talking about ♪ host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal." on this friday april 12, 2013. on both bodies of congress are in session. the senate continues work on gun legislation. as today, democrats let a vote to bring the bill to the floor am of the vote, 68-31. we would like to get your thoughts. here are the numbers --

you can also find us online or send us a tweet by writing @ cspanwj. or join the conversation on facebook by looking for c-span. you can also e-mail us journal@ cspan.org. here is a story in the "washington post" -- ed o'keefe writes the story --

some other headlines and the national papers. the "usa today" goes with this -- looking at some local papers, "the hartford current" has this on its front page -- "the arizona republic" says -- it says --

we also see "the tampa tribune." reporting for the associated press, the story being carried inwe are getting comments coming into our facebook page. as we mentioned, you can join the conversation i looking for c-span. --rrie says taking issue with this decision to move forward.

mike saw this is a foregone conclusion. thoughts on the senate taking up gun control legislation? first caller, on new york, on the democrats line. caller: good morning. i've got a quick comment i would like to make about this gun legislation that is going on. in new york state, they have a thing called the new york safe act. ofdeals with the controls how many bullets are put into a cartridge. those are physical controls on a gun. as far as the constitutional to not infringe the second amendment, i do not think this has as much impact on that argument as the actual physical design of a weapon. as people having rights

to having firearms, long guns, people that hunt and sportsman, i am seeing an impact for people getting really interested because they do not want to see their rights to have those types orguns in their possession any controls over that. i believe that the constitutional argument is very important to the people, but keep in mind, we have to control what types of weapons are out there on the streets that these so-called nut jobs are using to go after children and people that are out there. it happens all the time. i do not think any legislation really is going to fix the whole entire problem. mentioned new york's safe law -- what do you think about that? senate andhink the assembly in the new york kind of rushed into this legislation.

the governor touting that around the state am a it really brought a lot of people out of the as far as sheriffs department and all of that across new york state. i see a real interest in battling this legislation because they feel it will impede our rights. it is going to make it very costly. host: let's take a look at "the new york post." they have this spread -- it says chuck schumer praised to efforts of newtown kin move the gun debate forward. you see relatives of sandy hook victims. let's hear from another new york state caller. springfield gardens, on our independent line. caller: good morning.

, i believe mrs. obama went to chicago to make a speech. i heard parts of the speech. it was very moving. the problem with the speech is that it is four years late. violence in that community, or they have had violence in that community, for years. now the obama administration, why wasn't this important four years ago? the second thing of the like to say, all of this gun legislation is tied to the economy. because the economy is so now they are on a path where they cannot change it -- they know people are going to get upset, and they have to be able to have some

measures of control. --is not about sandy hook another thing -- host: stay on the line with us. we see this story from "the chicago tribune." when you say this is coming too late, do you support the message though, even if you do not like the timing? caller: i thought the message was great. -- from myng is this understanding -- i could be wrong -- from what i understand , mostly people that have been doing this violence, this type of violence, has been on medication. .hat seems to be hush-hush do not talk about psychotropic drugs because we have to make money. think that is another

outrageous thing that they never mention. int: let's go to jay pennsylvania on our republicans line. the morning. caller: -- good morning. caller: the last guy was exactly right, psychotropic drugs, giving a whole generation of young white boys little shots of speed. adderall, ritalin. i called after this first happened, and after i got done talking about the breakdown in the family and all these boys from columbine having the same thing in common -- a father who was not active in their lives -- the columbine boys were building propane bombs in their garage. dad probably walked by and said, what are you doing son? a science project, data. -- dad. we certainly cannot legislate morality.

we certainly de-legislated morality back in the 70s when we took prayer out of schools. i grew up in pennsylvania. we all had guns. we all carried guns down the road. we took our guns to school. we had them in the parking lot. first dayleft for the of buck season. there was not a teacher or a boy in class. we did not kill each other. it was handed down from grandfather to father, respect for life, respect for the gun during this is what is lost. -- the gun. this is what is lost. the thing i called about -- i bought a gun for the first time in many years last year -- i bought a nine millimeter. i went to a local store in quakertown in pennsylvania. i had a background check. can somebody explain to me what we are talking about? every state has back on checks. our local vfw had a gun show where there was a background

check. there were two people with computers outside. you could not come walking out with the bazooka. i got flagged. i had to wait 15 days. i had a misdemeanor and a couple duis 20 years ago. the computer knew that and checked me out. when i get a background check for a job, he's still -- these things still come up. i do not understand the of universal background checks. a somebody can explain that to me. the person to blame for these murders, if they are going to be mean and talk about the nra and guys like me, let's be honest -- the person that did this is the stupid mom that bought the crazy little punk that gun. for him, even gun though she knew he had problems. she told him how to use it. he shot her in the head while she slept.

she is the one that should be blamed. host: let's take a look at where those guns came from. you bring up the newtown--- newtown, connecticut shooting. we see this story in "usa today ." lee higgins reporting- -- you also talked about background checks. let's take a look at the details of the background checks -- check amendment that senator's

mansion and toomey introduced. it would require gun show and online background checks. there would be some exemptions, temporary, family, and some private transfers that would be exempt. it would create a commission to study mass violence. there will be penalties penalties for states who do not turn over records of felons and the mentally ill. it promises no national firearms registry. the call from pennsylvania -- this is how the story was covered in pennsylvania. we see this thanks to the museum. -- newseum. we heard senator richard blumenthal, democrat of connecticut, talk about the newtown shooting victims yesterday on the senate floor. it's take a listen. [video clip] the world has watched

newtown, and the families of newtown, and it has watched connecticut. now the world is watching the united states senate. it is watching the senate to see whether mockers he works. democracy works. to reflectacy work the majority of the united states of america, the majority of our people, who say, we need to do something about the guns? that is what the families said to me that day and in days since and what people in connecticut and across the country have said to their senators. we must do something about gun violence. i remember talking to one of the families that evening and saying, you know, when you are ready, we ought to talk about what we can do to stop gun violence in measures in the united states congress. she said to me, i am ready now.

the united states senate must be ready now to act. it must keep faith with those families and victims as the , with benjamin andrew wheeler, age six, his father, david, here today, and andrew -- benjamin is here in spirit when we decide whether we will move forward towards progress. senator blumenthal of connecticut on the floor yesterday. dill tweets in -- let's hear what chris has to say, calling from new york, on the democrats line. caller: good morning. what bothers me deeply with this whole thing, our second amendment rights rights are being infringed on. they are not taken a look at the

overall picture of what is going on in society. that is causing a big problem. thate are blaming us happened out there in sandy for what happened out there in sandy hook. it is wrong what happened to those children. at the same time, you will not stop violence. we had some guy stab 14 kids out at a college. what could you prevent i coming after us -- by coming after us for our guns? you have more guns being smuggled across the border down in mexico. it is just, it bothers me deeply they are going after our rights. host: you used the term us. you are a gun owner? caller: yes, ma'am.

host: does your gun ownership come first in your political issues? caller: we need to focus on solving the real issues. that is anywhere from video games, and as far as background checks, when you go to a gun show, we are ready for left paperwork. ifthe paperwork, it asks you've ever had mental issues. there is no way to check all of that. you are violating a lot of people's civil liberties with some of these things they are trying to put into place right now. this on twitter -- let's go to glenn in washington state, an early good morning to you. what community are you calling

us from on the independent line? ca: i am a knuckle dragger out here. i wanted to call in -- the democrats are trying to push through the senate, it will do not anything -- it's virtually changes nothing. the federally licensed dealers at gun shows already have to do akram checks at -- background checks at gun shows. i wanted to call in -- i get so ticked off when i watch tv -- the guy you just had on, the i run out of rubber bricks to throw at the tv when they -- when i watch those guys, distorting the -- truth. your sister network has a presentation by john locke. he actually states that president obama and

joe biden are saying about guns is factually inaccurate. it is not true. onsets the record straight the lies they are presenting -- when they talk about gun violence, the thing is, two thirds of what they call gun violent deaths are suicides. my father who fought cancer for guy wents, that poor through everything, and he ended up committing suicide. the democrats always try to distort these numbers and try to make it look like that all the gun deaths were due to violence. -- am ike, and my death deaf? a week and one day after he committed suicide, we voted on the right to die initiative. we need to get the truth out about these gun statistics. democrats, nobody confronts emma

democrats with the absolute lies. host: let's look at the vote breakdown in "usa today." you can see the a's in bold. -- the yays in bold. were a handful of republicans. we see 16 republicans putting in their vote to move forward with debate. at aon't we take a look couple of other stories in the news for one moment and then get back to the question of what you think about the senate moving forward on gun legislation? is in southhn kerry korea. we are just seeing this news this morning. here is cnn us report. -- cnn's report --

we see this story in "usa today " -- we saw a new u.s. intelligence coming to public light yesterday showing that north korea likely has the ability to arm a ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead. the weapon would not be very reliable. a couple of other stories here --

reading that from "the washington times." you can see the president standing with the nephew of the recipient. a couple of stories focused on politics. the republican national committee is told -- republican leaders focused on one of the most rest in challenges the party faces as it strives to retake the white house in 2016. it's persistent unpopularity among crucial voting groups such as latinos and single women. speaker after speaker told members of the rnc meeting in hollywood that the party and its candidates need to be part of those communities, not just for election years emma but to highlight areas of shared interest. we also see republicans are trying to win back asian americans, from "usa

today." then looking at the president cabinet as he is putting epa nominee team, had a hearing yesterday, and the hearing for gina mccarthy -- that is from "the baltimore sun." we are asking for your thoughts on the senate's move to proceed on gun legislation. rick is our next caller in georgia, republican caller. caller: good morning. one question i would like to make is that the medal of honor does not belong to president obama. it is a congressional medal of honor. host: that was my misspeaking. thank you for clarifying. caller: everyone agrees that

what happened that sandy hook was a tragedy. but a lot of people do not know what goes on really at gun shows. i own guns. it was an outgrowth of me being a police officer. and sportget shoot shoot. at every gun show i have been to, you have to have a background check. there is no question. thes called the ncis, national criminal information background. i do not understand where people are believing that there is no national background check. there is. at every gun show i have been to. another thing, -- host: do you think those backroom checks are useful?

caller: yes, they are useful. i believe that everyone who buys a pistol or a should have a background check. you know? that weeds out the crazies and the mentally disturbed and felons, the criminals. i agree to that. also, i think what is happening now is a knee-jerk reaction to what happened at sandy hook. if somebody is going to go into a college or school and kill people, they are going to do it. at texas apened couple of days ago, a guy had a nice. -- a knife. putting families of victims were pictures of victims behind you when you are trying to pass legislation, that kind of stacks the deck. host: let's take a look at a couple of tweets --

senator mike lee, republican of utah, spoke on the senate floor yesterday before the vote to move forward. here is why he planned to vote no. [video clip] on thishave argued floor, and also in the national media and back home in my home state of utah, we should not be legislating by negotiating closed-door akron deals away from the eyes of the american people. we should not be voting before we read and understand exactly how these proposals will affect the rights of law-abiding citizens. whether we can say with any level of certainty they will, in fact, reduce crime.

this is exactly why we need more debate, and why i asked my colleagues to vote no on cloture. senators and the american people should fully understand the consequences of this legislation. just to be clear, the vote we will have in a few minutes will be to end debate on whether the senate should take up a bill. the very heart of this bill is being concealed from the senate and concealed from the american people as of this very moment. proponents say that the people deserve a vote. but don't they deserve to know what they are voting on? i think they do. utah.senator leahy of let's hear from mitch calling us from chattanooga, tennessee, on the democrats line. caller: i just want to talk about the hypocrisy of this country. it don't make no sense. people come on they want to use examples, the knights, timothy mcveigh, all those things that

happen that we did something about right away. take timothy mcveigh. and he blew up that place, what did we do? we said, you cannot get that much fertilizer anywhere without the government knowing about it. the same thing with ford -- pharmaceuticals. they went out and made sure that you could not get that stuff no more. here you look at the news and every day, every day, people are dying, children are dying. here in chattanooga, we had a 15-year-old take a gun and shoot a 17-year-old in the head. you want to say gun control. how did that happen? who controlled it? no control over guns whatsoever in this country. host: let's look at a comment from dave on twitter --

roger, des moines, an independent caller. welcome, roger. caller: how are you today? host: good how are you? caller: good. seeing a couple of comments on inr program, the gun buyer connecticut had 500 violations and did not get caught until after the shooting. why wasn't it closed before? ,umber two, fast and furious federal employees broke every local, state, federal, and international law. when you have a guest here on this, would you please ask him why there has not been one arrest, one indictment ever made on that case? they broke the law, and they were federal employees. they broke international law

him and they did it without mexico knowing about it. it is an international law. , like you or i, if we took a gun, took two steps into mexico domiciled that gun for double the value, we would begun running. host: roger, here is a comment on twitter along the same lines -- our caller and jim responding to tied tory, the gunshot thekinetics pre- -- connecticut spree had violations. we're also looking at the politics of things.

one of our callers shared the story of his father committing suicide with a gun. we saw this in "the washington times" today. the sun of pastor rick warren committed suicide with a gun he purchased illegally on the internet -- we will continue to take your calls on this story. the senate is moving forward on gun legislation. they voted yesterday to do so. the vote was 68-31. coming up in a few moments, we will talk to ed o'keefe of "the washington post here co we will explain some of the politics going on. later on, and burns, the

documentary filmmaker, will join us to talk his pbs show about the central park five. we will be right back. ♪ >> orphaned at age 11, she lived with her favorite uncle james buchanan. years later, he becomes president, and because he is unmarried, she serves as white house hostess. she is the first to be called first lady on a regular basis and is so popular that she sets trends in clothing and children

and ships are named after her. meet harriet lane. we will look at her life and that of her predecessor, jane pierce, along with your questions and comments by phone, facebook, and twitter. monday night, live at 9:00 eastern. saturday, on american history tv, a chance to weigh in live on emancipation and civil rights him and the role of corporations in american life in both panels from the organization of american historians annual meeting from san francisco. it starts at nine: 30 a.m. eastern with a look at the history of the black freed me from -- movement am a followed by your questions and calls. then at noon, a debate on the role of corporations in american life. that is also followed by your questions live at 1:30. , saturday,fe starting at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span's american history tv.

"washington journal" continues. host: ed o'keefe is a congressional reporter for the "washington post." what is the significance of thursday's vote? caller: the senate is going to talk. -- guest: the senate is going to talk. a debate will begin tuesday afternoon on a series of measures. he will start with the big one mention this week, the agreement made by senator joe manchin and pat toomey, that would expand the background check to just about every commercial sale and exempt most private sales. a lot of senators said this was something that they needed in order to vote to proceed to formal debate on the actual legislation. it is expected that that proposal would have enough to read the question is, what other amendments will be considered. ? we believe the controversial

assault weapons ban will be proposed. there is a proposal by senators leahy and susan collins about gun trafficking, knowingly buying it -- buying a weapon for somebody who is not supposed to have one. who knows? see reciprocity of concealed carry permits across the country. maybe some changes to how the government a's for and supports until health programs throughout the country. we expect weeks of debate on this him at least the balance of april and maybe intimate. .- maybe into may , tell us aboute this first step, this amendment by senator mansion and senator pat toomey pennsylvania -- how does it get included? guest: they will bring it up tuesday. they will have debate on it. they will have an up or down vote on it. it is believed, now that the

text is out there, that they will have enough support to proceed. both senators said they were concerned about infringement on second amendment rights. that is seen as a signal to like-minded senators of both parties to say, look him a there is not -- and not in here that we can support. we have made sure that there is nothing in here that would make it difficult for somebody to buy a weapon. we are also pushing the fact that it would make it much more equitable for licensed gun dealers, versus people that sell guns at gun shows. there are certain things that happen at gun shows that must happen at a gun shop. they are trying to equal the playing field. that is seen as appealing. as majority leader harry reid given any indication on whether there would be a limit on the number of amendments? .uest: that is the big unknown there were enough republicans that voted for this that he is going to allow just about

everything. i think he understands that not only are republicans interested in that, but there are enough democrats interested in that. guns is an issue that breaks down really more over geography than ideology. it has a lot of democrats facing reelection in a rural and midwestern states, guys like -- mary landrieu of louisiana, mark begich of alaska, they need to be able to show their constituents that they were part of a fair and open and exhaustive debate on this issue so that just about every single proposal out there is considered, and in the end, depending on what is in the final bill, they will cast a vote. i think he understands that enough democrats will say, you have to allow certain votes on some of the controversial amendments on either side of the issue in order to get my vote. he has said most of this week come if you have an idea to strengthen or weaken this law, ring it forward. but if republicans start to

present amendments that are seen as poison pills or ways to strike down most of the law, then you might see democrats step in and say, let's not do that. host: you mentioned they will come from both sides of the process. senator reid said that we will see an assault weapons ban. what do expect to happen with that? it will not get more -- much more than 40 votes. the other controversial proposal that is sought by gun- control groups is one that would limit the size of ammunition magazines and a lot of states have passed limits. new york, connecticut, colorado, maryland. a federal ban or restriction on the size is likely going to fail. at least those democrats supporting those measures and the various gun-control groups can say, we tried. the president has asked for that. everybody will remember his dramatic turn during the state of the union were he said all of these gumpert -- gun proposals should deserve a vote.

host: we see -- in congress relatives of victims killed at sandy hook going door-to-door in talking to members of congress, being chamber.n the senate how is that momentum going to be sustained, or will it be sustained? guest: i believe it was no more family members of victims. thester, a spouse of one of educators. they have been vocal from the start. given that there are weeks ago and given that there are so many incidents across the country that have compelled the victims family members to come forward, it is likely that we will see rounds of them come every week. there are enough groups and enough incidents and enough people interested in talking that we will likely see them. i suspect when we get closer to

final passage, you will see a dramatic showing of the families of newtown victims. they camped outside the chambers in connecticut when the state legislature in connecticut passed their bill. i suspect they will do something similar here because it was such a dramatic demonstration of their push for this route to put himself in front of lawmakers, if they can do that to some extent, they will. senator blumenthal and senator murphy, both of them of connecticut, they have said the most powerful advocate for this are the advocates of those also the parents of high d a pendleton -- hadiya pendleton. when the parents come forward and try to talk to senators, that seems to work. a lot of senators have taken the meeting. even harry reid said, i do not want to meet with these people, because i knew it would be a difficult meeting, but i did.

they made their point. some of the meetings have gone very well. others have been a little more emotional. host: we sell republicans voting to move forward. some of them did vote to proceed. do we expect to see any sort of oral filibuster him any sort of stalling on the senate floor? guest: that is what we were expecting this week. there was a threat from at least 14 senate republicans led by senator mike lee of utah, marco rubio of florida, mitch mcconnell, the senate minority reader. they threatened to filibuster this, but so quickly did 16 republicans come forward to say, no, i will not stand in the way of doing this, that they dropped the plan. we dissipated last night they might try to force 30 hours of debate on proceeding to the actual bill. these are the crazy procedures we have. they said, no, go ahead. at some point, depending on how the amendment process goes, we suspect they will try to do something to read again, the longer harry reid allows for it

to go, the more commitments he perceived -- he allows to have on the up or down votes. the longer they are likely to hold off. mike lee has said, all we are trying to do is to make sure that that there is thoughtful consideration of this him and second amendment rights are not infringed upon. if that happens, perhaps he will hold off. jeff flake, republican from arizona, said, for me, this is about process. harry reid told me there would be an open process. i trust there will be. as long as there is, i am all for proceeding. host: ed o'keefe, let's go to the phones. wayne in west virginia, a republican color. caller: thank you for accepting the call. how are you today? guest: i am well. caller: it is not the guns that are killing people. it is the culture in this country. will they then all the cars in

this country because people get killed with them? several senators, republicans and democrats, have made that point. it is not just about guns, but also mental health, mass violence. that is part of the reason why the mansion-to me agreement -tommey -- manchin includes a commission on mass violence. it will perform like the supercommittee were like the 9/11 commission did where they will have a panel of about a dozen experts on mental health, guns, on school safety, members of the entertainment industry to come together to put forth proposals on one of -- what else congress could do besides reducing -- restricting firearms. congress would give them an up or down vote when they produce suggestions. perhaps some lawmakers will

pick up specific proposals and try to push those three. made itand tommey clear, the reason they are willing to have a debate is because they know there will be amendments to address mental health concerns, restricting access to people who are not supposed to have them, whether they are mentally ill or criminals, and perhaps some concert -- some discussion about mass violence in the media. host: felix is on the line in north carolina, on the democratic line. caller: good morning. how are you on this beautiful day? guest: doing well. caller: best country in the world -- i am glad we are able to talk freely without getting shot at by the government. i am 100% disabled so please bear with me. first of all, the constitutional amendment will restrict government powers over the people. the second amendment has two ,ell -- to words into their

well regulated, which gives the government an ability to readily. my question is, how do i know that you are a law-abiding citizen? that brings up number 3 -- the al qaeda spokesman on the top of the fbi spokesperson list has a youtube video talking about the exploitation of background checks so they can get weapons to attack america with. my last point here is, i have been in america all my life. i am next to fort bragg. i will be honest with you. anywhere in america, being a good capitalistic society, i can get you a firearm illegal or legal in an hour. why don't you give me a comment on those? america, have a great day. it is good to be un-american. -- an american. the three things you brought up will be the

parameters discussed in the coming weeks. concerns about the expanse and purpose of background checks, concerns about the availability of weapons on the street, concern -- there has been a lot of talk about the video clip -- concern that terrorists are trying to or have exploited the loopholes. then a broader discussion about mental health concerns. you encapsulated it beautifully. i can tell you that lawmakers are hearing those types of concerns and are very eager to talk about it. host: trenton, north carolina, jerry, an independent. caller: my point here is that the gun legislation they are talking about is starting to slip over from being a second amendment infringement to being a fourth amendment infringement because when you start looking to people's or satellite -- looking into people's arsenal lives, -- personal lives.

i am a gun owner. the state of north carolina, we have acheron checks for any firearm purchase. that takes place at all gun shows. there is always a deputy there to do the background check on the spot. we do not have issues like this. we are law-abiding citizens. we follow the law and the rules. that not have the issues it seems like other states have with the mass murders. it is like the other man said -- what about people out there driving drunk? what if somebody takes a stick and beat somebody half to death with it? as an assault weapon at that point. host: let's get a response. guest: you mentioned concerns about privacy. there are concerns about the possibility of what happens when a state reports that somebody is mentally ill and unable to own or get in touch with a firearm -- what happens,

if, for example, that registry is public, and insurance companies start reviewing the registries? they find out somebody they are covering is on the list, and then they charge higher premium. that something brought up --was something brought up by a senator from your state. is there a proposal that would shield insurers or bar insurers from looking at people on these lists? that is an interesting wrinkle in this whole debate. i suspect there will be debate about it. host: we have comments coming in on twitter relating to this discussion -- then we see a conversation going on about gun shows and what they are really like to read dennis says --

that is a concern that some republican senators posed to the plan. what the plan would do is require back run checks on any weapon that is sold over the internet or advertised on the internet or advertised in the newspaper or a plaque or somewhere, but anyone having an e-mail exchange about possibly buying a weapon is exempt from the program. as one senator pointed out, what is it to stop somebody from going into the gun show, adding the guys business card, sending him an e-mail and saying, meet me outside an hour after the show closes, and i will buy a weapon from you -- from you? that is the gun show parking lot loophole that they are concerned about. host: a conversation on twitter about the politics of this --

let's turn to comments made by speaker john boehner made yesterday -- yesterday when asked about whether the house would take up the senate bill. [video clip] >> our hearts and prayers go out to the families of these the dems. i fully -- victims. fully expect the house will act in some way, shape, or form. but to make blanket commitment without knowing what the underlying bill is i think would be responsible on my part. the senate has to approve a bill. i made clear if they produce a bill, we will review it and take it from there. , theve things changed mindset of people appear, about guns? it has been-- >>

an issue for my 22 years in congress. the thing we have to remember is that laws are only as good as our citizens willingness to obey them. law obeying citizens to obey them. criminals do not. in addition to that, we've got a system of laws that are not enforced yet. i would think that before we begin to add more rules and regulations on law-abiding citizens that we at least expect our law enforcement personnel and the department of justice to enforce the current law, which they are not doing. john house speaker boehner. at o'keefe, what might happen in the house? -- guest: they are staring across the capital and what is happening in the senate. nobody really wants to move until we get a sense of what is

realistically possible coming out of the senate. a lot of members of the house take cues from their state senators because many of them is to serve in the house for one thing, and they also have a pretty good gauge of what their state right be amenable to actually moving forward with. the fact that happen to me got involved is notable as he had not been a player -- that pat -- toomey got involved this week is a big deal. a lot of his colleagues said, we support what he is doing. we think it is something that could work in the house. that was a critical piece because it potentially boxed -- bought the sole process sometime and political capital capital in the republican- controlled house. four dozenhree or republican congressman who represents suburban districts around places like cincinnati, chicago, cleveland, new york that if, -- miami,

they do not engage in a debate, you could see them face some real problems next year. my colleagues looked at this yesterday for today's paper. there you are. it is a fantastic look ahead. what you are potentially seen is some pressure on the suburban house republicans where the democratic congressional campaign committee already plans to target. they may be the ones to tell speaker boehner and the house judiciary committee, no, we need to debate this. we need to have a conversation as if we do not, my political life is on the line. host: a tweet following up on what speaker boehner had to say -- well, minority leader nancy pelosi was asked during her news conference about the comments speaker boehner made regarding law enforcement and the lack

there of. let's hear her response. [video clip] becauseddens me obviously we should enforce the laws of that we have. there is no question about. none of us have said that. the most recent supreme court decision on guns recognizes that there is a role to be played to regulate, if that is the word, guns. decision relating to the district of columbia. .ut that is not enough that is not enough. i do not know how we can show our faces to these families or even look ourselves in the mirror if we do not take something more seriously -- as i have said, any one of us as members of congress, democrat or republican, and ebuddy, who would stand in front of an assault on our children to protect them from any attack,

we should have the political courage to stand out there to protect them from gun violence as well. host: minority leader pelosi in the house good at o'keefe, questions being raised over enforcement of existing laws. .uest: that is a big element the justice department certainly has several different gun laws on the books. the publicans and democrats both point out that enforcement of them as not necessarily been as good as it could be. i think the justice department would say, if you give us more money -- more money and manpower, perhaps we would do a better job. we will see whether or not that happens throughout this process. there has been a lot of talk about changing gumballs. i have not seen a significant proposal to give the justice department more money or hiring ability to deal with this. one piece of the senate plan would give about $40 million to the justice department program to help school districts ramp up their school security programs. there was not anything about enforcing the laws or making sure that doj has more money in

place. i suspect especially in the house, once a debate against, they will drag in a few justice department to explain how well they have been prosecuting gun laws on the books and why it is that perhaps they have not been doing as they could. int: let's hear from aaron ventura, california, a republican. thanks for your show. i wish you could move it a little closer to prime time, -- prime time. guest: you are up early. [laughter] caller: i just wanted to ask, on this whole gun control issue, i do not understand the logic -- you've got chicago and new york as perfect examples of any kind of gun control. where is the logic of any of these arguments they are bringing up? i think it is just another forrsion that is created

the media, knee-jerk reactions , andolence close at home it diverts the public's attention away from a bunch of other important issues that have a huge potential for violence right here in this country and other countries, like afghanistan, north korea, or the issue of our economy or all the deals we've got going with communist china. after 68,000 people get killed in vietnam, and countries like that -- those are pretty big issues i think. host: let's get a response from ed o'keefe. guest: others have made that point about urban gun violence and whether or not the laws are being properly enforced in those states, especially since those states already have pretty strict laws. int: barry in louisiana --

louisiana, robert, a democrat. --ler: this gun controlled debate is driving me up the wall. they keep talking about eric holder running guns. open up and just sell guns everybody. just sell guns, go back to the western days, and let everybody toed guns. i guarantee you we will have gun control in this country because when people start bumping up against each other and start killing each other like that, in this gun control thing will come to an end. all we've got to do is let guns be legal all across the land. let drones be legal to. western-ill have a style society. i guarantee you, if people run 's, nd with these aar =-15 they will say, pow, pow.

let's take them off the streets. that would end this whole conversation. is there any talk about loosening gun laws? states have done a few different things to make it easier to carry weapons in certain places. the one that sticks out his arkansas where they passed a law that said if a church permits it, you can carry your weapon and to church. they made it easier to carry weapons onto college campuses. similar proposals are being considered in different states. shielded the lists of people with concealed carry permits. ,outh dakota, for example passed a program that permits eligible people to carry a weapon onto a school permit -- school campus if they underwent a training program so they can provide protection if necessary. that would allow teachers and guidance there have been some 15 new

pieces of legislation approved. most restrict rights but mississippi and other states, wyoming as well have made it easier to carry weapons into certain places or at least clarify where you can and also to restrict access to the people who do have them. that was in a newspaper that blished names of those who had concealed weapons and that was looked at. host: will the n.r.a. be targeting mansion and too manyy? that not fighting for coal miners.

>> he said we have worked together on a host of issues when i was governor and now that i am here in the senate, i know where they are and they know where i am. both of them say this is probably their best chance to get some things changed that they have been seeking for years. especially for someone from say, pennsylvania who has to travel to canada and go through new york and they have a whenen in their car. this allows them to do that without getting wrapped up in a legal position while in new york. allowing a gun shop owner to travel, these are the types of things gun shop owners have pushed for, for years but this is probably best they can get in a current situation and said they should publish the mansion-too manyy proposal and put it up on the website and

said i suspect when they read it they will like what they read. >> let's take a look at what harry reid said. [video clip] >> we have done many things in the last several months about how the senate cannot operate. i so appreciate the members on the other side of the aisle. especially john mccain. on a sunday show said i don't think there should be a filibuster on this. john mccain has been a leader in this country for 31 years. people respect his opinion, and i am grateful to all republicans who joined with us to allow this debate to go before us. now the hard work starts now. host: majority leader harry reid hears this, a bipartisan breeze begins to waft through congress. ed o'keefe, what's going on? guest: well, it's only one week

in the history of kong. i think having talked to a lot of senators about this. they look, if this is how things are going to work, if they are going to be -- there are going to be thoughtful, extensive talks on these issues and if it continues on to immigration and budgetary concerns then i have no reason not to vote for at least a formal debate of the issues. that's what the senate is supposed to be and that's what they said. i'm here to debate on the issues of the day and vote on it after it's been debated. that's something that hasn't happened in recent years and that cuts across geography rather than ideology. i think harry reid understands he has to do this. john mccain makes these statements and 16 republicans that were willing to proceed with debate. it's shocking to think the senate is following the rules. >> ed o'keefe the congressional

reporter for "the washington post" used to write to two chambers blog and now writing for "the fix." they have combined efforts and joined forces. he has had experiences working for "the washington post" including writing for the federal government in the federal eye after covering the 2008 federal campaign and a producer and still an anchor for "washington post" radio and as an overnight editor so you have had all the experiences from beginning to end. >> yes. host: from the "washington post" that the point. let's go to richard on our independent line. caller: good morning. i don't own guns. i don't really care about gun laws. t it seems like the media is -- all the television news stories seems to set off these people in waves. and host: who do you mean by "these

eople," richard? andre: disturb people who commit the crimes. so if we need an editor in chief, i could volunteer for that. because the first amendment really doesn't apply if people are dying. of course, i would give a waive ed and libby. you guys are great. guest: people have made that point. we'll see if there's any discussion of sort of how the first amendment bumps up against the second amendment. and causes some of this violence. and i think the fact that there's discussion of a commission or commission on mass violence is sort of a way of opening the door to a discussion of this outside of this. host: we see this in the proposal.o manyee

-- mansion-toomey proposal. guest: the way they see this or the way they have sold it to each other is if we find a bunch of people who can go sit in a room and hash out here's the, a lot of with which people this morning have been talking bout -- and if they come up to us with a unanimous set of recommendations and surveyed the country, why wouldn't we at least look at the possibility of taking these recommendations and turning them into legislation? it also essentially buys this issue more time. once the senate and has acted on this it maycom fell congress o come back after the 2014

elections and discuss it. the fact that school children were targeted in newtown now makes it an issue that can be discussed more openly to ensure such a thing doesn't happen again. so it's designed to buy congress some time and allow others to discuss it outside the realm of congress. host: republican, john, hello? caller: good morning. there's three things the i would like to safe. first that the connecticut shooter murdered his mother. e stole her gun. he stole her car, and then he drove to a school and murdered 26 other people. the law they are talking about -- there's not a law they are talk about that would have stopped him or loughner or holmes because none of them had

been adjudicated mentally ill. then it's ludacris to think somebody is going to break into a house, steal guns and take them and trade them for drugs and that a background check is going to be done on the illicit trade of those weapons. host: john, we see a comment that says none of this has to do with gun control or keeping anyone safe. it's about the expansion of federal power and scope. another person whose thought was similar to yours was the minority leader mitch mcconnell. let's take a listen to what he had to say yesterday before the vote. [video clip] >> i believe government should focus on keeping guns out of the hands of those with mental issues that could cause them to be a threat but the government shouldn't punish law-abiding

citizens but unfortunately, s 649 has the focus entirely backwards. host: ed sned guest: -- host: ed o'keefe? guest: he is a number of republicans that said they ould have tried to block this. what he does is sums it up. the focus on guns as opposed to mental health and why it is people decide to act out is something that they don't think is necessary covering this bill. but they say we are going to have a conversation. host: democrat. welcome. caller: good morning to you and your guest. the debate about the gun issue, i've heard a lot regarding gun owners and their fear that their right to bear arms is going to be abridged and it

says a well-regulated militia being -- the right of the people to bear arms. if you look at the constitution, libby and your guests, what am i missing in reading the constitution and section 8, article i to provide for the -- the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions. here the founding fathers and slave owners, what insurrections are they worried about? slave insurrections. we have no more slavery in this country and in terms of invasions we have an army and if you want to look at the drug wars, look at those invasions to protect us from the influx of drugs coming into our country. the second and last sentence to provide for organizing and arming and disciplining the militia and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the united

states. reserving trick or treat united states the employment of officers and militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress. i pray that the supreme court would adjudicate the constitution as it's read that we would read the constitution and that our lawmakers would follow and legislate according to the great document of our country. host: all right. let's take a look at the second amendment as we get a response from ed o'keefe. guest: i like the fact that people have copies of the constitution and read them so closely. all of the callers are aware the debate could potentially head and i can assure you your lawmakers are hearing from you and hearing what you have to say and i think there's a real eager necessary to discuss this which is why you will hear the balance of april and into may discussions of this. host: and the court has ruled

that americans have a right to keep loaded guns at home. now may decide whether and to what extent there's a right to take them out and about. the court is expected to consider when they will hear from a handful of residents whose applications for licenses to carry them will be turned could be. guest: and there is talk of allowing one's state-issued concealed formente apply everywhere else. certainly, that will be a big factor i suspect in this debate. host: let's here from jacob. independent caller. are you with us? last chance. we'll move on from there. ed o'keefe, what are you going to be watching in terms of signs of how and ultimately how thingsal ultimately shape up. u taken us through the timeline of things, but what are you going to be looking at?

>> which amendments get proposed and which ones rise to the top and which ones are harry reid and democrats allowed to be voted on and do they try pull any procedural maneuvers to make it difficult for some to pass and if that starts to happen it may start to poison the well and make it dot pass anything. they run the risk of seeing certain propose also this would really water down the bill. the president himself made it clear in talking about the mansion-toomey agreement that it's not what he wanted but at leastal appreciated the fact that the congress was working together in a bipartisan fashion. this fact that they got through this week when everyone seems to be relatively pleased, that's one down. we'll see how things are at that point. host: ed o'keefe, read his stories at "the washington post."com. one of his recent stories is about his maneuvering in the

senate and he is writing extensively about gun issues. coming up next, documentary filmmaker ken burns will preview his film "the central park five" which airs on p.b.s. next week. and then a look at bipartisan policy with steve bell. we'll be right back. >> saturday, book tv is life from the annapolis book festival with panels throughout the day. at 10:00 a.m. eastern, maryland

in 18 12. ar, and slaves and opportunity. at 1:00, the ever evolving roles of women in society then at 2:00 former commoonks edwards. the napalitano book festival live saturday part of book tv this weekend on c-span 2. >> saturday on american history tv, a chance to weigh in life on emancipation and civil rights and the role of corporations in american life. both panels from the organization of american historians meet information san francisco. it starts at 9:30 a.m. eastern with a look at the black freedom movements. from stanford professor claiborne carson. then at noon a debate on american life following your questions at 1k34r07b.

american life, saturday, starting at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 3's american history tv. >> "washington journal" continues. host: ken burns documentary filmmaker. his new project is "the central park five" airing on p.b.s. thank you for joining me. >> thank you for having me. host: why did you think of take ing on this story? and my daughter is a -- her husband was behind it , too, and they took us along on the journey. my daughter got interested then obsessed with it. she has such a fierce sense of fairness and thought this was one of the greatest injustices our time and we had an opportunity to look over her

shoulder and say this is a film. on april 19, 1989 a young woman jogging in central park was brutally raped and left for dead. n the ensuing hours five young african-americans among other young african-americans and hispanics were rounded up and eventually five were charged with the crime and spent up to 30 hours in intense zpware investigations without parents and lawyers and food and with cop assic good cop-bad intense interrogation by seasoned veterans. the five had never been in trouble before. they had come from good, stable families, lower-middle class families and ended up confessing. and despite absence of d.n.a. ed and complete reaccountanting of confessions once they got out of there, a jury convicted them and were sentenced up to

13 years in jail after which the real rapist came forward and his d.n.a. matched the only known frenzic sample from the crime scene and it looked like a happy ending despite they served out their huge thing but then they launched a civil suit against the city of new york which is still after 10 years the city heent reached completed dep decisions or the full discovery portion of the trial. so it's one of these things at's both a rip story that would attract any story teller and a police, procedure y'all if anyone likes christchurch or law and order, but it's also this haunting case that has echoes back to the beginning of the founding of our republic

that echos the scotsborough boys and you begin to wonder at what point do we say successful in do we have liberty and justice for all or for just people of certain skin color or ability to pay? so the issues of not just race but also class enter into this story in an interesting way, and i think just to sum it up, what sara burns and david mcmahon and i were trying to do was ask some basic questions. how could this have snapped and who were these five children then now men? they had had their voices robbed from them during course of this. if you were a member of the central park five then you were this wolfpack, you were beasts. the courtroom artist painted them almost as if they were not human beings, simiens. and it played into all the racial stereotypes but this was

a progressive northern city not jim crow at the beginning of the century when the default was to haul them out of jail and string them up yet it was a failure by police and prosecuters and the media to not bring their normal skepticism. so i think the film is just an teept sort of in a straightforward journalistic sense ask how tchowled happen? and to get to know the five finally after 24 years. host: ken burns, documentary talking about his new film "the central park five" airing on tuesday 9:00 p.m. on pbs. if you would like to call, the numbers are at the bottom of the screen. host: here's the front page of the "new york daily news" back in the 1989 timeframe.

central park horror. wolfpack's prey. female jogger near death after savage attack by roving gang. that's what the headline looked like at the time. then "the central park five" five how the media was covering this story. [video clip] >> in new york city this morning are jogger is fighting for her life after a brutal attack in central park. >> battering and wearing only a jogging bra her hands tied over her mouth. >> the suspects are 14 and 15-year-olds who blazed a nighttime blaze of terror. >> hitting another person with a led pipe at one time the back was running in a pack of 25. >> a significant loss of blood and advanced hypothermia. >> if she lives it's likely she'll suffer from brain damage. >> eight suspects were taken in.

>> some said they were just out "wilding." >> "wilding." new york city say that's new teenage slange for attacking people just for the fun of anytime packs. >> they say the teenagers have confesseded and some of those confessions are on videotape. >> a woman jogging in central park. central park was holy. if it had happened any place else other than central park it would have been terrible but it would not have been as terrible. it was for everybody, not just e, the crime of the century. host: the film "the central park five," ken burns shows us the media climate at the time. guest: it's interesting, for as

long as the public has been here those not accepting from the government an official version until they means test it. there were glaring contradictions within each of these coerced confessions. there were contradictions between those confessions and there was no d.n.a. evidence. the timeline didn't add up. the cops declared this was the crime of the century and the pressure to solve it was great and within a few days they announced they had a slam dunk case and they didn't. is was the work of a solo, searl sociopathic rapist who had attacked a woman days before and the woman got away and the cops found out his name then oops, forgot. then in the focus of this horrible crime they plowed not just towards questioning these

kids but they were part of a kid -- group of kids that had one into the park and some were kids who had gotten into trouble but these five were the most vulnerable and had never been in the system so how would accused? e ones because the bad ones "lawyered up" as they say in the tv shows d they realized they let the real guy get loose and they just kept that -- they didn't put the two cases together all that summer of 1989 and these kids went down for it and didn't need to. when they finally caught this guy civilians caught him after

he raped several other women and murdered a pregnant woman. civilians came and sat on him until police got there and into who put the words ese five kids' mouths didn't take this guy's d.n.a. and just walk it over and solve everything. host: ken burns talking about his new film "the central park five." michael, democrat from new york city, hi there. aller: good morning. i used to do ken burns' dailies, so it's been a long time, but i was wondering has any of these cases of these people, has any of them wanted to try to get an out of court

settlement for the civil courts? host: before we get a response to that, do you remember when this happened? were you living in new york at the time? back in 1989? caller: certainly, yes. host: what are your memories? caller: well, i thought it was really crazy. i really believed what i was hearing on the news that these kids did this wilding thing and it just got really crazy and that they had also done other things in the park according to what the police were saying. so it was really believable at the time. host: this was really one of the amazing things. we all bought it. i was editing my book and remember reading this incredible tsunami of lurid tabloid coverage and thinking

oh, my goodness what's happened to our cities and families and how could this have happened? and the fact that the press wasn't questioning it meant we as citizens weren't questioning it. and it was everyone believe that i had had done it. the african-american community believed they had done it. it was a sense of our city is out of control and senator cuomo was saying no one is safe even if you lock yourself in your house. so after they were exonerated in december of 2002, a lot of good it did them. they had already served out their full sentences and in 2003, we're coming up on the 10-year anniversary, they launched a civil suit asking for damages because of his false arrest and conviction and imprisonment. and normally these cases are solved within a reasonable period of time but the city said this is a no-settlement case meaning it will go to

trial and they have done everything they could to delay it including subpoenaing last fall all of our outtakes and notes for this case, something which forced us to hire a lawyer. we felt this was engaged journalistic principles that nt way beyond ours and a magistrate quarterbacked the subpoena and rebuked the city in so doing but the city of course with almost unlimited resources has appealed that and has brought us into this delay. i don't mean in any way, too, to suggest our circumstances as film makers are drawn into this should it in any way overshadow the fact that we have 13 years of justice denied then another 10 years of justice delayed which is justice denied because the city is protecting the

that had prosecuters their wrong doing and we asked them for months take part of this and found in the archival record as much of the press conferences and statements to represent the side of those who refused. they said super officially i think they were cowards hiding behind the skirts of the ongoing civil case but kept saying they couldn't talk about it. but they couldn't answer any of the questions we would have asked them about the case. there are just so many glaring holes and this is -- it's so funny. sometimes these issues get taken up by political factions, one side or the o and what's so extraordinary is the reaction of this film has been across the board oh, yeah. i believed it, too, and there's

a evidence and it's only those folks who as the journalistic dwire in our film said they are stuck in a mistake and there's -- they are invested in that mistake and desperately trying to protect their reputation. so one hopes the mayor of new york will wake up and say remind me again why we are spending hundreds of thousands maybe millions defending people who made a mistake 24 years ago? couldn't we pat period on the end of this and couldn't this be part of my legacy to put an end to this and not only could closure by e people also for us those responsible for digesting that from the media and the media for failling so miserably to be their usual skeptical selves

wait a second, this didn't seem right. host: let's listen film "the central park five." [video clip] >> i look back at the jogger case and wish i had been more skeptical as a journalist. you know, a lot of people idn't do their jobs. worst prosecuters, defense lawyers. this was a proxy war. and these young men were proxies for all kinds of other agendas. and the truth and reality and justice were not part of it. host: ken burns, you think there was awareness at the time that there were these larger socioeconomic issues going on? guest: yes. i think. and unfortunately it became a negative feedback loop. so we were talking about these things but nobody was actually

addressing the crux of it. jim dwire was hard on himself. he was in many ways the lone skeptical person saying hey, this stinks a little bit. this is too quick. these kids you can clearly see within their videotaped confessions that they are obviously parrotting what the prosecutor standing behind had worked out with them over 30 hours of intense negotiations. or interrogations. i think because of the state of new york which we try in the film to describe with crime and crack and out of control feuding between neighborhoods, there was always as mayor koch said, this would be a test of the criminal system but in many ways it was a reactionary moment. it was just so lurid, so to the e so connected

nation and gone with the wind that you had the roving band of black beasts that wasn't true but played into everybody's fantasy and everybody sort of bought into it. so while we discuss race and class and poverty and crime and justice, we were discussing it from the unimportant to position of having swallowed whole something that wasn't true. so we were all living a kind of lie, and these kids, children, were having to read newspapers by respectable columnists, patrick buchanan suggested that they hang the oldest, corey wise, developmentally-challenged 16-year-old. in age only. hang him in central park and flog the other four. as a lesson. donald trump took out full page ads in all the dailies asking

for the return of the death penalty and as a result of this case it did return to this state human cry was so great and hopefully these children would not have been victims of that had it been in place but we just missed it. and the cops and prosecuters and secondaryly the media should have caught it. should have entertained alternative narratives when there was no d.n.a. match, an incredibly bloody crime scene and there's nothing of the crime scene on the boys and nothing of the boys on the crime scene that at some point somebody would have said let's assume they did it but let's see what about this guy we just picked up when he's been doing this and his m.o. was in this case what if we checked his d.n. a.? nobody did that. host: "the central park five" a film by ken burns, his daughter

sarah burns and david mcmahon also. let's hear from ron on our independent line in new york state. where are you calling from in particular? caller: the edge of the hamiltons. host: go ahead. you're on the air. caller: this seems to be a problem all over the place. i recently saw a show on these three kids put in pridsen for 18 years in arkansas. they found out with d.n.a. that they didn't do it they were not even there yet they had to plead guilty. to the crime. to get released. and they didn't do a thing. and recently there was another black guy that just got released from prison that they found out he didn't do anything. he had to plead guilty. i don't understand that. if you didn't do the crime, why do you have to plead guilty? guest: and do the time. caller: i guess the main thing

is the state doesn't want to be screwed for screwing up and when they do screw up, they can't admit it. nobody wants to@admit they did wrong. guest: you've hit the nail right on the head. this is an extraordinary story "the central park five." it has everything in it if you're looking at a story, as i said before. but it's not unique. if it was unique it would be a good story. it's also a good story because it's not unique. this happens almost every day and has echoes of the scotsborough boys in 1901 and the beginnings of jim crow. we read in our papers of someone who has just been released from jail after 40 years or 25 years and it's prosecutorial misconduct or overenthusiasm or something like that. this is happening too frequently and all of us have to be concerned. it doesn't matter what the political persuasion is.

all of us have to be concerned. if there's not justice for all, there's not justice for all. host: hi, p.j.? caller: let your guest take a break and let me talk for a moment. the way i see it it's misplaced sympathy. i don't know if the gentleman lives in a gated community but i suspect he does. my hometown of trenten is a hole and we have gangs of black youths that break out windows and i take exception saying the general teal white woman in the country the fear of being attacked by these hordes of blacks well it is happening in every city across america and by you generating sympathy like this the police are going to be even more hands off to them and the cities are going to get even more unsafe. yes, they may not have been not guilty of the sexual crime

against the jogger but they were out doing bad the night they were picked up. host: why do you say you believe they were up to no good? caller: because i was alive at the time of the incident and i followed the story on the news quite well. they admitted they were in the park and probably throwing stones, breaking things. this is unsupervised black youths. there's a big problem across the -- host: what race are you? caller: i'm white. white european, my family has been here four generations. host: let's get a response. guest: it's very true and i understand the fear that builds up of the other and crime and when we use words like "them" and "they" we fall into the asumpingses that they were all the same. it's interesting at the same time a white mob killed and drove a black man to his death

in howard beach in new york city. and they didn't call them wilders and they didn't call them a wolfpack or beast. the same thing happened in benson hurst. that doesn't happen in that way. these kids in our american justice system have to be convicted of the crime hits that committed. the idea that the default position is well, they must have been up to some no good, these kids were in fact from good families and hadn't been in any trouble and were in the park and saw some of these other kids committing crimes but split and were actually horrified themselves of what they saw. and your family came -- unfortunately in slavery and

chains seeking freedom, if we are going to say well, they must have done something wrong and that therefore all of them are up to no good the crimes in the citys are going down in many places around the world but that's not the justice system. that may work in a soviet or chinese justice system but it doesn't work in america where you are presumed innocent until proven guilty and that you are charged in due time for crimes that you actually commit. we don't just round up kids and say because of the color of your skin you must have done something and the suggestion of that runs counter to one of the reasons why we founded this country and one of the reasons why your an crestors moved here. host: let's hear one of the accused in his own words talking about the plea deal. [video clip] they got to one deal where they pulled me in the conference room and the lawyer said you know we're going to lose this case what we're planning to do

is see if we can get you a plea deal. i remember telling them you guys can cop out but if i did something, i would cop out i would want the least amount of time for what i did. if i didn't do anything you can give me the rest of my life in prison. i didn't know what that meant back then but i just knew there would be no way i would cop out to something i didn't do. >> they said it has to be all three of you or nobody so we looked at each other and we were like well i guess it's nobody. guest: so at every juncture in this complicated tragic narrative, these kids, good kids had opportunities to sort of cop out of this thing. take a plea deal. when they came up for parole and they were sent to prison, and every diet you have about prison happened. they come up to parole. if they admit it they get out

earlier. they don't admit it so when we think about the last caller and presumptions. racism is essentially denying the voice to the other. it's a ma sasttized version of love of one's own but what happens is if you attribute the characteristicics to all of the other then you the miss chance to hear the humanity so part of this film was listening and saying who was antron and raymond and those who you saw there? who is corey stpwhies and they turn out to be real human beings who live lives as full as you and me and all of your viewers and it became important just to say well, who are you? what happened to you? what do you think? and to see the poise with which they are handling themselves now with a kind of admiral lack of birnes, you begin to that you understand film is a journalistic tool but almost

like a lie detector test. and i would urge your previous call tore see the fism on tuesday at 9:00 p.m. on pbs across the country. because i think you can go in and as i think he is absolutely convinced of their guilt. if you listen you are hard-pressed to find these central park five are in any way anything other than heroic to have with stood what they did for so long and still have not received adequate justice. so to me it's an amazing story and i'm not surprised by the varying degree of opinions but i think they expose us more than they exfose central park five and unfortunately the mirror that this holds up to all of us is not always a pleasant one. host: democratic caller kevin joins us now. caller: good morning. thank you c-span for the

important work you do. i learned so much watching. mr. burns, i can -- i want to applaud you. this is important work. expand your to comment about how this is not a unique situation. every year in new york city 500,000 summons, petty violations, are written, and a veteran criminal court judge commented and noted that as hard as he can remember he could not recall a white defendant being brought in front of him for drinking alcohol in public. of course this is not at the level of the central park five but it shows this systemic type embedded in h is

the criminal justice system. and the judge who i refer to whose name is noe, he has been sitting on the court for almost 20 years. and these selective almost not provocation but selective criminal charges brought against these kids, most of them black and hispanic continues to this day and i think that's a big part of what happened to the central park five and what they got caught up in. guest: you're right. it dates back to all the historical references, the scotsborough boys and also radiates to the present not only because their case is still ongoing but because we have stop and frisk in new york city. because we understand that with the best intentions, crime procedures are almost a form of racial profiling and we sort of are saying well, are we going to trade the low, low, impossibly low crime rate

nephew new york city now for a return to what it was if we don't do this stop and frisking? and i think it raises huge, huge and important questions about who we are as a people and what we think, and again, it goes back to judging people as doctor king said, on the content of their character or on the color of their skin, and we ought to have a justice system that is dedicated to the former and not the latter. host: ken burns, documentary, filmmaker. his work has won oscar mom nations as well as emmy awards and in 2008 they won the news in the academy -- life-time achievement award. >> i'm not stopping. host: he has been honored with more than 40 major film and tv awards. his latest is "the central park

five." he created this with his daughter and her husband. it is airing tuesday at 9:00 p.m. on pbs. caller: a huge factor in why the happened is because you have for 50 years now women like gloria allred coming out on every tv channel saying all men are potential rapists and the abuse of women, that all men are no good. all right? this is why people don't question these kind of things and off suggestion for you mr. burns for your next documentary why don't you do a dew pointry of the thousands and i mean in the thousands, it's documented. cases of american women molesting and sleeping with underage boys, all right? it's just too far now. there's too many people saying men are all bad. you brought up law and order, that melissa hagger did, every

show is about a man remaining a baby or a woman, and i'm sick of it. why don't you do something and talk about all these thousands and thousands of women who are -- host: richard, you're breaking up on us. guest: so richard, this is a complicated thing you bring up and once again you want to be careful not to be cat gaborikal about all women or all things. but you do raise an important point. in the midst of this story was a crime victim, "the central park five" jogger who was the -- central park jogger who was brutally raped and had a omicide case actually assigned to her because she was at the brink of death and emerged from it and has had a spectacular

recovery and is documented in our film. strains to remember that the victims that night were her but also the other five. and i think we just want to be careful of categorizing that. it's really threw some other crimes don't go reported as much, but i think in point of fact, if you look at the crime statistics, overwhelmingly the sexual crimes and particularly the violent ones are done by men. it leads to this fury that we have about the vulnerability of people. that's what should be addressed. i've also got the next 10 years of filmmaking under way. and various projects. but i think that it's important to remember that there was first and foremost an original victim, a woman whose name we know, trisha miley, because she wrote a book. we wouldn't be giving her name

unless she wrote a book but she suffered immense physical damage from this attacked and always our hearts are with her. and "the central park five" themselves have been so feeling about this and even though they didn't do it but some of the people have had their own world rocked by the relatively new revelations that they in fact didn't do it and now they have to reconstruct or not the narrative of what happened from a brain that fortunatelyly has spared her from the details of that horrific attack. host: democrats line, welcome matthew. caller: yes. welcome. guest: good morning. caller: i would just like to say thank you for your contribution to helping out america. but this is not a new thing. it happens every day.

i had it happen to me myself in this town in alabama. i was beaten and a cop broke his hand and they charged me for it. and assault on officer but got dropped down to a second-degree charge. but the point is it happens every day. and they make patsies out of the american people because they get revenue. it's government revenue. and some people just don't care. some counties just don't care. if you're not in that county or just pass through the county, it's money for them. i've seen the likes that they have beaten me, can you find me to a radiator and had a concussion and broke my back and never let me see a dr. but thank you, sir, thank you for spreading the word, and thank you. guest: well, the caller is absolutely right.

this happens all the time, every day, probably will happen today, and i'm sorry to say tomorrow. you will see when you have a chance on tuesday night watching "the central park five" at 9:00 p.m. on pbs, but i'd check your local listings, because sometimes it varies a little bit. but you will meet kevin richardson who was arrested and in the course he is hit by a policeman and is give an scar on his face. and the police then use that in the interrogations with the others saying here is a picture of him. see that scar? she did that to him. he is going down for this, if you say you saw him do this we'll let you go home and quite to have been very things the cops do while arresting are turned against them as they charge kevin with resisting arrest. this is the stuff of -- this

shouldn't be in the united states of america, but unfortunately, it happens all too often. host: what are the lives like of the central park five now? >> all of them suffer from some form of president south dakota. one changed his name and moved to the south where he lives in anonymity and is a fork lift job and keeps his head down and fears the day when some big hand comes on his shoulder even though he's been exonerated and the other four represent a kind of band of brothers in new york city. they are still in new york and see each other frequently and go to all the trial events and come out with us and speak and they have varying degrees of success. corey-wise is on disability. raymond and kevin they have jobs. yusof is probably at least the

most outwardly successful in a job with i.t. but all of them are scarred. i think if you and i or anybody of our viewers would consider where you were when you were 4 or 1r5 years old and what you looked forward when you were it's and had cars something you will never get back. amount of compensations occur. they have an amazing absence of birnes and they are extremely articulate and they have been patient in the face of this unbelievable, rep

lentless delay of tactics and they will sometimes ask raymond's father for 25 years of employment records and then the prosecuters who are required by law to keep their records lose them and suddenly find them magically when a judge finally says you will be cited if you do not produce them so in its 10th year it's being delayed like this with no end in sight. and that's not justice and god knows how much taxpayer money is being spent toe protect these prosecuters and police state not even with the anymore. host: talking about ken burns documentary airing tuesday night at 9:00 p.m. on pbs. the film is called "the central

park five." dave, england learn town, new jersey, republican, hello. caller: good morning ken. i'm a huge fan of yours. i love your work and your attention to detail and especially historical documentation. i think it's fantastic. i definitely will be watching this movie. naturally all the points you bring up are true. you would automatically assume these five young men were guilty and to see what they were put there is an aberration. it's terrible. i changed by view. i used to be a kill them all and let god sort them out-type guy. but i realize there are a lot of injustices in the world and people do need to be defended. a couple questions for you. did you work with the innocence project on this? i was just curious. >> after the film was done, we

have sort of intersected with them because of course they have done an amazing job of sort of highlighting the failures of the criminal justice system and used d.n.a. to help to exonerate a number of people and have gotten them out of jail. more to the point raymond and yusof spent a great deal of time going out talking to youth and others with the innocence project and not with us but it's not a liberal thing to carry about justice. i understand sometimes we do tend to go into our camps. but i think we all want a criminal justice system that's fair and works and has a level playing field that can't be bought. that honors the poorest as well as the richest among us. and there's a sense that if you are of a certain pigmentation and have enough money you can get the kind of justice you want and that shouldn't be the

case in the united states for america. at least things, our constitution and declaration and our pledge of allegiance and anthem suggests we are for something higher than that. i don't think it's a political question at all. you had another question? caller: yes. do you plan on more collaborative efforts with your daughter? and if so, which way do you see in her mind if she is going to continue these types of documentaries? or is she going to move on to a different more historical -- kind of follow in her father's footsteps thing? >> it's an interesting question. guest: you know i'm a proud papa whose buttons are busting from having the privilege of working with my daughter and my son in law who i have worked ith before as well this covers

1989-2002 so it's very much the recent history and historical presentation so if you like some of the other things, you will like this. and we had to bring in stylistic influence. so my daughter and son-in-law and i are in the middle of a film about jackie robinson. because today a feature film "42" is being released about e fictionalized release of the film of jackie robinson. but we are doing a documentary on him and he was huge part of the series we did on baseball. he deserves a stand-alone treatment and we have been working with his widow, rachel who has been very instrumental in getting this feature film made to tell the story of jackie robinson. but sara may