebody in there that will be as close to your personal use as you can get. thanks. host: alice in atlanta.

caller: we need a new party for the democrats. it should be called, wake up. a caller was talking about corporate greed. we need to wake up, realize that the republican party has been accelerated by the corporate greed. they are ahead of the treasury, they give advice to our president, and they are the ones that are running the country we bigotry to destroy what it is doing. they are halting the government in hopes everybody loses their job -- and i hope everybody loses their job. hope everybody loses their job.

i was one of those people that spoke up. i make very little money. i'm on disability. i did not realize how it has affected my country. we have criminals in the government. they are in the treasury. every one of them got away with it. we needed to get all of these people, put them in jail, and make them give back money they stole from our country. host: she says the left movement should be called wake up. what do you think? caller: there does need to be 80 party movement in the democratic party. there needs to -- a tea party movement in the democratic party. there needs to be an anti-war party.

if ron paul does not get the confirmation, which he probably will not, he should take one person as a running mate and run under the libertarian ticket. they should have 15 percent in the polls, that should qualify them. people can learn the cost of perpetual war. that ticket should get 25% of the votes. host: you are calling right here from washington, d.c. on the independent line. are you interested in the wall street protests. are you explore anything like that? caller: i support that, although, i do not think they will be able to do any good. you have to work within the

electoral process. the things that ron paul says is laughed at by the establishment media. people need to try to support it and overcome the media blackout on their views. host: let's take a look at the column. he writes, the tea party on the left. this week progressives will highlight a new effort on the road not taken at a conference convened for the campaign for america's future that opens monday. there is a corporate effort with a large number of organizations, such as the green movement, led by jones, a former obama administration official.

let us take a look at the website here for this conference that is happening this week. it looks like washington, d.c. take back the american dream conference. connecticut, republican line. caller: good morning. i think that the left does not need a tea party. it was a reaction to the government over the last 40 or 50 years. conservatives have been left out of both the democratic party and the republican party. george bush was not a conservative. he was a republican progressive. so you have this progressive movement leading the way. who would say that we would have had government controlled health

care 20 years ago? that was considered a communist position. now we have it, and we are calling it moderate. the progressives are doing what progressives do. our freedoms are gone. the conservative t party is a reaction to something that has been going on. -- the conservative tea party is a reaction to something that has been going on. host: next caller, what do you think? caller: the trend is to the conservative side. i believe that is because even though there has been a a grass-ive movement,

roots movement that has been out here in the country and totally ignored, even by the local media. i have called in before and asked you to look at the influence of all of the think tanks that have banded together to create all of this legislation to the right. the libertarian type right. you regularly have on the think tanks like kato, established by the called brothers to do away with social security. you constantly have on all of these think tanks leading the country to the right, and that is just the >> c. "washington journal"

morning at 7:00. we are live at the national press club for remarks from documentary producer ken burns. he is today's luncheon speaker and he has a new series on prohibition and its legacy. >> he has a signature style. the narration of a comfortably familiar voice like tom hanks or morgan freeman perhaps of the sounds of harmonic -- harmonicas or banjos set against a backdrop of an historic american tail. it is literally called the ken burns the fact, the iconic film of fact made famous in "the civil war, co jazz, and here is our creator. he leverages american history into television programming is no one else can. the baltimore sun wrote that he is not only the greatest documentarian of the day but also the most temperamental

flynn -- filmmaker period. our guest today joins us to launch his latest series which began airing last night on pbs. many of you had an opportunity to see it. like all work highlighting pivotal areas in american history like all of his work, this report series examines the rise and fall of the 18th amendment of the u.s. constitution, the series entitled "prohibition." he has called history table around which americans can all have a civil conversation. with the release of his " prohibition"series , he is calling for a new national discourse on stability and democracy. it is relevant in the midst of this he did presidential season when the absence of several discussion is causing distress. with the prolific record of film innovation and documentary work, his films have won 12 emmy

awards and two academy award nominations. among his numerous accolades, our guest is the recipient of the academy of television arts and sciences lifetime achievement award. this brooklyn-born filmmaker catapulted into the film scene in 1981 with a product that explored the world's first steel wire suspension bridge. that film was "brooklyn bridge." it was his landmark series in 1990 that was to become the highest rated film series in american public television history, "the civil war." our guest more rigid won more awards including two emmy awards and two grammys. "prohibition" is his 22nd documentary for the public broadcasting system. the pbs partnership may rival that of our guests relationship with the national press club. he said at this point no fewer than six times to talk about his

films. four members of my of missed the first broadcast of his documentary, we will screen at a said one during our special species evening of stairs [laughter] in our restaurants. give a warm national press club welcome to mr. ken burns. [applause] >> my goodness, what a generous and kind introduction. i thought the press was supposed to be balanced and agnostic on this. you have jumped right into a speak easy night. in that spirit, let's raise their glasses and toast to unintended consequences. [laughter] i would be remiss if i did not thank the very, very important people that bring me, compel me to this table and to this podium. that includes our corporate

underwriter bank of america who has been with us for five years and has been among the most enlightened underwriters we have ever had in more than 30 years of making films on public television. we also enjoy the support of the arthur davis foundation, the park foundation, and a new group that we started called the better angels society. more on that later. it attracts new donors to public broadcasting. we also have long-term support in this film from the national endowment for the humanities. they were instrumental in us being able to finish our fell on the brooklyn bridge back in the late 1970's and were instrumental in making sure we were able to finish this film. two other sponsors deserve special note -- without their longtime support, i literally would not be standing here.

the first is the public broadcasting service itself led by my friend, paul kruger right now who has made a long-term commitment to our film. it is not only does the others we have in store and others dating back more than 21 years. the corporation for public broadcasting takes the cake. they have been supporting us since the very, very first film. i think they have been involved in all but one of the films we have worked on since we started making films. i am so very grateful to the corporation for public broadcasting and to its current ceo pat harrison for their unwavering support. during the last 30 years, have enjoyed as a production partner, one of the most distinguished and important affiliate's in the pbs system and that is weta, local washington, d.c. affiliate

for public television. public television is a bottom-up model in which we depend on local stations to produce programming which is sent upstream and distributed by pbs. it is not a monolithic central network that decides what they will show and when they will show it. for those last 30 years, i have enjoyed not only the partnership with -- the friendship of all sharon rockefeller and it is great to once again share this table with her. she is a dear friend and we could not leave home without these friends. we make a kind of cliche to filmmaking that it is a collaborative medium. it is. it is important today particularly to acknowledge what i will call the-space of creation. i do not mean that pejoratively. this culture brings a block of

stone to her studio and works on it and what we get to see is the finished product. what she understands in her heart and in her gut is all that is lying on the floor of the studio is the negative space of creation. that is true in almost every creative process and it is true in filmmaking were quite often we might have 40 or 50 times as much material that we filmed or collected bank and actually make it into the final film. this is called the shooting ratio. i live in new hampshire and it takes 40 gallons of sap to make 1 gallon of maple syrup. this is very much like a documentary filmmaking. [laughter] given the subject of our film today, i might have used kentucky's model which would be a process of distillation which i believe the ratio is also about the same period two people are not here.

that is my coat director and co- producer lynn novack who has been every stage of this production in every way, the equal in every decision we have made in all aspects of the production. i wish that she was here to be able to share your attention this afternoon. i would also like to acknowledge our co-producer sarah botstein. she helped to find a lot of the hard to find footage. not dispensing with those but acknowledging those very real supporters of, let me try to begin and tell you first of all how honored i am to be back here. at the national press club and how honored and delighted i am to be talking about the special messages that are common heritage directed our way. let us listen.

too often we have ignored this joyful historical noise, becoming blissfully ignorant of the power those past lives and stories and moments have over this moment and indeed our vast unknown future. i am interested in that power of history and i am interested in its many varied voices, not the voices of the old top down version of our past which we tried to convince us that american history is only the story of great man. men. certainly not the voice is that it recently entered our stories that suggest that history is only a catalog of white european crimes. we're interested in listening to the voice of the true, honest, complicated past that is on a free of controversy and tragedy. it is equally drawn to those stories that suggest an abiding faith in the human spirit and particularly the unique role that is remarkable that sometimes also dysfunctional. more on that later.

the republics into play and the positive aspect of mankind. that has been my creed and the lens through which i try to share our history for more than 30 years on public broadcasting. i have to admit that we have made the same film over and over again. each film asks one deceptively simple question -- who are we? who are those strange and complicated people like to call themselves americans? what does an investigation of the past tell us about where we have been but where we are and where we might be going? while each film tries to answer the question, it can actually never enter it fully. one hopes that with each success of project, you have the possibility of deepening the question. who are we? american history is a loud, raucous, exquisite collection of noises that often combine to

make the sweetest kind of music i know. we have tried to listen as much as we can to this music in putting together the films we have made. it is a kind of emotional archaeology that we are attempting, listening to the coast and echoes of an almost in expressively wide pass that paradoxically points as confidently towards those future horizon that will comprise our destiny as individuals, as well as communities and a country. that is what i am interested in. this new project on prohibition is no different. i appeared here 21 years ago for the very first time for "the civil war." i told you that if i had been working on a film project about the imperial presidency, about new weapons of mass destruction at a level unseen before, about unscrupulous military contractors who sold shoddy goods to the government at

exorbitant prices, about a growing feminist movement, you would tell me you have abandoned history and your working from the present moment. those were only a handful of the themes that compelled the story of our history of the civil war. i come back to you again, redundant lake, to begin to tell you that though we have in our mind sort of safe and familiar images of prohibition that now have unfortunately been distilled down into our children's textbooks to a paragraph or two and they seem to be model t's careening around rain-slicked chicago streets with machine guns blasting, the story of a popular and familiar gangsters, or the bobbed hair, short skirts, drawless flapper dancing on the table of a speakeasy in this new expression

of the literally roaring '20s, we will have ignored at our peril the central themes that for us brought us to the project and seems to reverberate today. if you know your bible, in ecclesiastic 1:9, it says what has been will be again, what has been done will be done again. there is nothing new under the sun. ladies and gentlemen, let me tell you something about prohibition -- see if it sounds familiar. this is the story of a single issue political campaigns, wedge issue campaigns that metastasized with horrible unintended consequences. this is the story of the demonization of recent immigrant groups to the united states and as always, the demonization of african-americans. this is the story of all unfunded congressional mandates, of loss of civil discourse, a smear campaigns during our

presidential election cycle, about a whole group of people who feel sincerely that they have lost control of their country and want desperately to get it back and will do anything they can. to take. this is the story of government. what is its precise and correct relationship to its citizens? this is the story of warrantless wiretaps. this is the story of a growing and developing feminist movement. does it all sound familiar? these are only a handful of the audience that animated our interest in the prohibition story. we have made a three-part, nearly six our series which began broadcasting last night. the first episode is called "a nation of drunkards" which details of the activity in the united states that led up to the passage of the 18th amendment, the temperance movement, the understandable temperance

movement in a country awash in alcohol where we were drinking five, six, seven times the amount of alcohol that we now consume. the problem of drunk in this as they called it then, not alcoholism, was a huge social problem being addressed first by the clergy and later by a new group of people who were feeling their first agency in this new republic, women. and did not have the vote had absolutely no rights at the beginning of the 19th century but threw their support of abolition and temperance began to find a bad voice and began to achieve that agency and began to act outside the house in powerful and interesting ways. that movement and flowed and it was hijacked by those who thought much as temperance but total abstinence would be the best thing. a new modern single issue movement was born. it blotted out the efforts of

the women's christian temperance union and other periodic crusades that were sponsored by women across the country. it was taken over by the single most effective and powerful lobbying organization in the history of the united states, a group i had never heard of going into this project called the anti-saloon league. its leader was as powerful as any human being has ever been outside of holding public office in the united states. i had never heard of him either. it was said that he could make the senate of the united states set up and beg and he did end they did. it is an interesting and fascinating story as the women's christian temperance union was sort of shall decide and anti- saloon league with its -- with its single issue campaign -- they just wanted the elimination of alcohol and worked tirelessly to do it and they were willing to compromise on nothing and

willing to make alliances with anybody if it would advance their goal. when myrick t. herrick, a moderate republican governor of ohio said he thought local towns should have a voice in what they're doing, the anti-saloon league got hit uneklected and the democratic challenger who was thought to have no chance in the race got elected in his place. it is a fascinating story which seems ultimately modern in every respect they were turning out tons and tons and tons of anti- litter propaganda every month from their plant in westerville, ohio which was their headquarters. it is a town just north of columbus. it is a fascinating story. what is more fascinating is how a majority of americans came to embrace the notion that we needed an amendment to the constitution that actually

limits human freedom when every other amendment to the constitution has actually a expanded human freedom. that has been the american model. we have moved forward into our uncertain future by extending to our citizens more rights than they had before. this is the only amendment that actually curtails those rights. by the turn of the 20th-century and in the first two decades of that tumultuous century, we found a huge strange collection of people who worked for prohibition in some way, shape, or form. progressives were for it as well as a very conservative anti- saloon league, democrats and republicans, prohibition came to be seen as a way to solve all of society's ills, that we could just swallow this pill, this magic bullet, this panacea which would change everything. every family would be improved, the slums with empty, man would

walk upright the evangelist billy sunday said, women would smile and children with lap and held would forever be for rent. if this amendment went through. industrialists like andrew carnegie and john d. rockefeller were for it because they thought that alcohol weekend the output of their working man. the wobblies were for it, too. they saw a prohibition, based on alcohol as a capitalist plot to destroy the working man and joined this odd band wagon toward prohibition. we had the naacp was for it. booker t. washington argued always and passionately for a black advancement and advance and of a black middle class and he saw the optical alcoholism -- the obstacle of alcoholism as a huge and a problem that they

needed to join the bandwagon. then the coup klutz klan was for it, too. there were anti-catholic, anti jew, anti-black and the last thing they feared was a black man with a bottle in one hand and a ballot in the other. everything coalesced around it and as we move into the second decade of the 20th century, two things made a reality. the first was the 16th amendment. the anti-saloon league shrewdly allied themselves, many say cynically, with progress of groups interested in the redistribution of wealth in the united states because there was in that time as we are to end debate today, a huge disparity between haves and have-nots. the gilded age and the robber barons had squeezed the middle class and the poor rising in their ranks and the rich were getting richer. they thought the best way to

redistribute wealth was to pass an amendment to the constitution that would initiate an income tax. strangely, the anti-saloon league joined with them because they knew that by supporting this amendment, they would insure that the liquor industry, the bruce and distillers, would no longer have a symbiotic relationship that had with uncle sam because up to that point, fully 70% of all internal revenues for the federal government' came from taxing ber and spirits. despite local prohibition movement, the beer and liquor industries were confident that they would never be disconnected from the person most addicted to them which was the federal government, the income tax proved them wrong. they found themselves in deep trouble. the second event, not of the anti-salim league doing is the

first world war. that made all germans and in this country, the second or third largest immigrant group, the enemy. you could in essence equate beer with treason and they did. the government's propaganda office and the anti-obsolete working almost and and and were able to convince people of the threat that came from the hun not just from without but within the united states. we stone doxepin's to death. german american citizen was killed for no other crime than speaking german over a backyard fence to a neighbor. we renamed sauerkraut, liberty cabbage [laughter] . sound familiar? it only took a few more votes and we had passed by overwhelming majorities a prohibition on man-to-man.

-- amendment. we had come to see since the civil war that the constitution was much more than a handbook, emanuel for making this country run. it was a place in which we could fulfil our utopian dreams. this notion of a city on the bill, a more perfect union, as the preamble suggests, was an unbelievable windmill to tilt at and we had begun to initiate an amendment which we thought would do good. the prohibition amendment fit into that. it passed overwhelmingly by the house and senate and moved on to the states to ratify it which they did in record time. the west had truly -- had shrewdly given the drive seven years to do it and they did it in 13 months. the west had been confident that no amendment could work its way

through all those states and passed with the kind of majorities required in all of those states and become law but it did in 1919 and it would go into effect exactly one year later in january of 1920. i have just given you a short synopsis of what you missed last night. [laughter] tonight is an episode called a region [laughter] "a nation of scofflaws." tomorrow night, the third episode which details the second half of the nearly 14-year rule of prohibition is a called"a nation of hypocrites'." these are titles we did not enclosed in the material from the comfort of our present position as amateur historians and documentary film makers. this is what came out of anxieties and descriptions of that period. a nation drunkards, in national scofflaws, nation of hypocrites.

what resonated after -- out of every month of working on this film was a sense of how little we knew about p thiseriod. i spent a lot of time in the 1920's in jazz and the baseball series. i had never known to dimensions of this. i spent a lot of time in the 19th century and knew that the temperance ran alongside emancipation and new in the family made about women's rights the way in which suffrage was made mainstream by its attachments to temperance, the idea that if you gave women the vote, they would help to vote against alcohol. all of these things i thought i knew. we were staggered daily by the sense that we did not know anything. as harry truman once said," the only thing that is really new is the history you don't know." this was an extraordinary and fascinating journey into another territory. i hope you have an opportunity to see this because it is a

different kind of takes. we've got those gangsters and we've got those flappers and we think the film is sexy and exciting, and wonderful and dangerous and all of those stains. it is a deeper dive because after a while, the focus on al capone makes us forget that ordinary citizens, probably most of us in this room, had we been alive then, would have broken below. ordinary citizens did. journalists and filmmakers -- [laughter] doctors, and lawyers and lobbyists. and the guy on the corner and a guy around the. all were breaking the law. one thing our chief creative consultant told us is that while thebolstead act which was the law to apply the amendment was draconian in one sense, it to

find alcohol as one half of 1% content which made german chocolate cake and sauerkraut, liberty cabbage, illegal. it also had unusual loopholes for medicinal purposes. lots of doctors wrote prescriptions that only alcohol could cure. we also had a loophole for sacramental uses. congregations and temples would grow by tenfold. [laughter] while there is often a very precise set of guidelines of how you become a priest, in the catholic faith, there is not so certain a route in the jewish faith. who is to say who is not and who is a rabbi? there were lots of rabbis and named a osha and and and calais [laughter] . this is american ingenuity at

its best for an unintended consequences are so impressive and exciting that we have to think about them and consider them as we wonder about drugs, as we look at the horrible record of organized crime, not just in that brief. but is still with us. we would not have organized crime without prohibition. of course, female alcoholism and jumped severely. what we are reminded of, too, and what has compelled a good deal of our conversation around the country as we take the film around the country is this sense obol loss of a civil discourse in our country i asked why the civil war happen. ed. it happened because we failed to do what we have a genius for. americans like to think of themselves as uncompromising but our genius was to compromise and when that failed, we nearly destroyed each other. it is loss, the periodic loss of

our ability to compromise, our willingness not to see that the moral absolute tests have it right that it is all black and white right and wrong but a strange and wonderful combination of all sorts of people struggling for one part of the truth. george will said democracy is the politics of the half low. you never get it all. in prohibition, we saw an example where we had a group of self righteous people absolutely convinced they knew what was right and what was wrong. they were unwilling to compromise their by doing their noble -- so-called noble experiment to failure. the lesson of prohibition i think whether it is a single issue policy in this loss of civil discourse, in all the ways i described, the demonization of recent immigrants because many of the people doing the demonization today or themselves once the victims of that very discrimination. prohibition stands as one of the

most effective teachers i have ever come across. i so enjoy the opportunity to be able to work in it and dive into a sensitive american psyche that is both generous and greedy, sincere and hypocritical, prurient and puritan, a saturday night and sunday morning, all at the same time and not just between groups which is the easy way in which we distinguish between ourselves today. we are to dialectical preoccupied pointing out red state or blue states. young or old, black or white, like everything we need to superimpose something like the label of someone else, we forget how much we share in common. i think the opportunity that pbs provides me to do a film like " prohibition," we are reminded of how present the past is and what a great teacher it is as well.

thank you for your attention. [applause] >> thank you and thank you again for coming back to the press club. our many members and members of the audience here are anxious to hear you speak as you just did also to pose some questions. we have those now. let's take it really from where you left off. when documentarians many years now try to frame history in the current moment, what do you think they will say let us up to this particularly argumentative time in our history? >> i think we understand that a wedge issue which in retrospect looks to us to be abhorred is actually expedients and politically effective. quite often, the shortest

distance between what you think you want and getting what you think you want are those sorts of tactics. as our politics have become enlarged matter due to our complicity, hours within the established of the media world we live in, has fed this beast. it becomes easier and easier for us to become independent free agents and not participants in the democracy. willing to compromise. as long as that happens, we will see the kind of gridlock and lack of compromise and the lack of progress that every citizen wants regardless of whatever point on the political spectrum that come from. >> you said before hand today that in many ways, this seems very parallel to other parts of our history. since we are inhabiting this time, we have a tendency to want to make it the most something. can you put it in that context in your view? how does it rank compared to

other portions of our history? is it as dramatic as it may seem to those of us who are living now? >> we are always, because we are living in it, in the most dramatic times ever. this is our bias of the great arrogance of the presence because we are alive and it is happening to us. this is the most important time in those people in the past could not have lived as full lives as we do. that is one of the things that history has that ability to lift that veil. they make the distant past. not just our distant past, our pre-revolutionary colonial history, but 10,000 years ago, we can lift the veil on that and extend to those human beings their humanness who lived and loved, hated and were in the same capacity that we do. this is not as tough economic times. we have done many times on the depression which was the ultimate ander of prohibition. in that very desperate time, in

some cities, of the animals in the zero were shot and then be distributed to the poor. when that happens here, please let me know and we can now begin to change our description from recession to depression. the election of 1928 in which al smith was so effectively in eviscerated by the dry forces and other intolerance forces in america stands as one of the worst election campaigns i have ever seen. it looks very similar to the election of 1800 between john adams and thomas jefferson. we have had a lot worse and we have had a lot better. i don't like the fact that historians often like to say that things are in cycles or what ever we don't remember we are content to forget. that seems an obvious corollary to the central theme i hope i have made which is that human nature never changes.

we are the same kind of people we were 10,000 years ago. the greediness and the generosity, the hypocrisy and a sincerity existed in equal measures between but within us. that has to become our struggle. the question of who are we is a convenient step to the real question we all face witches who am i? what am i doing here? what is my purpose? what will i leave? >> having studied the prohibition era, do you think any of the modern efforts to implement constitutional bans like a ban on gay marriage or abortion canner might be successful? >> one of a lasting positive legacies of prohibition has been our now natural suspicion of the next new good thing, the next new magic bullet which will cure everything, the next panacea. i think we have become rightfully suspicious of those

amendments. if you just pass something, everything will be okay. those single issue groups that feel they can see all of american history and the american political system and sell all our problems through the narrow lens of this single issue and by doing it, everything will be all right. as billy sunday said, hell will forever be for rent. with standing room all in lying to get into hell because of the loopholes and enticements that the unintended consequences prohibition sponsored has been a healthy american thing. we have gone back to amendments that are merely mechanical. they are about how you keep the machine going and how often you add oil to it and how often you do this or what the presidential succession is and when you will inaugurate a president. we are no longer tinkering in the same way in large part because we have this deep suspicion of people will try to

sell us that solution. the country prohibition. >> someone is asking and maybe you answered this, do you think the 18th amendment was the product primarily of a conservative or liberal political ideology? >> let us remember that alcoholism was a huge social problems in the early 19th century. it was a huge social problem in 1920 when we passed prohibition. it is a huge social problem today. we as a community, as a government, what ever you would like to say, have obligations to address this problem. the reason why prohibition initially was passed is because no matter what peoples of terror models work, people sincerely thought we could take this big problem off the table. this big problem is suffered by

10% of our population. we made the abortion decision to apply the solution to 100% of the people. it did not work but it does not leave us free of the moral obligation to try and improve society. that is the role of government. that is the role of organizations. that is the role of individuals. that is the role of churches. that is our role. this is not an issue that is left or right. this is a human issue. >> here is a personal question. now you have been dealing with this subject matter for so long, you have been asked on the road whether you or a teetotaler or something more energetic and the consumption of alcohol. has your own research and production of the film had any effect on your thoughts about that? [laughter] >> i have spent a good deal of my professional life as a teetotaler. i have had to wear so many hats that we tend to work long days and i always found that stopping

for a drink when everybody else was was not conducive to continuing network. -- continuing in that war. in the course of prohibition, just as i did when i was making a film on the cell that religious sect, the shakers -- [laughter] i conceive with my co-producer on that film my first of all four daughters. [laughter] it was important for me to balance out the teetotaling aspect of so many individuals in our film that i felt compelled to drink and drink significantly. [laughter] [applause] >> all in the name of creativity. >> absolutely, professional responsibility. >> my next question frightens me [laughter] we had a presidential candidate vying for the republican nomination who is an advocate for legalization of marijuana.

what parallels do you see with the violence in mexico and along the border with the prohibition era? >> that is a wonderful question. as lynn and i approached it, we assumed that's what we would be dealing with. we thought the parallels would extend that far. they were pushed aside by all the other parallels that i spoke to you about. that seemed more to our essential character. these comparisons is still remain and they are not insignificant and we should talk about them a lot. we should use the occasion of history, that table around which we can still have that civil discourse. to may be engaged questions of marijuana. it is our largest cash crop, more than soybeans, corn, and wheat. we look in difficult economic times of a source of potential revenue of if it is taxed and regulated. we hope there could be a

concurrent to ammunition of the violence attending to its distribution. i would say that we have to step back a second and realize that alcohol has been consumed by human beings as long as there have been human beings. there is broad acceptance of it in all manners of society. drug use is more and marijuana to be specific is more a sub- cultural manifestations. it comes and goes in various places at various times. that is quite different. applying the same sorts of things that we learn in prohibition may not be adequate. i would urge those, whoever they are, or considering best to proceed slowly and remember about unintended consequences. however, the single most difficult aspect of this, the violence that is intended to it is connected to cocaine and heroin trade.

it is inextricably connected. by pulling marijuana out, you don't lose colombian drug lords. who knows what the unintended consequence might be of denying them the marijuana business? if you ask cocaine and heroin to join the same conversation as marijuana, an overwhelming majority of americans cannot go there. you are now back so much a square one but at a very cautious experimental phase in which you try to figure out the ways in which the decriminalization of marijuana could take place. >> to the extent that your work

ultimately involves a question of who are we, how honest are we with ourselves about the role of alcohol in our society for the good and bad at the present? >> i think we are rarely honest about anything in our society. whether it is set to relative or faith, whether it is agreed or any of the things that have been tangentially the topic, the energy, if you will, of the subjects of our films. as someone not interested in making or scoring political points in the film but in sharing the conundrum of american human existence and hoping that the distance from us to that moment provides us with some measure of perspective that we might be able to apply it however each individual of your wishes to apply it to the current situation branders your question just that, an excellent question. [laughter] >> thank you. i will take that in lieu of another answer. [laughter] i am told in 1998, you gave a speech entitled why you are a yellow dog democrat.

you produced a video for senator kennedy paused 2008 speech at the convention. and light of all that, how do you separate your personal opinion from your work as a documentarian? how much do you want to separate? >> i want so passionately to separate it is. my own personal beliefs, whatever they might be and all of that question did was narrowly pickup some things. it does not describe friendships across the political spectrum or conservative additions to myself that i suppose to be included in a fairer question. i am interested in the facts. the fact that the battle of gettysburg took place on july 1, 2, 3 of 1863 is not a democratic or republican question. it is a fact. the fact that the women's

christian temperance union might be a progressive organization and the anti-saloon league might be perceived as a more conservative one by today's standards and how we would describe it is neither here nor there. in terms of my own political calibration variant what i do in my spare time is my own business. i will continue to have my own business. all my work for public television has been free of that kind of bias or advocacy. that kind of film only preaches to the congregation. it has been my mission since the beginning and the fact of the response of these guns that they have reached out across the very superficial definition of party lines to much more important things like that broadness and majesty of our country and

spoken to people from every walk of life. if they were merely a reflection of isolated aspects of that question, the films would not have the power that i think they have had. >> there are some things upon which all of us a great and there are some things that perhaps none of us truly agree and are some things that are in the middle. when you are looking to present the story, how you decide that's one thing is ok and one is not. ? >> we do what any good mutual fund manager would do. we average. we are dependent as a result of the grants we receive not only from the national endowment for the humanities but other groups. we have a variety of historical advisers. they represent a whole spectrum both politically but also

academically on any particular subject. these funds are not window dressing. these are people we consulted at every juncture. they help to center it and remind you of other things. -- sen sort it and reminder of other things. we had discussions about prohibition where we were reminded that this was as much a progressive movement as a was a conservative movement. though it did get hijacked and became the agenda of a kind of anti-immigrant thing, nothing sundays reforming as other people's habits, that is to say that this prohibition is for someone else and never woke up with the worst hangover without having a drink which it was for them as well as someone else. we permitted the extraordinary advice and influence of those

scholars to make sure that gettysburg still remains on the first second and third of july, 1863. >> your career has been entirely devoted to producing material for public broadcasting. >> yes. >> in this politicized environment in which we live, there are real budgetary pressures from the congress and the president. how fearful argue that some aspects of the progress -- broadcasting fall to the budget act? if it were truly an environment where everybody had to give something up, would it not be fair for public broadcasting to give something up as well? >> these are all important questions. i wish i had my friend william f. buckley who appeared on public television for 30 years and only on public television for 30 years to help me answer your excellent question. we have given up and we continue

to give up again and again. that means the national endowment for the humanities as contributions to the civil war from approached 45% and now we often receive, when we are lucky and to the due diligence of producing the door stopper proposals that they still and quite rightfully require less than 10% and still receive the largest grant. we have given up and given up and given up. like prohibition, we sometimes fall prey to preconceived notions that permit the discussion to fall into the realm of the cultural wars, if you will. it is so interesting that we are an organization that helps to stitch the country together. we represent a fraction of 1% of the budget. we are as central to the lives of red statesrrs that we are to

blue staters. no one can never actually show me the incidence of bias. during the 1990's, the friends i knew in the clinton administration railed against public radio and public broadcasting for their conservative bias. i think it is often our feels uncomfortable in the face of good journalism. that inneed to preach this cathedral. we would hope that people could understand that while we have nothing to do with the defense of our country, we help make this country worth defending. not everything has to be in the marketplace. when your house on fire at 3:00 a.m., you do not call the marketplace. we would like to suggest that this underfunded and quite often much maligned network, pbs and national public radio, in terms

of my familiarity produces the best children's, the best science, the best major, the best parts, the best public affairs and i'm told the best history on the dial. when you've got five or 600 other channels as competition, that is a pretty good record. [applause] >> we're almost out of time but i won't get fired if i go over. you mentioned this institution as a cathedral to the first amendment. at a time when newspapers are struggling and broadcast -- traditional broadcast outlets have also suffered during the downturn, part of that it's the digital transmission and part as the economy, let's focus for a moment and newspapers. as one was look at newspapers as a source for material are the years, how important is it in print for digital form they continue to survive? >> it is essential to the

survival of our republic. it is important for our survival that they survive. when we began to do publicity tours and you would go through a big u.s. city and the newsroom was filled with the size of a football stadium and filled with hundreds of football -- filled with hundreds of reporters and you go by 10 years later and the tumbleweeds were going through, this is terrifying. we now rely on internet in which, with notable exceptions, there is a lot of rumor and innuendo. nobody is watching the city council man to find out if he has bought the property adjacent to the thing they are about to bite. that is the role of newspapers. we have one newspaper in this country that has a reporter in southern sudan. that is really important. what happens in southern sudan is really important to us in this room today whether we know it or not. we need to have that top to

bottom possibility. the great terror of the transformation going on which is the changes in our economic system in which we are extracting more than we are putting in, we are manufacturing a last and servicing more, of all of them suggest dangerous, dangerous threats on this important institution. our founders saw this as central to the survival of our republic. i think that anything that strengthens the institutions whether on-line and let's not be afraid to embrace new forms of technology but let us also be clear that the rumor and opinion is not the same as the doggett research. the person who merely offers to push the idea all -- or the light down the road is not important as the person who was willing to do the difficult work to find out what the truth

might be. that is one of the reasons why with many other enticements before me, i have remained loyal to public television because i believe that this is the place in which i can exercise whatever talents i have in this area of american history and to to the best of my ability. i have been offered no other venue that would permit me to do as deep a dive into the subjects i am interested in without interference from sponsors or interruptions of commercials than any other place in the country period, full stop. >> there are many journalism people who feel passionately about journalism as you do and we are thankful for those comments. we're almost out of time before we ask the last question, a couple of routine housekeeping matters. we want to remind you about some upcoming lunch and speakers. on october 5, congressman ron

paul will be here. later in the month, speaking of internet delivery of an news,tmz's harvey levin october 24. the tried and true tradition of presenting you with a token of our appreciation and that is the national press club mug. thank you for being here again. >> thank you very much [applause] >> ken burns will be our guest on tomorrow morning's "washington journal." he will talk about our latest -- his latest project and that is scheduled for 8:30 tomorrow morning and "washington journal"starts at 7:00 a.m.. the u.s. house is about to gavel in and we expect a recess right away to allow for members returning from the congressional recess for legislative work will get under way at 4:00 p.m. and

several bills are being considered that is normal for mondays and tuesdays. recorded votes will be held at 6:30 p.m. now to live coverage of the u.s. house here on c-span. the speaker: the house will be in session. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. loving god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we ask today that you bless the members of this assembly to be the best and most faithful

servants of the people they serve. purify their intentions that they will speak the truth about what they believe and work to legislate responsibly, realizing that others are doing the same and that beliefs do differ. therefore, we ask a special blessing of patience and ability to listen in a shared desire -- and a shared desire to bring hope to the american people, their constituents through a united effort to pass legislation that will help all in this nation during these difficult times. may the members be filled with gratitude at the opportunity they have to serve this people's house. we thank you for their abilities they have been given to do their work. may they use their talents as good stewards of your many gifts and thereby be true servants of justice and partners in peace.

we thank you, as well, for this marvelous forum where the important business of this nation has been done in the past and is done today. may the work being done now be guided by your spirit. may all that is done this day in the people's house be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings his his and pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson. mr. wilson: everyone, including our guests in the gallery, please join in. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches.

for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection. mr. wilson: vice president joe biden acknowledged the current administration has responsibility for the economy. the vice president stated, quote, right now we are the ones in charge. i don't blame them for being mad. we are in charge. so they're angry. end of quote. i agree with the vice president. while the national unemployment rate continues to remain above 9%, this administration continues the failed policies of borrow and spend. it is a failed course. last week i met with constituents across the second congressional district of south carolina during the annual district bus tour and without complaining they urged, reduce spending, cut taxes, create jobs. house republicans have introduced numerous bills designed to encourage hiring

and long-term economic growth. now is the time for liberals and are the president to change course. they own it. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. for two decades, documentary filmmaker ken burns has been helping america understand who we are. tonight in the visitor's center there's a 5:00 reaccepting and 5:30 special screefpk his new documentary on prohibition. he's had amazing productions dealing with the civil war, baseball, jazz, the national parks, but this i think is going to be perhaps his best. based on what i saw last night nothing is more timely or profound for the challenges we face today and i can't wait for the next two episodes that will

be aired tonight and at 8:00 p.m. tomorrow. thank you, mr. burns. thank you, pbs. thanks to previous congresses for support and prefunding that allows long-term projects like this. this is another example of the unique and critical role played by public broadcasting and congress should make sure that it continues. thank you, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. burgess: i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burgess: well, mr. speaker, just before we left last week two executives from a company called solyndra came before the energy and commerce committee voluntarily but ultimately did not testify, invoking their fifth amendment rights. most americans are becoming aware of the solyndra story. a company that was denied the loan guarantee the last days of the bush administration but was hastefully added to last of

projects that were covered by what was called by the stimulus bill in february of 2009. in a rush to get the money out the door, ahead of a photo op by the vice president, apparently mistakes this year and solyndra filed bankruptcy. this is a story yet to be completely understood. mr. speaker, here's the important part. for almost six months' time during february and july, the committee of energy and commerce sought unsuccessfully to have records delivered to it from the office of management and budget and the department of energy. it should not take a subpoena from a congressional committee for branches of the executive branch to supply us those documents. when we have questions they need to respond. when we ask for information they need to produce and certainly when we have a hearing they need to attend. it's time for the secretary of energy to come before our committee, explain what he knew about this process and clear

the air once and for all for the american people. i'll yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 4 of rule 1, the following enrolled bills was signed by the speaker pro tempore on september 11, 2011. the clerk: h.r. 2005, combating autism act of 2006. h.r. 27 -- 2017, making continuing appropriations for 2012 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 4:00 p.m. >> the house is in recess now, ala remember still returning to town after the legislative break. work will get underway at 4:00 eastern with several bills being considered under suspension of

the rules. later in the week, we expect work on a bill funding the federal government through november 18. we will have more live house coverage when the gavel comes down at 4:00 eastern. >> for the first time, americans will have access to connectivity, and even if there are natural disasters and other things happening, through our satellite network. >> the ceo of lightsquared to build a high-speed wireless network. at 8:00municator's" eastern on c-span2. today marks the start of the supreme court fall term. at a preview this morning on this morning's washington journal. "washington journal" continues. host: david savage, thank you

for being here. you can got your story writi that the supreme court opens one of its most anticipated terms in which a justice can strike down the obama healthcare lost, and declare an end to affirmative action in colleges and universities. it could be a very dynamic term. guest: not say -- they have a lot of blockbuster cases in the next few weeks. health care and immigration are big issues. they will hear these cases all next year and hand out rulings about this next summer in the middle of the presidential election campaign. health care is an issue dividing republicans and democrats. immigration is an issue that has come up around the country. questions like if the state of arizona can pass tough immigration reforms.

it is a big issue. it will be an interesting term. host: you mention health care a is a bit of an unknown. you believe it will come up. why is that? the obama administration was in favor of the supreme court taking it on? guest: yes. it is hard to figure out how the case will come out. they want to take it is that and appears call -- appeals court said the mandate is unconstitutional. one person in ohio said it is constitutional. the court has both sides appealing, singing take the case. recently, the supreme court has to take a case from one of the regional courts if the federal law says it is unconstitutional.

you cannot have a case where the federal law is unconstitutional in one part of the country and not in another. they will almost surely take up thisase sometime in the next couple of months when the appeals are ready to go. we have to figure out how it will comout. it is possible that they could rule that these cases are not right. that there is a central law that affects tax is that basically says, you cannot challenge a tax in federal court until you have paid it. it is an article that comes up rather late. the notion is no one can really allenge this to 2014 where they pay the tax penalty. almost sure the court will hear this case, but not sure how they will decide in what they will say. host: let us look at the line of justice is heading back to the

bench. looking at the division from "usa today." tell us about the swing vote in the questions people have had about if the justices should refuse themselves from the health care decisions. guest: most the conservative bloc has five votes. justice kennedy is a swing vote in some of those cases. the majority tends to be with him, justice ginsburg, justice sonia sotomayor, and justice takkagen. many will tell you, that there are a whole lot of cases that do not split along that ideological divide. there are criminal cases where they decide 9-

in the very biggest cases, that tends to be where these litt is. -- with the split is. host: therere questions if ele kagen should exclude yourself from thhealth care laws. some say she may help prepare defenses for the law. some called on justice clarence thomas to recuse himself because of his wife's involvement in lobbying against the law on grounds that it was unconstitutional. guest: it seems very political. almost all republicans and conservatives would want elena kagen to step aside. almost all democrats and liberals would what clarence

thomas to step aside. a lot of people say he should step aside. but the truth is a justice -- his spells can do what he wants, and it does not affect how he decides a case. the same thing with elena kagan. she said at her hearings and has continued to say this that she did not actually work on the health care litigation. therefore, she was going to participate on that case. the truth is that there will be taught about refusals, but none of them are going to step aside from these cases. host: david savage, a reporter for the los angeles times, is our guest. immigration and other big decisions could come down at a

highly charged time politically. there was a piece saying it could influence the 2012 race. guest: they should not take into account, but they should decide this case in view of the law. they cannot decide how we are going to affect the election and should we take a case at a particular time. i do not think it will affect when they take up a case o what they decide. i do think the outcome may have some impact on a race. host: let us get to the phone lines, independent le, indiana. caller: you have the recent decision in arina about the immigration law. you also have a very similar law that was upheld, i am having a kind of moment.

alabama. they are very similar, but they are very different rulings. i was wondering how that might affect the this coming to the supreme court, if you have any ideas about that. guest: a good observation. the classic situation where the supreme court intervenes is when the courts around the country are divided on a common legal issue. this is just such an example. the law was put on hold by judges in phoenix. the alabama law, a similar law, allows the state and the police to set up question and arrest illegal immigrants. the obama administration says of alabama that you cannot do that. imgration is a federal matter. the judge allowed that law to go into effect. common-law a different result in the courts, and it increases the

likelihood that the supreme court will pick up the arizona case to rule on this question of can the states on their own enforce immigration laws, even if the federal government would prefer that they stand back. host: let us talk about the issues of personal freedom. asking if police need a search warrant with attacked -- tracking a gps monitoring to a car. -- monitor to a car. guest: this is big where you can track anyone anywhere they go. the queson is can the police were federal agents track a motorist for a month or two and follow them everywhere they go. the government says you have no right to privacy when you are on a street. the fourth amendment protects your right to privacy at home.

they cannot listen to your phone calls. the notion is once you get in your car and drive on a public street, a plainclothes officer can follow you. the governments of view is since you have no right to priva where you drive, we can use this technology to follow you everywhere in track you without a search warrant. the other side says, this is an unreasonable search. if you can use computers -- imagine if you could track every citizen to some technology all of the time. would we want to live in a country where there is that type of total surveillance? that case comes up in november and it could be very interesti to see how they view that issue. host: talk about the specifics of what would be the exact situation in a case where police suspected a gentleman of dealing drugs. guest: mr. jones was an owner of a nightclub in northwest d.c.

the police believe he was involved in a cocai operation. they did not know exactly who was involved in it. they wanted to build a case against him. they tracked his car going back and forth to some steakhouse. they raided the house and fall -- found a lot of cocaine and drugs. when he was convicted, his attorney tried to keep out the informatio about the movement. the judge said not an unreasonable search. when the case went to they overturned his conviction and said it was it fourth endment violation. the government cannot -- it would be one thing if they fall due for a day -- if they followed you fridafor a day. the supreme court has to resolve

this question. host: our obama, derek, it democrats -- alabama. caller: my question is about the supreme court and its ability to weigh a case objectively. you mentioned that more than likely the conservative view and leave towards a liberal view. is it really possible to ever have a case that is truly based on the laws when at the end of the day, everyone on the supreme court goes home and they are going to be people just like me and you. about this immigration thing that is about to hit the fan. this is common practice.

research on the tenancy of police dispatch. a black man over here does not seem to be in place. then people will profile him. there is no way to tell if mexicans are immigrants or not. does it have to be something to come down white people? you cannot pick and choose if somebody is racist? if that was the case, how many white people will be pulled over and profiled? a larger percentage of pedophiles and rapists, people who commit mass murder or all white. -- are all whilte. guest: there are nine justices. they have their own views on

law. i think they do their best to t with the law is and their understanding of the law. when the lower courts are split -- on the example you mentioned, i think if you have a situation where there was explicit racial profiling, that all the justices would say that is wrong and unconstitutional. what happens is that we don't get cas that are that clear. but i do believe if the police were using race in an explicit way and saying, let's stop black motorists or whatever, that is the allegation. if that was the case that police were doing that, i think all nine justices would say, we cannot do that the government. there are a lot of -- i know

this issue will come up. it will not be decided right away in this case, racial profiling of hispanics. the supreme court will decide the big picture question of whether the states can go ahead and do this on their own against the wishes of the federal government. host: let's talk about another case. this one looks at the question of a death row inmate and whether or not his lawyers were ineffective and botched the opportunity for him to get a fair trial. is a missed deadline to file an appeal justification to reject a death row inmates argument? guest: this is what you'call a screwup, which is not a legal

term. you have 30 days to file a notice of appeal. he had some attoeys in new york that were representing him. they left the law firm and the notice was not seen by anybody. the time to file past. when he went forward in the court, the judge said, sorry, you did not appeal on time. hear appeals cannot be heard -- your appeals cannot be heard. it comes down to a question -- a lot of justices and judges are inclined to say the rules of the roles. you have to follow the rules. if you don't, you lose. this going to do differently because it was your attorneys fault

the outcome will not affect the is. this is one that divides the justices. some of them like to follow the rules and some the others are inclined to say, this does make any sense, or this rule is fundamentally unfair, or this rule shall not apply to this person because it wasn't his fault. this could split 5-4 because the attorney made the mistake. host: when you watch arguments like that, how big of a see do you get that the justices are weighing in at that the lot is the law -- the law is the law as far as his individual story? guest: i think it happens all the time.

there is the law on one side and the justice question on the other. host: do you sometimes know which way they are going to go? guest: i think you can pretty much tell. a lot of the justices have a relative cle view. they willay, our job is not to do justice in each case. our job is to apply the law. others will say, we need to stand back and make sense of the law and be fair. there's always the debate about applying the law strictly are being fair in a particular case. host: ts is what pamela says. that is coming to us from twitter. guest: the term limits comes up

quite often. i do not think either one is likely to happen. it would require a constitutional amendment. the constitution says they get to serve for life and they are appointed. it is an unusual suation to have a light -- elena kagan said when john roberts called her after she was confirmed, he said, he wanted to walk, her to the court and she said, only 25 years? it is an unusual job where you become a justice and you can be there for perhaps 30 years. host: let's look at another issue. this is the question about whether cameras should be in the courtroom. here is elena kagan. >> i said before i do think it

would be a good idea. i differ from some of my colleagues. in this last year, i havcome to better understand the opposite position. but i guess the reason that i i was watching case after case after case. this is an unbelievable court to watch. this was the court before i got onto it. everybody was so prepared, so smart, so obviously, the concern about getting to the right answer. i thought if everybody could see this, it would make people feel so good about this branch of government and how operated. i thought it was a shame that only to wonder people a day can

get to see at -- only 200 people day can get to see it. host: kenneth starr weighed on this today in "the new york times." host: he thinks this would give more people a view of what is going on.

are you sensing any movement? guest: elena kagan is one good vote. i've been talking about this for years. it has been a long time. c-span and others have said we will telecast these live, not just sound bites. it is easy to say what you would be good. elena kagan has a good point. if people watch, there would be impressed. they are well prepared on all the cases. you come away impressed. these cases are hard but they are doing it well. if you ask a justice to talk about it, one of the things i often hear them say is they remember the house and senate 30

years ago before tv was there. senators will tell you they get on the floor and actually debate issues. when tv came, it changed the nature of the debate and discussion. people talk to the cameras and made political speeches and no longer engaged in debate. they actually think that cameras would -- could change the nature of their arguments. attorneys would get up and perhaps give political speeches to the justices rather than engage in conversation. they are worried that it would have a bad impact on their deliberations. i know the public would like to see it, but they are not wilng to go along with eit. host: kenneth starr is now the

president of baylor university. host: they don't have to run for reelection, as members of congress do. guest: i think there is possible there could be growing pressure to try to legislate this and pushed the courts. john roberts said -- they doubted the audio recordings and ey are available each week. -- they do the audio recordings. you'll be able to listen to them for people who are interested in the law.

i still think it is a ways off before the vote in favor of cameras in court. caller: good morning. thatt don't believe conservatives should have the power to tl the re-enter 10 million people what they can do and what they cannot do. -- to tell 310 milln people what they can do and what they cannot do. to me, that's just political. and i do believe there should be term limits. thank you. that is all i have to say. guest: you are not alone in that view. the laws have been on the books saying that corporations cannot

give money to election campaigns. unions were in the same position since world war ii. all this money is about campaigns and elections, the first amendment protects campaigning and political messages and therefore we should allow -- we must allow people to spend money on a campaign ads. but i agree with you. there remains a controversial view. people think it is a bad idea to have that much corporate money and union money flowing into politics. host: we have an opinion on twitter. host: we will see how that plays out. guest: that is a good point to raise.

does it violate the fourth amendment to track someone's car for a month? the justices said -- does it violate the rights to attach this device to a person's car? it is quite possible that some of the justices might think in principle this is ok, but i do not li the idea of an aged beinable to attackomeone to some -- being able to attach something to someone's car. caller: i hope you'll let me set this thing up so that the american people will understand what is going on in the courts. i just filed a writ. people not pay so they can look at it for themselves.

the united states supreme case is 10-9117. let me set this up for you. anthony davis was executed. the youngest person in the unit states was a 14-year-old black child. he had -- the me show you what happened to me -- let me show you what happened to me. a judge took m case. the judge sought the case out. let me tell you what happened. he took that case. what he did -- he dismissed the defendant out of the case. they hired the public defender down here to represent the poor

people while the prosecutor supervised the state employee. host: what is the problem? caller: you have federal courts knowing that these atrocities are being committed on the citizens of the united states. the eighth circuit does not review these cases. the supreme court will not even vote to. -- will not even vote to hear it. they still will not hear what is going on. guest: i think the last thing you said sounds like a better way to resolve a case. this sounds like a complaint about a judge and how audge has handled a case. a better way to proceed is to file a complaint with the server court of appeals. the supreme court, they look for

cases that raise an important legal issue that cuts across all lot of issues. they cannot do justice -- they get about 8000 appeals every year. the cannot do justice to a thousand cases -- 8,000 cases. any person who loses in the lower-court can file a petition the supreme court, they cannot take cases, particularly if they enroll individual allegations of misconduct or bad behavior. but some of the circuit courts of appeals to take complaints seriously about judges. that would perhaps be the better way to resolve this. host: an image of "the washington times" of the red mass that gets under way.

this is at the cathedral of st. matthew the apostle. you can see the chief justice of there. houston texas, viola. caller: i was wondering if mr. sage was aware of the fact that clarence thomas and his wife failed to report $700,000 of income tax -- of income that she earned through working for the tea party. some parts of e tea party. lobbying or something to defeat the health-care bill. would now be a big factor, that he should recuse himself -- wouldn't that be a big factor? host: we have 8 twa tweet.

host: we have talked about some of this, this idea of the justices' role. what the espouses do and their role on the bench. guest: there was a strange situation involving the sclosure. you stated it mostly correctly. on the annual disclosure forms, theris a line that says " spouse's income" and it is the source and the rough amounted. for some reason, for several years when justice thomas's wife was for him at the heritage foundation, he just checked "no spousal income." everybody knew she worked at the heritage foundation.

there was nothing wrong or mysterious about that. for a number of years, he simply check "no." to when this was brought to its attention, he then filed the amended forms and said yes, she did work there and the rough income was this amount. and so a lot of groups have come forward and said this is a major mistake. but it is a strange one because it is not a mystery and everybody knew it. he did clarify and correct the forms. i don't think there'll be any lasting impact. i did not think he will now step aside on the health-care ce because his wife has a view on the matter. host: do we know what the ramifications would be as far as penalty if they fail to disclose

-- there can be big consequences for members of congress. guest: the justices say they comply with these forms. it is not clear how much congress can force them to disclose. i do think it's important to correct the form, but i do not think there'll be any consequences. host: let's look at another case. the or argument will be coming up in january -- the oral argument will be coming up in january. guest: the notion was that the government couldegulate television over the air because the was a limited spectrum. we have this tdition with broadcasters, they can be regulated and the government can

of regulations like no four- letter words during prime time. at the same time, we have cable tv, the internet, satellite, and all those things have first amendment free-speech rights. this case comes up for the brdcast networks were fined for some of these programs and use and exploit when somebody wins an award and the sec said we're going to find new -- the fcc says, we're going to find you. they said it slipped on the air. it was just an accident. but they got fined. but now the courts will decide if these old rules violate the

first commemorates of the broadcasters. this case is an interesting divide on the conservative side. a lot of the conservatives are strong believers in th first amendment free-speech. this is sort of a family that i use issue. -- this is sort of a family values issue. so there is a hard question to say, are we going to give broadcasters free-speech rights when it could mean for millions of americans hearing stuff on tv that they would rather not have in their house. host: redford, michigan, good morning, philip. let's go to texas, jim. caller: our founding fathers did

not intend three branch of government to be equal. the legiative branch was intended to be the most powerful. it's nonsense to think that the courts should share equal power. i like the idea of tv in the supreme court. i think the argument that it would turn into some reality show light the house and senate floor, i don't think that argument is very strong because the rules are very different in the courtroom. no i homonyms -- no ad homonyms. that is what i would like to say. thank you. guest: he made the point about whether the supreme court was envisioned as an equal branch.

the legislative powers -- article one is about the powers of the legislation. the supreme court's power are quite narrow. most people would think the president has an enormous amount of power compad to congress. the supreme court has a narrow power, which is to review a lot bank in to see to it that it is in line with the constution -- which is to review a law to see that it is in line with the constitution. they pass laws. they d have a limited but very important role to make sure that the loss comport with the constitution. host: monica from ohio on the

democrat's line. hello. caller: i was calling about the tracking device. you sing it was a month they contract -- you say it was a month they can atrack. i didn't have any kind of record or anything. host: who is tracking you? caller: the law officials. --on't have any kind of anything on my record or anything. i am wondering why they are collecting data like that. you have people watching you where you go from -- why are they collecting that data and what they going to use it for?

is there any oversight? guest: that is a question i probably cannot answer as to why they are collecting data. it's probably fair to say that if a small town or city, if the police are registered in somebody and they think an invidual is involved in so crime, i cannot lead the police would waste their time tracking innocent people. if the police have some reason to think somebody is involved in a crime, they may keep an eye on the person and say, is this person going to this particular building or whenever? so the question is going to be whether the fourth amendment, whether it is an unreasonable search to find some way in a technological --n a technical way for months of a time. host: amber weighs in about

cameras in the court room. let's talk about another case that is coming up this week. oral arguments on wednesday. whether teachers in religious schools are protected by anti- discrimination laws. guest: i thought this would have been resolved 30 years ago. you thin how was this not resolved years ago? the first amendment protect the free exercise of religion. everybody agrees at the tellnment -- they couldn't the catholic church you would have to hire women as priests. everyby knows there is some limit that the federal anti- discrimination law cannot reach into a church or synagogue and tell them who to hire or who not to hire.

there are parochial schools whose mission is educational. can a teacher in a program school sue her school for violating in this case the americans with disabilities act. the school's view is that this teacher was called to her mission, that her job is to communicate in tch the faith. part of her school day was teaching religion. the government through these anti-discrimination laws cannot telos who to hire and who to keep on the job. if we wanted to get rid of a teacher, tha is our business. the anti-discrimination laws protect teachers including teachers and parochial schools. that is the government view. lawyers called the ministerial

exception. there was an exception for ministers. does that exception extend to cover teachers in a parochial school. host: what else are you watching this week? guest: 8 cases morningnvolving medicaid and california. california wants to cut back how much money it is providing for medicaid providers. doctors, pharmacists, hospitals. california enacted several cuts. doctors and hospitals went to court and said the state has to provide sufficient money so that there will be providers for poor people who need doctorsnd what you're doing is going to deprive these people of medical care. the courts in california blocked the cuts from going into effect. the state has appealed to the

supreme court. the obama administration is on theiride. they are saying courts have no lawyer. is is to be negotiated between sacramentond washington. can judges in courts stop state cutbacks in medicaid spending? that is a big deal. almost every state is under pressure to redu their medicaid spending. host: david savage, a reporter "los angeles times for. -- >> today is the first day of the supreme court possible term. among the cases, the justices considering, police tracking suspects with gps devices, and

indecency standards on television. the court may also look at the constitutionality of the nation's health care law. c-span.org. go to our home page and look under the court's tab. john paul stevens is our guest on "q &a" this sunday at 8:00 and 11:00 this sunday. the house is currently in recess. legislative work is slated to get underway at 4:00 eastern. all recorded vote will be held at 6:30 eastern today. later in the week, we expect a bill to fund the government through november 18. more house coverage when the gavel comes down at 4:00 eastern.

the senate is in session. at 3:30, lawmakers will begin debate on the a bill aimed at cracking down on china's currency manipulation they would then proceed to executive session -- executive session. just down pennsylvania avenue, president obama expects congress to vote on job legislation this month and plans to press legislative leaders from both parties to act quickly on his proposal. these remarks came during a meeting with cabinet members this morning at the white house. the president also said he will have announcements on the free- trade agreement. these remarks are just under five minutes. >> good morning, everybody. i am pulling my cabinet together to talk about the one topic on everyone's mind, how do we put america back to work? each of the secretaries heads of agencies have been assigned to

look at what we can do, administratively, to accelerate job growth over the next several months. working with the jobs council that we have set up, working with the private sector, we have been looking at a wide range of ideas we can take. a good example, for example, would be accelerating payments to small businesses so they have better cash flow, trying to figure out ways that we can be working in the housing market without congressional action to provide some believe for homeowners. but ultimately, we still need to have congressional action. it has been several weeks since i set up the americans jobs act. as i have been saying on the road, i want it back, i am ready to sign it. my expectation is, now that we are in the month of october, we

will schedule a vote before the end of the month. i will be talking to senator reid, mcconnell, as well as speaker dinner, and nancy pelosi, insisting we have a vote on this bill. we have been hearing from republicans that there are some proposals they are interested in. that is not surprising. the contents of the americans jobs act includes proposals that in the past have been supported by republicans and democrats alike. if there are aspects of the bill they do not like, they should tell us what it is they are not willing to go for. they should tell us what they are prepared to see move forward. i have to tell you, i cannot imagine any american that i have talked to not interested in seeing construction workers on the job, rebuilding roads, bridges, schools, airports, putting teachers back in the classrooms to make sure our children are getting the best

education, to make sure that get help when they come home, and that small firms have incentive to hire them. i look room for much -- i've very much -- i'm very much look forward to getting the bill back and signing it putting hundreds of thousands of americans back to work. i will pray as much pressure as i can bring to bear on my administration and what we can do without congress's help, but ultimately, they have to do the right thing for the american people. >> [inaudible] >> we will have an announcement on that in the next day or so. >> with congress back in session

this week, the house will consider a spending bill that would keep the federal government open for another six weeks. the senate is considering a bill to do with china's currency. use our comprehensive resource on congress to get more information about your elected officials, with c-span's congressional chronicle it is washington your way. the c-span that works. created by cable, provided as a public service. >> for the first time, americans will have access to connectivity, even if there are natural disasters and other things happening, through our satellite network. >> the head of light squared on his company's efforts to build a $14 billion high-speed wireless network, a been reports that the network made interfere

with global positioning networks. >> in his monthly news conference today in brussels, the nato secretary-general previewed the defense ministers meeting. during the briefing, he talked about current operations in libya and the transition of security from they could to afghan security forces and about missile defense. he also urged the pakistani forces to increase action against al qaeda-linked groups along the border of afghanistan. >> good afternoon. the secretary-general will start with a short introduction presenting this week's defense ministerial and then we will be open for your questions. >> good afternoon. this week, the defense ministers of the allied nations, and our partners, will meet here at nato headquarters. we will discuss our current

operations and our future capabilities. what we are doing now, but also what we will, and must be able to do in the future. our operation to protect civilians in the libya has been a great success. the united nations security council called for action. nato decided to respond. we put together a complete package of measures by and see to protect the people of libya. we are near to successfully completing that task. it has done what we said it would do. we have kept our commitments to the united nations, to the region, and to the libyan people.

we will also meet with our eyes off -- isaf partners to discuss progress in afghanistan. there has been significant progress since our last meeting. the transition is fully --onacte -- contract track and we will not allow insurgents to derail it. afghan forces are providing security for one-quarter of the population. i expect the next phase of transition to be announced soon and i expected to be substantial. at the same time, our military authorities a says that the insurgency has been weakened over all. the levels of violence are of concern.

in number of spectacular attacks of captured headlines recently and created the perception the security incidents are on the rise. however, our commanders are confident that security incidents initiated by insurgent groups are lower than last year. let me tell you about a specific case. about a year ago, we were talking about the security situation in central helmand. this was the focus of our efforts. we said that things would get worse before they got better. seeing the results of our efforts. attacks since june are significantly lower than last year.

some districts have seen reductions in violence of nearly 80%. our strategy is working. we should concentrate on the competence of the afghan security forces in dealing with the tax -- attacks. that will remain our focus as we complete transition by the end of 2014 and as we continue to stand with the afghan people after 2014. nato will not abandon the afghan people. we have agreed to have an enduring partnership and we will live up to it. finally, we will discuss the developments in kosovo.

we have seen reminders of how quickly tensions can arise and how important nato's mission remains. we're there to maintain a safe and secure environment for all people of kuntsevo regardless of their ethnicity. giocoso -- for all people of kosovo regardless of their ethnicity in full compliance with our united nations mandate. that is what our troops have been doing for the last 12 years at considerable risk to their own safety. nato forces will always use the minimum force necessary for they have the right to self-defense. that is what they did on september 27. i urge all parties to avoid unilateral actions and

inflammatory statements. i urge everyone to put their efforts into dialogue and not confrontation. all the people of kosovo have an interest in a secure and stable future. nato supports the aspirations of the whole region towards integration into the euro- atlantic family. from operations, we will turn our discussions to capabilities of what we wanted to be able to do tomorrow and what we need to do to defend. in these times of austerity, this may sound unrealistic. we already spend so much on

defense, why spend more? let me point out that it is not about spending more. it is about spending more effectively to get more for what we spend. my message is clear. improving our capabilities is not only necessary, it is vital. that means spending on the right things and spending together. spending on projects that makes us all safer. solidarity and security is what i call a smart defense. our operations in libya and

afghanistan have shown areas where the allies must continue improving the availability of capabilities such as drones, intelligence, and air-to-air refueling. we cannot rely on one ally only to supply these. [speaking french] some can keep our soldiers safer. vehicles that detect and clear roadside bombs. some can make our operations more efficient. we can cool maritime control -- patrol aircraft and made better use of the resources that we have.

there are many different examples. the bottom line is this. no capability, no authority. if we want nato to remain credible, we have to be able to act. if we want to be able to act, we have to keep and acquire the capabilities to act. i will be encouraging ministers to identify projects that their nations would be willing to lead in the coming months. i will ask kim all for their commitment to making these projects a reality as we head towards our chicago summit. one excellent example is missile defense. tokyo and turkey have agreed to host key elements of this system. i expect other contributions soon.

territorial, nato's missile defense is becoming a reality. i expect that in chicago we will declare an interim operational capability. this defense ministers meeting will be a milestone on the road to the chicago summit which will as thece nato's status indispensable alliance. with that, i am happy to take your questions. >> we will start with dpa here. >> i am from the german press agency, gpa. there were reports over the weekend that the ministerial meeting might consider ending the libyan missions.

could you comment on this? if not a complete end of mission might decide on fewer operations in libya? on smart defense, can you be more specific? are there any specific deliverable is that you expect from the ministerial? can you talk about the sharing of the cost between the nations? thank you. >> on the libyan operations, we will discuss those. i do not expect any decision on the termination of the operation. we're pretty close to the end of this operation. as you know, we have decided to extend the operation by up to 90

days. however, we will review the operation on a regular basis so that we stand ready to terminate it as long as this region as soon as the situation allows. on the one hand, we have declared we're ready to continue our operation as long as it takes to make sure that we fully implement the united nations mandate to protect the civilian population against any attack. there are still attacks against the civilian population. this is the reason why we continue our operations. on the other hand, we will not continue for one single day more than necessary. we stand ready to terminate the operation as soon as the situation allows. i would not expect that situation to be taken during the defense ministers meeting. we will make that decision based on a comprehensive military

assessment and in close coordination with the united nations and new authorities in libya. as far as smart defense is concerned, at the meeting, we will discuss reports from our allied commanders. the task force has prepared a report with a number of concrete proposals as to have -- how allies can cooperate on acquiring military capabilities as well as conducting operations like training, logistics, maintenance of equipment. we will discuss a range of concrete proposals.

we will decide to continue that work with a view to the upcoming defense ministerial in february and later at the summit in may. we will not make concrete decisions on concrete projects at this meeting, but we will ensure that the working continued with a view to the summit in may. >> secretary general, over the past couple of days, there has been a spat between afghanistan role ofistan over the the network in the attack. does nato have any information over who killed rabani? >> no, we do not have any information. let me stress that it is office

that the network is a threat is a threat to the afghan people and our troops in afghanistan. we encourage the pakistani government and military to deal with to deal with the safe havens in the border region. it is obvious that there is cross-border traffic that makes it possible for the haqqani network and other terrorists to operate in afghanistan constituting a clear threat to our troops and the afghan people. then they go back to save havens in pakistan. it is a matter of common concern. we need a positive engagement of pakistan to address this issue.

we need a positive partnership with pakistan in general. >> [speaking french] >> what could nato do to avoid the dissemination of arms in libya? could you confirm there are over 10,000 ground to air missiles that have gone missing in libya? i shall month -- -- >> i shall not comment on issues to do with intelligence. as a rule, any weapon landing in the hands of ill-intentioned people raises an issue obviously.

this issue mostly affects the national transitional council as stated in resolution 2009 of the unscr. the national transitional council must make sure that weapons are secured, under control, or are eliminated in an appropriate fashion. it should strive to reopen the country to contribute to that effort. as you know, nato's mandate is

to protect the civilian population in libya. the allies are in contact with the ntc to address the issue and are monitoring the situation closely. >> i am from readers -- reuters. comment on the current debate in the united states about budgets and the need to trim spending. that has raised the possibility of significant reductions in u.s. force levels in europe in the future. is that something that will be discussed this week at all? how much of the concern is it to you? you mentioned missile defense.

that is one of the areas that people who want to see cuts have been looking at. the other is the tactical nuclear weapons in europe and the programs to refurbish those. how much of the concern is this debate for nato? what are the consequences if there should be significant reductions in troop levels? >> let me stress the u.s. commitment to european and north atlantic security remains as strong as ever. long ago, the u.s. announced its plans for future troop presence in europe. the plans were welcomed by allies. i consider the decision to develop a nature-based missile

defense system -- in a nato- based missile defense system a clear testament to a general commitment to our common security. the united states provides input to the nato-based defense system. european allies provide input. some of them have already announced input. further announcements can be expected in the coming months. i consider missile defense a very strong signal and a strong commitment to our alliance. let me add to this that in general, we will discuss

resources and capabilities at this defense ministers meeting. i have put it on the agenda because of defense ministers are faced with a challenge. they are forced to make deep cuts on defense budgets. we have to find ways and means to acquire the necessary capabilities in the coming years. this is the reason why i have launched the concept of smart defense. >> i am with defense technology international. >> i have not heard the term of the " transformation" used recently. you did not mention it on friday or in your speech today. has the concept of transformation been replaced by smart defense? if so, it seems as if it is only one element. a couple of years ago, you mentioned eight points in the

transformation agenda. has smart defense replaced transformation? the eight points of your transformation agenda was alliance reform. military headquarters seemed to be reduced. i understand there are certain problems with the actual nato headquarters, with the reform of this headquarters. >> first of all, let me stress that we have no problems at this headquarters. i have launched reforms of his headquarters as well. we are in the processes of reforming this headquarters. for the reforms will follow. transformation is an integrated part of smart defense.

we need to transform our armed forces in the direction of more flexibility and mobility. that is part of a smart defense agenda. at the upcoming meeting, we will discuss not only how we ensure necessary resources to acquire the necessary military capabilities, how to spend money more efficiently, but also how to ensure that input is followed by appropriate follow-up. that is the essence of transformation. it is still on the agenda as an integrated part of smart defense. >> mr. secretary general, it is reported that 10,000 missiles were lost in libya. do you have any information on that?

what does nato plan to do to lessen the possible damage? >> we do not comment on specific intelligence matters. in general, it is a matter of concern. if stockpiles of weapons are not appropriately controlled and monitored, it is a matter of concern. this is our responsibility for the new authorities in libya, for the national transitional council. -- this is a responsibility for the new authorities in libya, for the national transitional council. as of 2009, it is the responsibility of the national transitional council to ensure that stocks of weapons in libya are appropriately controlled and

insured. nato has no troops on the ground in libya. we conduct our operations from the air and at sea. individual allies are in contact with the national transitional council to ensure that they address this issue effectively. >> the first question, you said that nato will always use minimum force but also has the right to self-defense. someone stay did he talk to you announced for a special investigation of violence on the

crossings in kosovo. there was a hospital where live ammunition was exacted from the serbs. was it self-defense needed because the to be shot with live bullets instead of rubber bullets? will there be some kind of police on the border? now on the crossings, the situation is tense. normally it must be the role of the police units or cause of vocalise. or kuntsevo police -- normally

it must be the role of the police units or the kosovo police. >> i have received detailed information. i have full confidence in our commanders and troops and the way they have acted. i think they have done a lot during recent months to come down the situation -- calm down the situation in an impartial way of handling the situation. it is important for us that we are there to protect all people in kosovo. according to our mandate, we are there to maintain a safe and secure environment and ensure the freedom of movement. in that respect, we assist. we have an agreement that the

point of departure is that we are a third responder. the first responders is kuntsevo police. k4 ax as a third responsder. during a crisis like the one we have seen. it has been necessary for it to act as a first responders. we want to return to a more normal situation. it is not our ambition to be the first responder. that is for other authorities. we will stay and maintain a safe and secure environment. >> i do not see a need for

further investigations. i have received information. i have spoken the president. i have offered the service information through the usual military generals. >> two questions on smart defense it touches national sovereignty. these questions are very difficult. would you be happy in chicago if the heads of government agreed on one showcase project? or would there have to be more? who would have command over these, and capabilities? would it be nato under the command of others or would it be a national command?

>> as far as the command structure is concerned, it is dependent on how how each arrangement is organized. if we have a common-funded nato project, there is no doubt it will follow the usual chain of command. you may have eight now -- you may have a multinational project for a number of countries pool resources to acquire specific capability.

it will be based on a memorandum of understanding or another document on how exactly the command structure will be organized. if such a capability is offered to nato during a nato operation, it will be a part of the nato command structure. as long as you are speaking about capabilities at the disposal of nato during operations, there is no doubt it will be handled within the nato command structure. as far as your first question is concerned, you are right that if we embark on specialization were

not all allies have all capabilities of their disposal, it may touch upon the question of national sovereignty or raise a number of questions. we should realize that it is a specific challenge to address this. having said that, i think the economic realities will move the agenda forward. in the future it will simply not be possible from an economic point of view or all allies to have all military assets at their disposal. the only way forward is to cooperate and specialize.

it is not a handover of sovereignty. when it comes to defense and security policy, nations will safeguard their national sovereignty for many good reasons. it is about corporation -- cooperation and helping each other. that should be possible within an alliance of friends so that we can help each other without considering it as giving up national sovereignty. >> [unintelligible] >> you have to wait, klaus. >> a symbolic gesture would be to agree to build up, and capabilities -- to build up,

capabilities, that would make you happy because it would be a start? -- is symbolic gesture would be for them to agree to build up, ond capabilities -- comme capabilities, that would make you happy because it would be a start? >> the first part has been a report from our allied forces. they have elaborated a report with a number of concrete proposals. building on that, we will try to identify for the projects -- further projects that could be elements in a comprehensive package to be endorsed at the nato summit in chicago. to further facilitate the project, i have bounced the allied -- i have asked the

french general together with our deputy secretary general to act as special envoy is. they will engage with capitals in allegations from now until the nato summit in chicago. they will discuss with our allies how we can develop multinational projects. i will not hide the fact that it is a challenging mission. but i do believe it is the only way forward if we are to acquire the necessary capabilities in the future, not only in a time of economic austerity but also taking into account that there is a clear tendency that crises

arise more rapidly with the military than inflation or gdp. taking all that into consideration, we have to find new ways and means to acquire expensive military equipment in the coming years. >> one final question. >> i am from the italian news agency. if i understand you correctly, it seems you are pretty cold about the letter that the five member states including italy, france, germany, spain, and poland wrote just two weeks ago proposing projects for a common defense.

it is my feeling that you are opposed to these initiatives. can you explain why? what is the main reason you are not for this project? >> first of all, let me stress that i will not interfere with e.u. business it is for the e.u. to make such decisions. i have been asked if we need new headquarters in your. i do not think it can be a big surprise that taking into account that we are reforming nato with the aim of reducing headquarters, to reduce the number of headquarters, to reduce the number of posts, that i would answer that i do not think we need more headquarters. then i have added that i think we need more hardware. that is my point speaking about smart defense.

we need to find ways and means to use our resources better in the coming years to acquire necessary military capabilities. on the final note, our mission and operation in the bill has been a great success. -- in libya has been a great success. it has revealed we need critical military capabilities. when it comes to intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, air-to-air refueling, it is obvious. still it was a great success, but it has also been a lesson learned on the capability side. in the coming years, we have to focus investments on acquiring these necessary assets. it is in the context that i stated it is more necessary to spend scarce resources on

acquiring these assets in building new headquarters and bureaucracies. thank you. >> we hope to see you all on wednesday at the defense ministers meeting. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> that is a live picture of the u.s. capitol where the house is currently in recess. legislative work is slated to get underway in about 20 minutes at 4:00 eastern. there are several bills being considered under suspension of the rules. recorded votes will be held at 6:30 eastern. later this week, we expect a bill funding the government through november 18. we will have live coverage when the gavel comes down at 4:00 eastern here on c-span. the senate is in session this afternoon. lawmakers of just begun debate -- have just begun debate on the bill that aims to cut down on china's currency manipulation. they will proceed to executive

session to consider six traditional -- judicial nominations. you can see that live on our companion network, c-span2. this is a discussion of government assistance programs for the meeting the needy -- for the needy. with the the center of budget policy and priorities. we have a segment we are doing every monday this time on ashington journal" looking at the way your money is spent come a chance free to look at what better programs cost andlso what they do. today, and we are talking about e way that welfare was fuamentally changed 15 years ago. the creation of the temporary assistance for in needy families. tell us about that transition. guest: it was called the aid for

families to dependent children first. that provide cash assistance to families who were unable to work for various reasons, and there's a feeling that there was a need to change that program and wanted to change it in other ways. one was to control costs and the other was to have it shifting to be a much more temporary assistance program and also to focus. it is a block grant to states in the amount of $16.50 billion from 0.5% of the federal budget, and states can use that, and a very small percentage is used to provide cash to families. host: let's go back to how president clinton was talking about how this plan would change welfare. >> later this year, we will offer a plan to end welfare as we know it. i have worked on this issue for the better part of a decade.

i know from personal conversations with many people that no one wants to change the welfare system as badly as those who are trapped in it. [applause] i want to offer the people on welfare the education, the training, the health care, the child care they need to get on their feet, but after two years, they must go back to work, and private binesses as possible, but we have to end welfe as a way of life. [applause] host: president clinton in february 1993 at his state of the union address. as welfare ended as it was known back then? guest: it is a very different program. a lot of the things he could at outlined about what way we wanted to go is where we ended up, but it is a different

program and it is in the temporary. it does serve many more purposes than it did when it was originally changed to a block grant. host: let's look at some of those purposes. assisting in-home child care, promoting job preparation, preventing out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and encouraging two parent families. guest: the biggest focus has been on work. when you walk into a welfare office to get assistance, and this can be any office anywhere, it is pretty much the same, the first thing you're required to do is to go through an assessment figure out what your needs are, and in your arm immediately placed in a program to start looking for work. stunt -- some people are interested in training to get better jobs.

that really was immediately trying to get into the labour market. host: tanf, or temporary assistance for needy families, is what we are talking about. they are all emergence your contingency funds. the states get the money and it is up to them to decide how to follow some of these guidelines in getting people back to work it, encouraging a two parent family. how does this differ from state to state? much: there is not as variation state to state, but there is a significant variation in families actually receiving assistance and what they use funding for. there are some states that really have used a lot of their block grant money for child care and others have a very large share the goes to child welfare systems. it really is different from state to state. part of we are seeing in the recession is that there has been

a huge variation across the state of whether or not it has been responsive to the states and the block grants have not functioned well in keeping this as a cnter-cyclical program to respond to increased needs. host: let's go to the phones. turn down your television, if you can. caller: where is the mute on this? i am and 80-year-old woman who lives in the country in florida. when i was a kid people that did not have an education pick oranges, gathered fruit, and they took their kids with them to the fields.

kids played around and had fun. my parents were migrants at one time. they went to sarasota to get a salary. they went to michigan, new york. host: what does this mean to you? caller: if we would havnever set up a welfare state, we would not have the problems we are in right now. we would have had people to gather our fruit and vegetables, working in our meat factories. my mother worked in a meat factory. my mother had an eighth grade education and my father had a fourth grade education. guest: to put this in perspective, we are in an economy with an on climate rate

-- an unemployment rate of 9.1% and of evidence that shows people are trying desperately to work and are unable to find employment. we have a different set of rules now about not being able to go to work so we need to provide chd care because sometimes it is not available. sometimes we need extra money to create subsidized jobs. illinois crated a subsidized program a a that placing 35,000 people. they had no trouble getting people to take those jobs. some of it is a misnomer that people will not take the jobs. some people do not have the educatioor skills that people are looking for and we need to do more to make sure that people are linked up with what is together and we also need to create a stronger economy.

host: offer of reuters, -- if people cannot get jobs, what ar the penalties? what the repercussions? guest: there are repercussions for individual families and states. what happens is that families do not participate in a required activity, most often they lose their cash assistance as they are ineligible to participate. states are required to meet a work-participation rate than they can do that in a number of ways, but if they do not meet

that, they cannot lose a portion of their block grant. host: an applicant in new york city must attend 95 days of a 9:00-5:00 -- 45 days of a job search workshop. this ignores the chaotic reality of being a single mother in a financial crisis. guest: that is because of the work participation rate. they have to document every hour, so they have a very onerous requirement of documenting our by our it to encourage the states to create particular activities which may not be the best fit for what people need.

their report that their staff is just as disillusioned as their recipients because they know that they cannot provide the help that they cannot meet. host: ladonna pavetti is our guest. next caller from illinois. good morning. caller: howre you doing this morning? i have often seen a pattern in chicago that was disastrous. they could barely get thrgh elentary school, they would stay a couple of years in high school, maybe they would drop out and they would move on to cook county jail. my question is have you done any studies in terms of the relationship between this new welfare program where people literally cannot get into the door for years and years and there is a limited amount of time? what is the relationship between the new program and a real party

nationally and crime? i wonder what drives the crime rate in urban areas. i want to make a comme abo the lady who just called. if she thinks this is a welfare state, she should try if you real welfare states. it depends on where you live geographically. personally, i do not think this is a welfare state. i appreciate, and have a good day. guest: we do not have studies that look at crime, but we do have studies to look at kids who grow up around crime. as their income goes down, the chance of them failing in school is greater. what we want to do is minimize those disruptions and maximize the amount of income that i have. there's not only the focus on trying to provide child care, but also to focus on early

childhood education so that we can really and those failures from early on. that is really geared tards making sure the kids have a great start in life and being able to have the best path forward. we have a lot of work to do their and a lot of what has happened with tanf means a very low, and stable income. host: was to get the funding for 2011. state family assistance gras, $16.50 billion. the contingency fund, $334 million. marriage/father had grants $150 million. these numbers are forom hhs. let's talk about the funding for this program. house republicans quietly passed a bill that extended an unprecedented cut for a welfare program and even those who

oppose the change did not stop them. guest: for fiscal year 2012, we just had an extension of the program for three months, so it will continue for three months. host: in the house passed that? guest: the house and senate have. it is heading to become law. the block grant was funded at its current level in there has always been two separate money is, one called the supplemental grant when this was created to adjust to whatas perceived in equity that when you get a block grant you're getting what you were spending previously. then you can actually equalize and the money goes to these very poor states. this year, about funding was not there. there are 17 states that have gotten the money in the past

thatill not getting it and they are the states where we have the highestevel of poverty, the highest levels of deep perty, and then some population growth state. those states have had for 15 years. there's also the contingency fund which is designed to help states during hard economic times. that has a very complicated design and most of those 17 states do not qualify under the current rules so they will not be able to make that up in the contingency fund. host: lafayette, ga., on the democratic line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i will try to keep it short. we could employ a lot of the welfareeople by teaching them [inaudible]

they cannot give it to them so they are on the welfare program. the whole thing is education. this is not what i'm concerned about. nobody can get hired. we are in the 21st century today and we cannot work on the mom-and-pop system anymore. it is high time that everyone gets involved in jobs because they are out there when you look hard enough and are educated enough. can you answer about the abuse of the parents were the father is not reachable or cannot be found. i think he can be found, and take the money out of his paycheck to support his family because this has to stop. what do you think about that? guest: there were several chges made not only a to the tanf program, but also changes

to the child support program to really build up system so that absent parents are contributing as well as the custodial parents. i think we really do need to a knowledgehat there is a message. education is a problem. one thing we did when we created tanf was we put very difficult constraints on people when we did not allothem to improve their education, and i think we need to rethink that some people do have better skills. it is very difficult for people who do not have skilled education experience to compete when there are some people looking for work. host: why the emphasis on out- of-wedlock pregnancy? guest: it was when welfare was created to try and stop the families on tanf that were single families and try to do

something to help stabilize families to help reduce the number of children born out of wedlock. host: republican from idaho. good morning. caller: i keep hearing that the government's budget is because of the war, yet study after study shows that 80% of the central government budget are poor feel-good programs. when people go on welfare, they get lazy. studies show that generation after generation of the same family are on welfare. where do hospitals recoup their money from low-income people? after charging insurance companies twice for the person with an assurance unable to

recoup the money. then you get all of these millions of millions of people like mexicans and stuff. thank you. gut: the amount of money that goes into the programs from the federal budget is quite small. it is only 14%. tanf is half of 1% and is tiny. it is not a huge amount of money. really, what we need, what we have seen over the years is that there is a huge turnover in the program, so families to stay on it for long periods of time is very small. there is a federal time limit and we have very few people who hit those time limits. it has been 15 years. the majority of people are coming on to assistance becau the average short-term need

because they have lost their jobs because it ended or have had some kind of medical issue. it is a safety net. it is a program that really helps people during times of need. it is important for our kids and important for families to be able to know that there's something that help them when the labor market fails. host: ladonna pavetti is at the center for budget and policy priorities. we're talking what the temporary assistance for nee families, or tanf. let's look at the numbers. in 1997, 10.3 million. in 2011, only 4.4 million, as of march 2011. a big difference in numbers. how come? guest: we've seen a huge declines in the number of people receiving tanf. unfortunately it is not because there are fewer people in need. we have a lot of people in need

not served by the program. the work participation requirements, and others, there are a group of families that are unable to meet those requirements, such families in need and not being served. we have the ratio of tanf to poverty. of those in poverty, how many are being served by tanf? it was 57% in 1997 and now it is 27%. there are some states for that number is as low as 4%. it is failing in its role as a safety net. part of this is that we really have not been able to have a work based system and a safety net. what really need to think about is how we ca get that corrected.

host: independent caller from libby, oregon. good morning. go-ahead. caller: the food stamps, is that part of the tanf? guest: it is a separate program and federal run. caller: think you for that. whenever the congress creates a lot, like the dodd-frank, and with the welfare programs, you said it was reduced from 10.3 million up 4.4 million now. is this because congress has cut the funding for your program? guest: in tanf, it is not because funding was cut. it was a block grant and set at a certain leveland has been funded at the same level since 1996. with tanf, when it was created

we had a booming economy and there was a focus on work and a lot of people did find work. when it plummeted, they had money to shift to other places, so they used it for child care, child welfare, all of these other programs that serve all marble families. once the need incread, they really could not reclaim those resources for the purpose it was intended. the money is just being spent in different ways than it was in 1996. host: michelle from st. louis on the democratic line. caller: hello. i was wondering because there has been a big problem with federal funding, as far as the welfare programs are concerned. i know this because i have fallen into this because my job has moved me back to part-time

which means i am no longer eligible for insurance which means i'm a monsterble to provide for my family because i am a single -- i am no longer able to provide for my family because i am a single parent and i need help. as far as child support those, the amount of money that i get paramount is ridiculous because i do not get enough to really help out with my children. i am dealing with that, but i'm still trying to look for another full-time job. when i am >> the house is gaveling back into session. all recorded votes will be held after 6:30 eastern. amendments thereto and to consider in the house without intervention of any point of order a motion offered by the chair of the committee on

appropriations or his designee that the house concur in the senate amendments to the house amendments to the senate amendment that the senate amendment be considered as read, that the motion be debatable for one hour equally debatable for one hour for the ranking member of the committee on appropriations and without intervening motion. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on the motion to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or on which the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote is objected to under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken after 6:30 p.m. today.

for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 686, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the drill. the clerk: union calendar number 108. h.r. 686, a bill to require the conveyance of certain public land within the boundaries of camp williams, utah, to support the training and readiness of the utah national guard. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, and the gentleman from mariana islands, mr. sab ban, each will control -- sablan, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration . the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bishop: h.r. 686 -- and thank you, mr. speaker -- is a bill i sponsored, it's a bipartisan bill. it has the sponsorship of all the members of the utah del bation, republican and democrat

-- delegation, republican and democrat, directs the secretary of interior to the b.l.m. that have been withdrawn for military use in utah -- by the utah national guard and known as camp williams in utah. national guard has had this facility and trained at camp williams since 1912. the 4620 acres proposed for conveyance is proposed within camp williams boundary and has already been withdrawn for use by military use by the national guard. the transfer will open up property that is along the major corridors there to help support the military use of this camp. for obvious reasons, placing the land in the ownership of the state will allow the state to bond for other facilities that need to be built there. state of utah will not bond for building facilities on land it does not own. so the transfer of title to those lands also exat the indicts the building, the expansion of camp williams and the training facilities to improve the readiness of the

utah national guard. this conveyance without consideration is consistent with other bills in which you do government-to-government conveyances. a bill to a provision that would avert to federal ownership if this is not used by the utah national guard or for those purposes. so this bill was passed by voice vote last congress. the administration supports this bill and it requests -- it was requested by the utah national guard. as i said, is co-sponsored by the entire utah delegation. i urge its adoption and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from the mariana islands. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, thank you. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sablan: i ask -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, h.r. 686 will transfer federal land to the state of utah for use as part of the utah national guard

facility. the bill specifies that it will return to federal enothership if it is not used for federal defense purposes. the legislation passed the house in both the 110th and 111th congresses and we support its passage again today. i reserve the balance of my time . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i have no other speakers if the gentleman from the mariana islands -- i yield back. mr. faleomavaega: the gentleman yields back. mr. sablan: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 686 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- mr. bishop: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognize nillings? -- recognition? mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i reluctantly demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor, say aye yeas and nays -- those in favor, say aye.

-- those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 pre-existing condition. -- pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 765. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 765, a bill to amend the national forest ski area permit act of 1986 to clarify the authority of the secretary of agriculture regarding additional recreational uses of national forest system land that is subject to ski area permits, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, and the gentleman from the mariana islands, mr. sablan, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bishop: and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. bishop: h.r. 765 amends the national ski area permit of 1986, permit seasonal rand natural resource space that is associated with those facilities on the national forest ski areas. current law does not address any activities other than winter-related minorityic alpine sketion and their ancillary facilities on scree facilities on forest service land. congress needs to allow this act to allow new activities such as alpine slides, zip lines to be able to be used. the additional seasonal and year round recreation authorized by this bill would allow the private sector to create year-round jobs, expand their wholesome outdoor recreational activities. this would have to be in harmony with the natural environment. this does not waive the national endangered species act that will allow these facilities and activities to take place. so the ski areas on the forest

service lands are already -- are already themselves classified as developed sites to these new activities will be in keeping with the intended use of these areas. finally, i would also like to thank chairman lucas of the committee on agriculture for assisting us in bringing this bill to the floor today. his cooperation on this and other issues, shared with the committee on natural resources, is very much appreciated. and to support this understanding, i ask, also, unanimous consent to include in the record an exchange of letters between chairman lucas and chairman doc hastings regarding this particular bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bishop: i urge adoption of this measure and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from the mariana islands is recognized. mr. sablan: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sablan: i ask unanimous consent to yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sablan: this has not kept

base of the development of year round activities in the states. legislation is needed to authorize activities such as rock climbing, mountain biking and other seasonal recreational activities. h.r. 765 will permit nonsports events in the bill while specifically prohibiting things like tennis courts, swim really pools and golf courses. the legislation would provide this expanded authority while ensuring that only activities which encourage outdoor recreation and in harmony with the environment is permitted. representative degette crowe sponsored this legislation in the previous congress and was approved by the house. this is important legislation that will create jobs. we support h.r. 765, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: again, i have no other speakers. mr. sablan: no, i don't, mr. speaker. mr. bishop: with this, mr. speaker, as has been mentioned

by the gentleman, this is a bipartisan bill. i urge its adoption. it's a very good bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 765. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- mr. bishop: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: again, on this i ask for the yeas and nays. i'm pleased to ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking the vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and to

pass h.r. 489. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 105. h.r. 489, a bill to clarify the jurisdiction of the secretary of the interior with respect to the c.c. cragin dam and reservoir, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, and the gentleman from the mariana islands, mr. sablan, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i ask, again, unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and this would also include any extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bishop: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you. h.r. 489 is sponsored by our colleague, representative gosar of arizona, and it seeks to streamline regulatory processes for the purpose of creating jobs in northern arizona.

this is a no cost bill and it eliminates duplicative permitting requirements which we often in this body commonly refer to as red tame. by putting just one federal agency in charge the c.c. craigin pipeline, part of a federal water project. prior to there are bill, the bureau of reclamation and the u.s. forest service could not reconcile their responsibilities over who would actually manage the pipeline. these dueling regulatory requirements ultimately increased the costs that was past on to the water consumers. they also created enough confusion to keep one community from going forward with a locally financed project that would have been connected to the federal pipeline. this bill clarifies these federal management responsibilities and it mirrors other permits and approving precedence on similar federal

projects. it also creates a regulatory environment for that local water project and the jobs that will go with it to proceed. i thank congressman gosar for sponsoring this jobs bill. i urge the adoption of this particular measure, and i will reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from the mariana islands. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sablan: and, mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. . mr. sablan: this would specify that the bureau of reclamation is authorized to approve necessary maintenance activity for the project on national forest system land. h.r. 489 was introduced in this congress with language that reflects negotiations between the bureau of reclamation, the forest service and the salt lake river project and the congress. this legislation is not meant to

serve as precedent for the management of utility corridors on forest service land. instead the legislation allows for the management of c.c. cragin consistent with all the other projects and facilities in forest service land where the bureau of reclamation oversees the operation and management of the facilities and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: may i inquire, first of all, how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah has 18 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from mariana islands has 19. mr. bishop: may i also inquire how many speakers the gentleman from the northern mariana islands has? mr. sablan: i have no further speakers. mr. bishop: allow me to once again yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you. i appreciate that very, very much. to give you some background of this particular legislation,

it's a large mining company that built what is now the cragin project in the 1960's to supply water to its mine complex. they transferred ownership of the project to the salt river project, that's known as the s.r.p., after the former realized it was not necessary for mining operations. at the request of the s.r.p. and with the support of the bureau of reclamation, the arizona water rights settlement act authorized to transfer the title of the project and the associated lands from s.r.p. to the reclamation in 2005. even though the federal government owns the project, s.r.p. still operates and maintains it, pursuant to the 1917 contract between s.r.p. and the united states. project consists of a number of facilities including 147-foot high dam, a 15,000-acre

reservoir, a diversion tunnel and a pump shaft. pumping plant, primary reservoir and a 10-mile-long pipeline, an electronic transmission line and a small generating plant which supplies power to the project's pumping plant. project helps s.r.p. to supply water to the phoenix metropolitan area and to the town of payson and nearby communities. implementation of the title transfer under public law 108-45 has been controversial due to a misunderstanding between the u.s. forest service, reclamation and s.r.p. the operation of the project is like that of all other salt river projects managed reclamation facilities located on the u.s. forest service land and for those projects reclamation approves s.r.p.'s work plan, their environmental compliance and other regulatory permitting requirements associated with the project. mr. speaker, that is a slight

background to the issue on why this particular bill is there and with that i will reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from mariana islands. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you. it's my pleasure now to yield as much time as he wishes to consume to the sponsor of this, the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. gosar: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of my legislation, h.r. 489, a bill that will permanently end the bureaucratic rangeling that has occurred between the departments of interior and agriculture, a jurisdictional dispute. that exro mices the routine maintenance of critical water structure in the state of arizona, the c.c. cragin dam and reservoir. the federal government employs over 2.1 million civilian employees, there are hundreds of agencies and within each agency there are divisions, departments and subgroups. sometimes, especially with respect to land management, more than one agency has jurisdiction and when that occurs, bureaucratic disputes arise and

government no longer serves the people. this is the exact circumstance that has necessitated my legislation. the c.c. cragin project consists of a number of facilities including a dam and reservoir, diversion tunnel and pump shaft, pumping plant, priming reservoir, pipeline, electrical transmission line and a generating plant. majority of the project is located on federal lands in forests. this critical water infrastructure project is an important aspect of the salt river project's federal reclamation project. it is integral to providing a water supply for phoenix and is instrumental in making 3,500-acre-feet of water a year available to a county. the town of payson and the neighboring communities rely on the pipeline to supply municipal drinking water to my constituents. in 2004 at the request of salt river project or s.r.p. as it is commonly referred to and with the support of the bureau of reclamation and the former owner of the project, the arizona

water settlements act authorized the title transfer to the c.c. cragin project from s.r.p. to the bureau of reclamation. under this language the federal government would own the project but s.r.p. would still operate and maintain it. once the transfer was implemented, it became clear that there was a disagreement between the u.s. forest service and the bureau of reclamation over who had the responsibility for approving requested operation, maintenance and repairs, specifically the bureau of reclamation argued that it should approve s.r.p.'s work plans, environmental compliance and other regulatory permitting requirements. the u.s. forest service asserted that the reclamation was required to obtain a special use permit to operate, maintain and repair the water project. while the s.r.p. project was able to overcome the issues with the forest service to complete repairs, it was the bureau of reclamation's approval and occasionally the forest service's objections. concurrently the added permit requirement delayed much-needed repair, wasting precious arizona water resources, increase repair

cost and place the economic development of the town at payson at risk. looking forward, this is a long -lived asset that will be relied upon to provide a water supply to the valley. just a few weeks ago a $4 million, 15-mile pipeline expansion project which will double payson's water supply was finally approved by the forest service at a -- after a year-long delay. if congress allows the jurisdictional dispute to continue, future operations and maintenance activities related to the c.c. cragin project could face costly delays and could possibly interrupt water delivery to these arizona communities. this simply is not a tenble situation. i am pleased the house is taking up legislation that will permanently resolve this ridiculous jurisdictional battle. my legislation reflects a compromise reached by the relevant parties. it grants the department of interior exclusive jurisdiction to manage the c.c. cragin project and grants the department of agriculture administrative jurisdiction over

land management activities that do not conflict or adversely effect the operation, maintenance, replacement or repair of the project. it is important to note that h.r. 489 will still require compliance with all requirements under federal law, including the national environmental policy act or nepa. in addition, the implementation of this legislation has no cost to the taxpayer. having a single agency overseeing the project remains important, if not more important now that the project is operational. the united states bureau of reclamation has the expertise to conduct oversight on water supply projects and does so on many other projects that are within national forests. this commonsense legislation meets the needs of s.r.p. and reclamation to ensure the infrastructure can be maintained while accommodating the forest service, ensuring they continue to manage the lands underlying the utility corridor with respect to recreation, wildfire, law enforcement and other activities consistent with its authorities, responsibilities and expertise.

it is important to note that when the house natural resources subcommittee on water and power held a hearing on my bill on may 12, all parties, including the bureau of reclamation and the forest service, agreed that h.r. 489 is vital to the long-term management of the c.c. cragin dam and reservoir project. and would bring about necessary economic certainty for the town of payson and other impacted communities. it is not often that congress gets the opportunity to take up noncontroversial legislation like h.r. 489. i encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah reserves his time. the gentleman from mariana islands. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i'm ready to yield back if you are. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 489. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 473 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 142, h.r. 473, a bill to provide for the conveyance of approximately 140 acres of land in the watch at that national forest in oklahoma to the indian nation's council incorporated of the boy scouts of america and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, and the gentleman from mariana islands, mr. sablan, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i again ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on this bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bishop: and i also yield myself now such time as i may

consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: if i spend less time speaking about this particular bill, it's not my commitment to this particular bill, only the gentleman from oklahoma seems to be here already. h.r. 473 was introduced by the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. boren. it would authorize the forest service to sell 140 acres of a national forest to the camp hale boy scout camp which is just under 500 acres adjacent to those federal lands. the additional acreage will allow the boy scouts to accommodate more campers, allow for a large array of activities at the camp. legislation stipulates the achesers will be appraised and -- acres will be appraised and sold at market value. the boy scouts will pay for the appraised market value as well as the survey and administrative costs. legislation is a commonsense solution to allow for expansion of the camp and better accommodations for the boy scouts of america. i urge adoption of this brilliant piece of legislation and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from mariana islands. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sablan: thank you very much, mr. speaker. this legislation will allow the indian nations council of the boy scouts to expand a very popular adventure camp in oklahoma. the scouts will pay fair market value for an additional 140 acres of forest service land to be added to the existing camp. mr. speaker, the boy scouts are a beloved organization dedicated to education and public service. the sale of this parcel to the scouts is a good use of public lands and we support the legislation. i'd also like to acknowledge that mr. boren, my good friend, mr. boren, has been a tireless champion for this bill and for the boy scouts and needs to be commended for the work over the several years on behalf of this proposal. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 473 and i yield to the good gentleman from oklahoma, mr.

boren, the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. boren: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to urge passage of h.r. 473, the hale scouts act. this bill grants the u.s. forest service authority to sell roughly 140 acres of land to the indian nation's council of boy scouts. the land for conveyance is adjacent to the scouts' summer camp located in oklahoma. the indian nation's council of boy scouts is a nonprofit organization providing educational programs for boys and young adults to build character, to train in the responsibilities of citizenship and to develop personal fitness. camp tom hale first opened in june, 1930, to serve boy scouts in oklahoma. it was originally located and was now robers cave state park.

in 1963 the boy scout council worked with the state of oklahoma and the u.s. forest service to exchange the camp at robbers cave for 480 acres of wilderness area in the national forest. this new camp, hale, has continued as a summer adventure camp serving thousands of scouts during the intervening 41 years. in 1997 the council board developed a strategic plan for a $3.5 million expansion and renovation of the camp. since then the council has spent in excess of $1 million, continually updating and expanding facilities to meet the needs of scouts. as a result, a renewed emphasis on wilderness and outdoors has flourished with over 6,000 scouts and leaders from a five-state area attending weekly sessions offered in june and july, enjoying the beautiful forest. attendance has now exceeded the

maximum number of available campsites and program areas which is causing camp hale to begin turning away hundreds of scouts each summer. it is now critical for camp growth that the boundaries be extended to include more area for camping and additional training services. successful completion of this objective will allow the boy scouts to continue the expansion of outdoor and leadership training for thousands of youth living in the central southwest and bring additional usage and enjoyment of the forest for more families. i want to emphasize that the boy scouts will pay fair market value as was mentioned before for this land so that this bill will actually bring money to the u.s. government. it's for the benefit of these thousands of young men across a five-state area that i proudly sponsored this measure. i greatly appreciate the house's consideration of the bill and

would like to urge my colleagues to support this bill, this legislation. i can't think of no greater thing that we could do is to invest in our young people and how can you be against the boy scouts. i yield back the balance of my time. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from the mariana islands reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: after the eloquence of the gentleman from oklahoma he's removed any doubts as to the viability of this piece of legislation. it's obviously a brilliant bill and will be a capstone to his career. i urge its adoption and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, i -- how can anyone be against the boy scouts? i ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house

suspend the rules and pass h.r. 473 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 470, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 470, a bill to further allocate and expand the availability of hydroelectric power generated at hoover dam, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, and the gentlewoman from california, mrs. napolitano, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. again, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bishop: and with that i

wish to yield all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks time to the gentleman from nevada, mr. heck, who is the sponsor of this bill, to introduce this particular piece of legislation which does so much for the west and recognizes the importance of hydroelectric power for those of us who live in the west. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nevada is recognized. mr. heck: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman from utah for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 470, the hoover power allocation act of 2011. this issue is very important to my home state of nevada and the more than 29 million residents across nevada, arizona and california that benefit from hoover power. the hoover dam is located in my district and hoover power had been critical to southern nevada's economy, businesses and consumers since the dam first started operating in 1936. hoover power is clean and affordable and today we are taking an important step toward making it stable. the hoover power contracts are due to expire in 2017, and h.r.

470 would authorize the continued allocation of electricity from the hoover dam for the next 50 years until 2067. extending nevada's access to low-cost, clean hydropower through the enactment of h.r. 470 is key to nevada's economic recovery because it will help create certainty over future electricity prices. and certainty is exactly what our economy needs right now in order to get people back to work. h.r. 470 was developed as a consensus, bipartisan plan to ensure the continued availability and reliability of hoover power to the citizens of nevada, california and arizona. hoover contractors who participated in developing this plan have invested more than $1.3 billion to construct, operate and maintain hoover dam in the past. they agreed to contribute 5% of

their post-2017 hoover power allocations to have a resource pool that will be made available to customers such as tribes, irrigation districts and rural cooperatives that did not have access to this power in the past. h.r. 470 provides that this resource pool will be allocated by a federal-state partnership involving the western power administration and the states of nevada, california and arizona. now, i understand that some arizona cooperatives have expressed concerns over this bill because they are unhappy with arizona's power allocation priority list. but this bill actually sets aside additional power for other entities including cooperatives thereby increasing the likelihood of a power allocation, and this federal legislation should not be used to usurp the authority of the state of arizona. again, this legislation is essential to the millions of

consumers who have invested in this resource of energy over the past 75 years because it will continue to provide them with hoover power for the next 50 years as well as allow new customers to benefit from this clean, low-cost energy source. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting h.r. 470, the hoover power allocation act of 2011, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. napolitano: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank congressman bishop, congressman sablan and especially congressman hastings for working on this bill. i rise in support of h.r. 470, the hoover power allocation act of 2011, as amended, and agree with my colleague, agree with

his remarks. hydropower is a very valuable resource for our country. the power produced at hoover provides a renewable, very affordable and accessible resource to the american southwest, more specifically to the states of california, my state, nevada and arizona and has 30 million residents, businesses: residence, businesses, farms and tribes that uses its power. it would create ran additional schedule d where power will be made available to eligible tribes and other users. i'm hoping those eligible users are mostly tribes because they have been kept out of the loop for many generations. it's about time we put them at the priority list. western area power administration has committed to implement a full and transparent process in the allocation of this valuable

resource. and we do expect that the state regulatory agencies of arizona and nevada both will follow the same procedures and commitment to an impartial and unbiased allocation drermation. the 50-year time frame for allocation of this resource also matches the commitment by collaborators to fund the lower colorado multispecies conservation program, a nationally recognized example of how diverse stakeholders can find solutions working together that promote economic growth while protecting more than 100 species including some endeng remembered species that everybody wants to do away with. all within the lower colorado floodplain and this is without litigation. mr. speaker, this legislation has 34 bipartisan co-sponsored. this exact same bill, h.r.

4349, which i was the lead sponsor as well as senator reid in the senate passed the house in the 111th congress, and i ask my colleagues now to again not only support but vote for the passage of h.r. 470. i do yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves her time. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a -- messages from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr. secretary. the secretary: i am directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives messages in writing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i wish to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from arizona to address this particular bill, mr. gosar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. gosar: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 470, the hoover power allocation act

of 2011. hoover power is a vital power resource for the consumers in the states of arizona, california and nevada as well as over 29 million people who rely on this clean renewable source of energy. hydroelectric power from the hoover dam was first allocated by congress in 1928 and has been allocated by congress ever since. the current power contracts expire in 2017. it is important this body pass a new allocation now to ensure the continued availability and reliability of hoover power to the citizens of my state and those of california and nevada. the version of this legislation this body is considering today reflects years of thorough negotiation. it includes provisiones that address issues that were raised in the 111th congress by the intertribal counsel of arizona and the western area power administration. because of that the bill has

garnered strong bipartisan support within the arizona house delegation and at the grassroots level. i would like to address the concerns expressed by the arizona statewide cooperative association. i met with representatives of the association in an attempt to address their concerns. in those meetings it became clear the only way to address those concerns would be to overturn existing arizona state law. i encouraged them to take their charge to the state level and committed to facilitate the initial meeting if they so desired. however, i have consistently maintained that it would be inappropriate for congress to incorporate language that would preexempt arizona state law in this legislation. i would also like to point out that the arizona coops have an opportunity under this legislation to receive hoover power going forward. h.r. 470 creates a pool of 103 megawatts that would be allocated to eligible entities

including rural electric cooperatives and federally recognized native american tribes. in addition, the salt river project has committed in writing to backstop up to three megawatts of power for arizona coops should they not receive an allocation through this provision. let me remind those, 22% of the population in my district is tribal. this would be a wonderful means of having a vested interest in the energy sector. this would also be a great diversity in their portfolio of the tribes in the energy sector. again, i rise in support of my friend, dr. heck's legislation, h.r. 470, and encourage my colleagues to vote yes. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah reserves his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask for passage of this bill, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time.

mr. bishop: mr. speaker, this once again is a very good bill that's before us. the fact there hoover dam in nevada produces more than 2,000 meg i.t.a. watts which is enough to power two million households of clean electricity and that captures more than 28 million acre-feet of water for the states of arizona and nevada and california. 75 years since this engineering marvel was completed, hoover dam is still a key role in fulfilling economic job creation its job creation mission. this bill extends part of that mission. it's all paid for by the electricity ratepayers. it would cover all capital, all maintenance and all those associated with this power component of the hoover dam. there is no tax mear costs to this -- taxpayer costs to this bill. i want to thank congressman heck for bringing this bill and thank congresswoman napolitano for her work on this bill.

i encourage my colleagues to support this no-cost job-supporting legislation. i urge adoption of this measure and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 470 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 670. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 107, h.r. 670, a bill to convey certain submerged lands to the commonwealth of the northern mariana islands in order to give that territory the same benefits in its submerged lands as guam, the virgin islands, and american samoa have in their submerged lands.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, and the gentleman from the marin ana islands, mr. sablan, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bishop: and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: it's my pleasure to be here on this particular bill, h.r. 670. it conveys, as was mentioned in the title, three miles of submerged lands onto the commonwealth of the northern mariana islands. the authority will give the specific territory similar benefits that will currently enjoyed by many coastal states and other u.s. territories, specifically of guam, virgin islands and american samoa. the last congress passed similar legislation out of the house by a roll call vote of 416-0, and i hope we can beat

that record today. . i am pleased to have been able to work on this and i thank the gentleman from the northern mariana islands for presenting this particular bill to us. it is a good piece of legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from mariana islands is recognized. mr. sablan: thank you very much, mr. speaker, and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 670, a bill that conveys to the commonwealth of the northern mariana islands the three miles of submerged lands surrounding each of the islands. i want to thank the leaders from both sides of the aisle, particularly chairman hastings and ranking member markey of the natural resources committee and my very good friend, john fleming, for their support of h.r. 670.

i'd also like to note also that the language of h.r. 670 previously, as my good friend has noted, passed the house in the 111th congress by a vote of 416-0. as we know, sometimes happens, however, though favorably reported from the committee on jurisdiction, the other body took no final action. so i hope that members of this house will join me today in making a second effort to get this bill enacted into law. the northern mariana islands is the only united states coastal jurisdiction that does not have ownership of the submerged land off its coast. h.r. 670 corrects that irregularity and provides the same ownership rights over the submerged lands surrounding the northern mariana islands as are provided by federal law to guam, the u.s. virgin islands and american samoa. this bill provides equity to the people of the northern mariana islands. it returns management to those who know it best and need them to be well managed. it gives the people of the

marianas who is have such limited land resources the power to protect and to benefit from the seas around our 14 islands. to highlight the importance of this point, in 2006 louisiana leased 392,118 acres of its submerged lands for oyster harvest, profiting the state and providing an economic opportunity for holders of 8,167 leases. likewise, the state of california leased tracks off its submerged land for oil and gas subtraction, contracting jobs and contributing to the state's economy. other coastal jurisdictions have similar stories to tell about the important role that coastal lands and waters can play in economic growth. for the area i represent which has suffered declining g.d.p. year after year since 2004, and a 20% drop in 2009, gaining control of surrounding submerged

lands to help to turn things around. whereas now the federal government is in charge and does nothing with the potential of this lands -- these lands, h.r. 670 will put the local government in charge. we would be free to develop yaufer shore wind farms or other -- offshore wind farms or other energy alternatives and responsible for protecting the rare marine environment which is both our legacy and our trust. and also makes our islands something for tourists. this is what this congress has previously done for other coastal jurisdictions. in the 1941 case, the federal courts found that the federal government owned the submerged lands off the coast of california and other coastal states. these states then turned to congress to regain control of their submerged lands. and congress granted these states title to the waters and submerged lands out to three miles in the submerged lands act of 1953. history repeats itself here.

in 2005 the ninth circuit court of appeals ruled that the submerged lands and waters off our coastland did not belong to the people of the northern marianas despite that we have fished and sailed there for at least 3,500 years. the ninth circuit did recognize, however, that congress had the power to convey the submerged land to the marianas. h.r. 670 does exactly that. h.r. 670 employs the constitutional authority of this congress to dispose of federal property. the same authority that congress used to convey offshore lands to guam, the united states virgin islands and american samoa, under the territorial submemoried lands act of 1974. finally, let me say there is great support for this legislation among the people of the northern mariana islands. so much so that when i was sworn in as the first representative for islands in the house of representatives, this was my first bill. the governor of the northern marianas has expressed his

support. the northern mariana islands legislationure has passed a resolution. in addition, the obama administration has expressed its support for the conveyance of submerged lands to the people of the northern mariana islands. this house, too, as i said at the beginning, has given overwhelming support to the language of this bill which passed the house unanimously on july 15, 2009. i once again ask for your support. h.r. 670 costs nothing, congress has the constitutional authority to enact this bill. it would provide equity, the same ownership and responsibility for surrounding lands and waters that every other coastal area of our nation enjoys. i want to thank all of those members who are co-sponsors of this bill and i ask that my colleagues support h.r. 670. thank you, mr. speaker, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i have no more speakers. if the gentleman has no more speakers? mr. sablan: i have no more

speakers. mr. bishop: with that i urge the adoption of this particular resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and has h.r. 670 -- and pass h.r. 670. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative -- mr. bishop: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and adopt senate concurrent resolution 29. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate concurrent resolution 29. concurrent resolution authorizing the use of the rotunda of the united states capitol for an event to present the congressional gold medal collectively to neil a. armstrong, edwin e "buzz" aldrin jr. and the recognition of their significant contributions to society. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from mississippi, mr. harper, and the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. braidy, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from mississippi. mr. harper: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. harper: mr. speaker, i ask

unanimous consent to submit into the record a letter waiving further committee consideration of thes remain luelings -- resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. harper: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, this resolution authorizes the use of the rotunda on november 16 to present the congressional gold medal collectively to neil armstrong, edwin e. "buzz" aldrin jr., michael collins and john herschel glenn jr. in recognition of their significant contributions to society. mr. speaker, on may 25, 1961, president kennedy spoke to a joint session of congress. he said that it was time for a great new american enterprise, time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement. he committed this nation to achieving the ambitious goal of landing a man on the moon and returning him to earth safely.

president kennedy added, i believe we possess all the resources and talents necessary to accomplish the mission. and that we did. as exhibited by the gentlemen to be honored in the rotunda this november. bravely pursuing the unknown, these four individuals helped this nation achieve scientific and technological advancements which inspired the world. mr. speaker, neil armstrong was the spacecraft commander for apollo 11, the first manned lunar landing mission in history. he was the first person to land a craft on the moon and the first to step foot on its surface. his i mortal words are forever edged in our national memory. buzz aldrin piloted the lunar module eagle and was the second person to walk on the moon. michael collins piloted the command module columbia in lunar orbit and helped his fellow apollo 11 astronauts complete their mission on the moon.

7 1/2 years earlier john glenn paved the way for these achievements by becoming the first american to orbit the earth in february of 1962. two years ago, on the 40th anniversary of apollo 11's historic lunar landing, the new frontier congressional gold medal act was passed by congress. 42 years ago in july of 1969, millions of americans were transfixed on a place over a quarter of a million miveb miles away. eyes watched as we stepped into the unknown, walked on the moon and made history. mr. speaker, i'm pleased to present this resolution today and i urge my colleagues to support it in honoring the achievements of these national heroes and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. brady: mr. speaker, i yield myself such timed a i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. brady: mr. speaker, i rise in support of this concurrent resolution authorizing the use of the capitol rotunda to award congressional gold medals to neil armstrong, buzz aldrin jr., michael collins and john herschel glenn jr. for being pioneers of space exploration. the bill granting the medals were sponsored by alan grayson in the 111th congress and was signed into law by president obama on august 7, 2009. it could be said that these four heroes were trail blazers but their past ensured they were not the last. they showed everyone that the impossible is possible and inspired generations to study, question and explore the world beyond our own planet. for that they have not only left their mark on history, but on the will and determination of mankind. as president john f. kennedy noted in his speech to congress on may 25, 1961, i believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal before this decade is out of landing a man on the moon and return him

safely to earth and so we did. i urge all my colleagues to join me today in supporting this concurrent resolution and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from mississippi. mr. harper: mr. speaker, i yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from texas, mr. hall. mr. hall is the distinguished chairman of the committee on science, space and technology. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hall: i thank you and, mr. speaker, i too rise in strong support of senate concurrent resolution 29, altogether riding the use of the cap -- authorizing the use of the capitol rotunda to present the congressional gold medal to the crew of apollo 11, buzz aldrin, neil armstrong armstrong and mike collins and to john h. glenn. these americans need no introduction yet no matter their heroic accomplishments, it's well worth remembering the huge risk each of these individuals confronted as they began to push the boundaries of human exploration and outer space. while the technologies they

relied on to conduct their flights were considered cutting edge during their day, many of these systems had never been fully tested except during their actual first flight performed by these men. on february 20, 1962, john glenn rode on a rocket that has been adapted from a military design to carry the mercury capsule, friendship 7, to orbit. his flight lasted nearly five hours before returning safely to earth. seven years and five months later apollo 11 astronauts buzz aldrin, neil armstrong and mike collins were launched after a four-day flight neil and buzz landed on the moon, becoming the first humans to walk on its surface. i was honored to chair a hearing just two weeks ago that included neil armstrong and fellow astro gene certainen, the last american man to walk on the moon, as witnesses. mr. armstrong prefaced the hearing with a very