writing a blog post, it that your, and then you also have a lot of younger reporters, and then you have all of the others, politico, huffington post, and it consumes your life. if you have a family, if you are older, you now -- you cannot live on the road for what is essentially a two year campaign. there are those willing to fly around the country, and it is pretty fun if you're like a 25- year-old kid, going out there and doing it, but the downside, according to many members of the romney campaign i talked to is that the press corps likes experience,vitas, context. i interviewed stuart stevens, who was romney's sort of all- purpose media strategist at length, and he said he talked to reporters who did not know how to read a poll, who could not recognize pretty famous political figures, like ralph reed and robertson, and they saw this as a problem, and, again, these are the folks that work

-- that were again setting the really, onn twitter, the web, every day, and they thought that to be a major problem. >> absolutely. you also go a little bit about how obama and romney had a different strategy with the press and a different strategy about twitter itself. compare and contrast those. >> well, i think -- look. i laid out early on in the paper, using the romney campaign as a case study of how this is changing and the internet is tough, because romney is sort of a cautious. dad -- sort of a cautious guy, a way to build a campaign apparatus, and the romney campaign had to play catch-up. the obama campaign had a bigger staff. they had hundreds and hundreds of people in chicago monitoring

every tweet, or whatever. and, again, this is not me speaking alone. any number of reporters i interviewed for this said they thought the obama campaign adapted better to twitter. there are no rules about twitter in newsrooms. this all sort of happened. like washington, the political class discovered twitter in 2009 and 2010, and that was the midterms, and then all of a sudden, we are all tweeting, and we are not thinking about it, how it is impacting the campaign strategy, so a lot of people were using this on the fly. the romney campaign really kind of shut down a little bit as related to the press. if they saw a tweet that they thought was offensive, they would get mad about it. i think the obama campaign did a better job of reaching out and massaging things. i talked to david axelrod about this, and he said they learned

their biggest lesson about twitter at the first debate in denver. >> talk about that. let's separate that out, because i am -- this was not well-known. -- this was not going well, but boy, follow the twitter feed, this was a disaster. >> yes. it was game over. >> and you talk about this moment from ben smith. >> yes, we are in the press file for the first debate, and traditionally at a presidential debate or any debate, the consensus of what happened is sort of rendered, in the spin room afterwards, reporters talk, and this is what happened, and you trust your judgment. if you were watching twitter during the first debate, everyone, and it was not just the political class, it was that romney looks good, presidential, and ben smith, the editor of buzz feed, a smart political

decided why do we have to wait to say that romney won the debate? we already know. look at twitter. everybody says mitt romney had one -- had won. you were there. the romney campaign charged in, and i believe there was stephanie and david from the obama campaign, and they could not get out of there fast enough. they did not want to be there. this was another advantage the romney campaign had with this lengthy primary season, was they saw how consensus was formed on twitter during all of those debates, so they would watch the debates and see what reporters were tweeting about, so they would know what to talk about after the debates, and the obama

campaign, according to david axelrod, was not really prepared for that. they were caught off guard, fill in the second debate, they were able to go with reporters throughout the debate, doing rapid response, doing fact checks out there to different people during the debate in a way they did not do in denver, which was a total disaster for these guys. >> romney, you go around -- go on to say, twitter help to reinforce a lot of this negative feeling they had towards the press, because they were tweeting some stupid stuff. >> yes. that is absolutely the case. >> this is the thing. it is hard to blame the romney campaign for getting frustrated. >> right, exactly. >> it was a tough, tough, endless cycle. again, because the candidates today are so terrified, frankly, of the press tweeting every

single little thing, campaigns are keeping the candidates away from reporters, the what is a -- so what is a reporter left to do? if you're traveling around the country on an airplane, and nobody is talking to you -- >> spending a lot of money. >> spending a lot of money, they would spend upwards of $60,000 per week on these planes traveling with people, and it is a ton of money, and someone with the romney campaign called it the news hole, and these young reporters would sit on the plane, and they would sometimes be drinking beer, and they would be tweeting and being snarky, so the romney campaign would say, why would i want to have these people here who are making fun of our campaign every day? if they are making fun of his jeans or his hair or something. there was something called the orchestra pit theory, which is pretty interesting.

the fox news chairman, used to work for richard nixon. that is where he became famous. he has a theory about the political media call the orchestra pit theory, and that is you have two candidates standing on the stage. one guy says he has got a solution for the middle east peace process, and the other guy falls into the orchestra pit. what is the media going to cover? they will cover the guy who fell into the orchestra pit. there was a bunch of reporters waiting for mitt romney to fall into the orchestra pit. he would do a speech about an important issue, and then he would say something goofy about rihanna or chris brown, and that

would make it. >> you also mentioned tupak. >> rubio is good with talking about rap. talking to campaign operatives, no one sees a solution to this. i had lunch with a fairly prominent republican governor out in arizona, and this person a few weeks ago said, how can the media get better? how can we work with them better? i did not have an answer for that. they are scared. editors at newspapers are terrified for lots of reasons. the web is disrupting them. campaigns are scared of the media >> a couple of questions, , two. and i want to open this up to you guys. what is retweet journalism? >> this is interesting.

retweet journalism was coined by a man who does not like reporters very much, but he understands how quickly twitter can shape things. he calls it when a reporter just blindly retweets something without making a phone call to see if it is true. the example that tim used was a story about haley barbour, that he haley barbour was about to be indicted by the feds for tax fraud. nobody really knew who this blogger was, and yet that, for whatever reason that day, that tweet, linking to some story on some blog that no one read was retweeted by major national reporters, so they are lifting this story up and putting it into the national bloodstream

without bothering to check out whether it is correct or not. >> having two sources. >> right, two sources. and that is the problem with twitter at wmur news 9 washington post or the new york times. when you have you have to go a story or a scope or something, through your editorial process. story you needig two sources, and your editor should go through that with you before you post. twitter with hit equal velocity as a sketchy blog post, and they are all in that mix together. twitter has been good for journalists in a lot of ways because it is a meritocracy. it has allowed young, hungry reporters. it is actually a good time -- the pay may not be great, but

you can punch through a ceiling that existed five years ago that isn't there anymore. if you are good, hungry, smart, funny, you have a take, you can rise up based on twitter. people will follow you. bad journalism gets corrected it is also a good self corrector. bad journalism gets corrected pretty quickly now in a way that it did not use too. -- that it did not used to. >> so let's bring it back little bit, and that i want to open it up for questions after this one. you know, in the end, you talk about what the press can do better next time. you talk about what campaigns can do better next time. if i am just a voter, what am i supposed to do? am i supposed to block all of this out? >> somebody asked me this question recently also. >> garbage. a lot of twitter is irrelevant garbage that is not going to help me make a decision about who is the best.

>> look, if you're a regular person in texas or sacramento or toledo, wherever, you do not care that scott brown is in londonderry. we care deeply. so chances are if they do not care, they are not following you on twitter in the first place. i think i just wanted to write this paper to illuminate for people sort of why what they are seeing on the evening news or the today show or reading in their local paper, how that story kind of came to be in today's sort of media ecosystem, because i am not sure that everyone -- we all take twitter for granted. i mean, how many of you guys look at twitter? and how many of you guys get news on your phone? how many of you guys watched the evening news this week at least once?

>> that is a lot. >> that is more than i thought. >> he did not say at 6:30. >> dvr. >> that is right. >> but i was actually surprised that a lot of people did know that this was the case, that twitter really was the central watering hole, the gathering place for so many people in the press corps in washington and new york, and a big complaint, again, for a lot of reporters that were out covering romney. you want to be out there finding stories, digging up stuff, finding color, but a big complaint was that a lot of editors back home in new york and d.c. were just watching twitter all day, so ashley with the new york times will get a call from her editor that says, did you see this thing on twitter that says this about romney, can you confirm this, can you confirm this? and all effort time is chasing

what people at home or asking her to is the opposite of what confirm. and that it used to be. you used to be the one determining the news, and now the agenda is being set just on twitter, and people on the plane are increasingly relevant, -- irrelevant, because they are not setting news every day, and the candidates are not talking about the news either. >> let's open it up for questions. the microphone is over there. and there. so go ahead and ask away if you have a question. >> great. >> so first off, you are talking about how politicians do not really like the whole twitter agenda. do you think that is a situation where the politicians need to evolve to deal with the new communication climate, or is it that journalists should devolve and stop using twitter as this medium? >> it is a combination.

i think from the journalist's perspective -- again, the last section of this paper, which you can read online for free, on the harvard website, it talks about recommendations for 2016. i do think a lot of reporters that i talked to felt a little guilty about the way they behaved on twitter, and a lot of political operatives, they think reporters need to either be trained in how to use twitter or have an editor for their tweets. even since the election, we have i do think thateven since the election, we have seen -- i do not know if you guys in the romney campaign would agree with me, but i think people are dialing it back a little bit. people are not as over-the-top and snarky and mean and chasing everything as they were during the campaign. i think we are evolving in a way of how we use twitter, which is good. i think editors making assignments for 2016 will have

to say like, hey, just think twice before saying something. i sent a tweet once about some outfit obama was wearing, and -- about some outfit mitt romney was wearing, the obama press secretary fired away, and she was right. i have not done a snarky tweet since then, to be honest, but from a campaign perspective, i was talking to and about this on n about talking to an this on the way over here. dan asked john mccain this question, do you think the straight talk express could exist today, and mccain said no, there is no way. the reporters are too young. there is no filter. every little gaffe will make it out there. i talked to john todd about this, who said there might be somebody to crack the twitter code. reporters who are evolving will maybe be a little more forgiving if a candidate says something off-color, and we realize that

was just a little bit of a slip up. don't worry about that, we are not going to tweet that. the other is to just shut the media out completely. or completely barraged them with everything and will not be able we to keep up, and that maybe another way to do it. one other point i make in this paper, which i think is important in 2016, looking at the people who might run, jeb bush, hillary clinton. i mean, jeb bush's last statewide campaign was 2006? no, 2002. hillary clinton? look. a lot of reporters covering politics now were not even in elementary school when the clintons were in the white house, so they do not necessarily hold the clintons in the same esteem the way a lot of

our older colleagues in the press do and also from hillary's perspective, she is not fluent in twitter. in 2008 when she was running, nobody was using twitter. look at somebody like chris christie or marco rubio, who have come of age politically in the youtube/twitter era. they are kind of at ease. >> it is an asset for them. >> chris christie. sure. they know it is going to get on twitter. they are used to this political environment in a way that other candidates, like john mccain, do not, even though john mccain has a ton of followers. >> in a campaign, the last reporter with a blackberry, and i do not know how this is going to work for him. it will be fascinating. he will have to figure it out. anymore questions?

>> hi. great talk. very interesting. welcome to the new hampshire institute of politics. so if i am understanding this correctly, you are saying twitter is really influencing what people are putting on the news, and it is starting with twitter, and if that is the case, because i believe it is, because i use twitter, cnn breaking news, it notifies me, and i do not even have to turn on the news. i wish i had the time, but not during finals, but if that is the case, do you think, especially with our generation i mean, we have a lot of different types of students here who do watch the news, but i know that there are many in their early 20's who are using their phones and twitter and facebook may be as a means of getting news. do you think that twitter is

going to take the lead and surpass nightly news as our generation grows up? is that going to out date nightly news? is twitter going to change that? >> not anytime soon, but the importance of tv is absolutely there, no question about that. pew did a ton of research about -- the importance of tv is absolutely waning, there is no question about that. pew did a ton of research about how people are processing the media. if you are under the age of 30 in 2012, you were not watching -- you are not watching tv news. only about one third of people under 30 watched tv news in the last week or something like that, and mobile -- so tv, newspapers, this way. tv, this way. >> interesting, tv news was always number one, and then cable. >> even cable viewership. yes. desktop, laptop computers,

pretty steady. mobile is going like that. even at cnn, we have made a huge investment in digital. my paycheck now comes from digital, because i am sort of native to that. we get all of our news on our phones, and that is ok. nightly news gets, what, 8 million viewers per night? twitter, influencing only a tiny segment of the population, but its growth potential is huge. something like 16% of the country is now on twitter, or as -- whereas 90% of the country is on facebook, so facebook has kind of plateaus. twitter has got a lot of potential.

but where is it will not take over the evening news, i do think that digital as a whole will surpass it. i mean, the only reason i have cable is to watch sports and hbo. like, that is it. and cnn and c-span. obviously. otherwise -- and i am not alone in that. i am 32 years old, and plenty of my friends wish they can drop their cable subscription, but they cannot because they want news and sports, but they do not need all of those channels, and they want to watch on their own time. i haven't watched a commercial in at least a week. >> except for cnn. you watch them all. >> except for cnn. ok? and sorry, one more point about this. in the ranks of campaign politics, there is just as big -- this big generational churn going on where people use the web all the time, and people are starting -- in the campaign ranks, people are starting web

ad firms as opposed to tv ad firms, and they just realize the growth potential is there for the web, whereas -- and the obama campaign was working this out too with their tv ads. they were not just buying local news. they were buying sort of niche, targeted ads. >> go ahead. while he is asking that question, i want to ask you a question. a longer answer, i know, so i apologize. what does this mean for the primary? new hampshire primary? a system that has always been this has been a system that has always been extremely transparent, town hall meeting after town hall meeting, not just reporters. everybody has got a phone. everyone can broadcast, and the idea of retail politics, it is different. it is what you saw with mitt romney. it is different for someone to kind of think it through. >> yes, i know him way more

-- about new hampshire. you know way more but you are totally right. if you are a republican candidate running in the primary, and we saw this in 2012, you can go on fox news and reach really directly a ton of primary voters in five minutes, and even the romney campaign admitted that fox news is a safe environment for republicans, so you are not going to get asked the hard questions there. you know, i do not -- i really have a hard time. whimsical. maybe i am just how many primary voters are there in new hampshire? >> for the primaries? about 100 to 150, depending. >> ok, so if it is like a smaller -- i think this is counterintuitive, but if it is like a smaller primary, i do think you have to go out there

and shake hands, whereas in south carolina -- >> there are some risks involved. >> in south carolina, it is like half a million primary voters, so you cannot hit everyone, so you have to go tv, radio, but, yes, the way campaigns can control their own messages, you do not have to do local media anymore necessarily. you still do, but you can create an info graph on facebook and share that, and there are no annoying reporters asking you questions when you are making a tweet or creating a web ad. primary voters are pretty wired. twitter users are pretty tuned in. there are primary activists in new hampshire and iowa, and i see their facebook traffic. that is the way a lot of activists communicate, is on social media now, so why go on local news?

they will ask you a tough question on wmur --i am just saying they are weighing these things now. >> my name is scott, and since i was a freshman, last year i was in high school, and throughout the whole 2012 election, i noticed a lot of juniors, sophomores, and freshman had these twitter accounts, and it seemed that the more twitter accounts there were for a younger group, so all of these twitter accounts will become voting age eligible as they weren't in which will most 2012, likely expand the potential, as you touched upon, so i was wondering what you think, as more twitter users to -- become voting age people, how you think either party could grasp onto the demographic of the twitter users that are

becoming voting eligible? >> yes, that cuts to sort of what we were just talking about. i mean, young voters are tough to find and contact, and they are tough to motivate, frankly. they do not necessarily show up. so the web just gives an access to reach young voters. point on twitter, social media. so, you know, i think -- again, this is why sort of the old media is dying and digital is rising. we all use the media in a it is just thatwe all use the media in a different way than our older friends do, and you are going to get your news from twitter. in 10 years, maybe you will still be getting news from twitter, that it is just a key access.

the web. >> ok. anymore questions? this is jim merrill, who led mitt romney's campaign here. >> peter, it is great having you here. i just want to say this was a fantastic piece of work you put together with this, and i really enjoyed it, so thanks for being here. two questions. the first one, you talked about, and we all know how quickly this this all involved and the lack of policies and procedures to govern how this unfolded with reporters and everything else, and i remember, i think i signed up for twitter in 2008, so i remember the first time it struck me the power of the medium, and they're there -- and there were the results coming in that i cannot get anywhere else. can you talk about whether there were any policies with news organizations that govern how the embedded reporters treated,

-- reporters tweeted, and any change over the campaign, some issues over time, and if there were, i would be curious to know how that works, and do you expect that in 2016. that is one, and two, talking about how it evolves, is the twitter feed the future of our candidates and elected officials? i am curious. >> i will answer the first one. i actually unfollowed cory booker. he would say, it was great to see you at this event, and then, love you too, bro, kind of childish, kind of unbecoming, frankly, for a u.s. senator, but who am i to say the way things are going? as to guidelines, look, i know from the cnn perspective, and i am certain other news organizations do, we have social media guidelines.

a lot of it revolves around not tweeting out other unconfirmed information, so-called retweet journalism. we saw this with mandela, who died. there was some twitter buzz about it, and cnn has pretty strict editorial policies and really good journalists, frankly, and they sent around a reminder, let's just wait until we can confirm this, so we played it safe. i do not think so, i did not i did not really see a lot of editorial changes across the board or have heard of any sort of crackdowns. >> it did not seem like there was. >> it did not seem like it, but then smith said, he did not want his guys tweeting in name crap on twitter, and he said, only tweet smart stuff, and we can go

back and look at those tweets and see if he was right or not. i just do not think so. i think we were all figuring out as it happened on that as you mentioned, and twitter just kind of exploded at some point in 2009, and we kind of never looked back and took a pause and said, are we doing this right? but, again, i do think, i do think -- i do not know if you agree, but the snark has died back of little bit. my friend scott works for real clear politics, and he is a great reporter, and sometimes he will e-mail me, did you see this thing on twitter? it is so dumb. dude, just close twitter. back away. the number of reporters who said i think more clearly, i write

more leisurely when i am not on twitter all day. it kind of scrambles your brain if that is what you look at first thing in the morning and the last thing you see before bed. it affects your thoughts, and also, twitter is a negative place. not to harp on you, but pew measured the negativity of different platforms during the 2012 campaign, the tone of people talking about president obama and mitt romney, and twitter was the bottom of the barrel, below facebook. it is just a negative, snarky place, just generally, so that kind of feeds -- you absorb some of that when you're on twitter all day, so i think people are being more judicious. again, a number of editors that i talked to said they are going to think more about heading into 2016 about do tweet this, do not tweet that. >> going back to those feeds during the debates, getting to a similar level of snark. >> we are supposed to be

objective. i guess. >> anymore questions? i want to talk a little about about what you were saying before. we had a chance to deeply think about this, so how are you going to approach your job differently, or how have you already begun to view your job differently? >> well, one thing, as i just said, there are days when i just do not go on twitter. i think that is valuable. one thing that twitter did during the 2012 cycle was it made small things seem big. staff hires, endorsements, smalltime endorsements, campaign infighting. what was called process stories, things that will influence voters, but they are about

politics, because everybody in the media was on twitter saying the same things, and if politico had a story about some focus group sang, all of the other news organizations were inclined to chase it and confirm it, and all of a sudden, we are talking about the same small stuff. a lot of conversations with reporters revealed that amidst all of that, there was the stuff that was really richly reported, the magazine pieces, the long form stuff, where people took the time to dig into mitt romney's time as a leader in the mormon church in beaumont, or some issues. those things landed with a pretty big impact, because amid all of this sort of surface level snowflake journalism that sort of evaporated son contact,

the media are --meatier stuff one of the things my colleagues and i do, i do not have to write a story every day. why do i not rate -- wait one day or, god forbid, four days, to write something, and then it is richer and more valuable, and i am detect a mat from some people, and that is something i hope to do more of in 2016, maybe stay away from the bubble, the bus and the plane, and can't out. >> an issue for buses also. the newsroom. if it is how many pages you are going to get, you can do 12 posts, 5000 page views, or you can do one post and get 10,000. >> yes. editors have to figure out balance. there will probably still be a horde of twentysomethings who

can crank out copy so they can get those links, but balance that out with reporters they can maybe step back and do bigger sort of pieces. >> one last thing here, and if there is any other questions, go ahead to the mica, but you kind of addressed this a little bit. where is this all going? are we on the cusp of something new and the way it is going to be, or are we in a transition phase, and we are figuring out how to use this better? rapid response is very simple now. hit back at the reporter publicly, not just e-mail or the phone, does the narrative is being set on twitter. is that where this is heading? >> again, i do not know. i think that -- first of all, they are using instagram throughout the campaign.

sort of popped later. we just do not know. i talked to casey hunt, who works for the ap now. she said to me, can you imagine a candidate who walks to the back of the plane and sees reporter sitting there with google glasses, and everything is live stream. that is not improbable at all, and she and i were both wondering, i do not see it getting better. and there are still reporters that campaigns are still talk to. figure out what is in their head, what makes them tick, but,

man, it campaigns can deliver the messages on social media with web videos on their own terms, increasingly, they are going to do it. at the end of the day, the mission is to win. you do not want to get thrown off message, and i think if they can't control the message, they are going to drive. >> eater, thank you for coming, and this is great. if you have not read it, you should google it. "did twitter kill the boys on the bus." thank you for coming. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> a look at the obama administration priorities for 2014. politico is from

caused pity white house editor. senior policy editor for the rand corporation on the ambition of special operations forces in iraq enough to understand. later, an examination of the american consumer spending habits and how they have affect did the gop and economy from the bureau of economic analysis and washington post economic policy correspondent. live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. friday, the encore presentation of first ladies continues with the life of jacqueline kennedy. she traveled all over the world with her husband dan spoke spanish and french. three years later, she would be a widow and witness to her husband's assassination. join us as we examine the life of jacqueline kennedy at 9:00

p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> i think radio is the longest in the best form of media. what we are doing now is short form. and charlie rose are the only guys who read books in order to talk to these guys and revealing.dously they don't get many people who have actually read their books and know what they're talking about. i get a great deal of satisfaction. that's the best interview i had on this book tour. loved the interview on things that matter, his new collection of essays, some of which are autobiographical. that makes my day. ofee hours is an abundance time. >> more with radio talk host sunday night at 8:00 on c-span "q and a."

not decide early on. until the last minute as he often did. he met with pennsylvania governor curtin on november 14 and that is when he finally realized he had to decide and did decide to go. the night of november 17, just as he said to his old friend james, the brother of his dear friend from wrotefield, he said he about half the speech and took the rest of what he had to gettysburg. there is good evidence he was not invited early and that he wrote the speech late but it does not mean it was not important to him. of care andt attention over his words once he knew he was going but just because he did not write it for two or three weeks doesn't mean it was not important to him.

>> events and circumstances surrounding the gettysburg address and the president's plan and approach for the speech sunday, part of "american history tv" on c-span 3. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the speaker of the house of representatives, john boehner. >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the state capital. we are honored to be joined by those that made this day possible including dan boren from oklahoma. [applause] we are fortunate to have in

congress two outstanding leaders, two native americans of tom cole and mark mullen. today, we need to immortalize men who were in no way, meeting for the first -- in a way meeting for the first time. during the second world war, he was a member of the 195th field artillery battalion. one day in 1944, he was walking through an orchard in southern france and heard one of his brother and singing under a tree. he recognized the dialogue and put them to work on opposite

ends of the radio. that coincidence brought these men onto the stage of history and alongside the elite band that we call code talkers. i asking all of you to join me in welcoming him here and thanking him for his service. [applause] [applause] edmund and his brothers were at normandy. they were on hiroshima. they mobilized the simplest

weapon, language, to thwart the fiercest enemy that free people ever known, and they made a difference. after serving with honor, they did the honorable thing, they kept their service a secret, even to those that they loved. so, these wives and daughters and sons aching to give back to those who gave up so much for them dedicated much of their own lives to unfurl in the truth, not for gain or glory, but just so people would know it is the story that is important, one of them said. many of these families are here today, and join me in applauding their perseverance. [applause] because of them, the deeds that might have well been relegated

to legend will now live on in memory. in heroes that for too long went unrecognized, they will not be given our highest resignation -- designation. it has been the custom of this congress to award gold medals in honor of great acts and great contributions. the first recipient was a general by the name of george washington in 1776. many names were put forward, but few receive the approval of both houses and the signature of the president of the united states. today, pursuant to hr 4544, we will recognize 33 tribes for dedication, valor, and for sharing what may be the toughest code, what it takes to be the bravest of the brave. they say every metal tells a

story, but by adding these men to such lofty ranks, we also mean to add their story. one worth pondering today, one worth retelling every day. thank you all for being here. [applause] >> ladies and please stand for the presentation of the colors by the united states armed forces, guard, the singing of our national anthem, and the retiring of the colors. ♪

>> present arms. ♪ >> what so proudly we hail at the twilight's last gleaming whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight o'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming and the rockets red glare the bombs bursting in air gave proof

through the night that our flag was still there oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave? ♪

>> please remain standing as the chaplain of the united states senate gives the indication. >> let us pray. oh, god, our refuge and fortress, we put our trust in you. thank you for this congressional gold medal ceremony that provides long, overdue recognition to native american code talkers of the first and

second world war. we praise you, that you empowered these wind-talkers from many native american tribes to creatively use their native tongue to save the lives of countless thousands who would have perished on distant battlefields. lord, while sacrificing on foreign soil for freedoms they and their families were often denied at home, they were heroes, proved in liberating strife, who, more than self, their country loved, and mercy more than life. as we celebrate their

patriotism, skill, creativity, speed, and accuracy that maiden victory in combat possible in spite of daunting odds, challenge us, oh god, to invest our lives in causes worthy of our last full measure of devotion. we pray in your great name, amen. >> please be seated. ladies and gentlemen, united states representative from the fourth district of oklahoma, the honorable tom cole. [applause]

>> as a native american, and as a grandson of a career naval officer, the son of a career united states air force noncommissioned officer, and the nephew and namesake of an uncle that fought and served honorably in japanese prison camps in the philippines on the main island of japan, it is an honor of me to share this moment with each and every one of you. in the long history of american arms, no one has fought against in alliance with and for the united states of america like native americans, and that is true to this day. native americans still enlisted a higher level than any other race or ethnicity in this blessed land and they do so proudly with a determination to defend it. [applause]

among the most famous of those warriors are the navajo code talkers of world war ii, but in all, 33 different tribes contributed, pen from my home state of oklahoma, and three from my district. they saved lives, they won battles, and they did so by giving the united states a unique battlefield advantage, secure communication. all of the first code talkers were americans, but many were not american citizens. that did not come until 1924. the code talkers of world war ii were often barred from full participation in american life, that they still served with pride, patriotism, honor, and sacrifice. i am proud that congress is recognizing that unique service. i appreciate my friend dan boren's role in that, and by honoring these code talkers, we

honor all native american warriors past, present, and future. good luck. god bless. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, united states representative from the third district of wisconsin, the honorable ron kind. [applause] >> good morning. admiral, speaker, senators, my colleagues, established guests, 33 tribes that are the recipients of the congressional gold medal today, and most important to our native american veterans and our code talkers, those that were able to make the trip, and those who are unfortunately still at home, we welcome you. we owe you a debt of gratitude

that could never be repaid, and on behalf of a grateful nation we thank you for your service and sacrifice. just a couple of weeks ago in this capital we dedicated the bust of prime minister winston churchill, and during the second world war, prime minister churchill was fond of saying that at time of war the truth is so precious that it must always be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies, but in the case of our code talkers, that was not necessary. you spoke the truth, but in the words of your native language, and it worked perfectly. it was not deciphered, decoded. you did it with the next ring degree of accuracy and speed.

as edmund knows, in the first 48 hours of the battle of you which imo, over 800 battlefield -- you would jima, over 800 battlefield communications were given with 100% accuracy rate typically in less than 30 seconds, when it would take a typical machine of the time close to a half hours to decode messages. it was a remarkable accomplishment that lead to a quicker end to that conflict -- and saved many lives on both sides. they returned home heroes, but without a heroes welcome. the code was so effective that our military kept that classified in secret until 1968, and even then, it took many more years before the recognition started to take place of what our native american veterans and our code talkers in particular did during that time. it is a remarkable legacy that they share, and a remarkable story that needs to be

preserved. that is why i am here to make one last request from a grateful nation -- to our native american veterans in attendance, and throughout the country, and to our code talkers here and at home, we're asking you to share your stories and make it part of the veterans history project. it was legislation i help to advance with the help of many colleagues with the intent to preserve an important part of american history, our veterans stories, and what it was like for them to serve our nation, so that future generations will never forget the service and sacrifice that came before them. today, the veterans history project is housed at the library of congress. we have collected close to 90,000 veterans stories from across the nation during this

time. they say it is the world's largest oral history collection, but many more stories are yet to be told. i hope we will be able to follow up with you, edmund, to see if you would be willing to share your story. colonel bob patrick, who heads up the history project, will follow-up with our native american veterans and tribes here in attendance to see if we can get more to participate and share these vital stories. i hope many of you will consider doing so. again, on behalf of a grateful nation, we say thank you for your grateful service, may god bless you and your families, all of our veterans and soldiers, wherever they might be serving us throughout the globe today, and may god continue to bless these united states of america. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, united states senator from the state of south dakota, the honorable tim johnson. [applause] >> good morning, and welcome.

it is an honor to be here today as we celebrate the military service of the native american code talkers. i worked for over a decade to honor the code talkers with the congressional gold medal. it is gratifying that this day is finally here. the real work, though, began 95 years ago, when native americans from south dakota and across the country (homes and joined the military effort -- left their homes and join the military effort in world war i at a time

when many native americans were not yet american citizens, but fought valiantly for assured homeland. native code talkers were used extensively in the european and pacific theaters during world war ii. the use of native languages was a fundamental tactic that saved untold numbers of lives and help to win both wars. over the years, i have had the opportunity to visit with several of the code talkers and learn their personal stories. i always walk into those meetings inspired by the dedication to our nation. these men did not seek the limelight, and in fact, there is a tremendous impact to our military that was kept from the public for half of a century. there is no question their contributions were unparalleled,

and have had a lasting impact on history. most of the native code talkers have passed away, but we will never forget their heroic actions and are forever grateful for their military service. today, we celebrate the lives and contributions to our country, with their families and friends who are with us today. congratulations to all of you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, united states senator from the state of oklahoma, the honorable james inhofe. [applause] >> we heard first from congressman tom cole who is our

native american art of congressional delegation. i recall hearing from him before he was in congress and at that time i was in the house, and introduced us to this best-kept secret of world war ii and world war i, the code talkers. i look around and i see a lot of people who were very active other than those on the program today, but on the program today we have made mention of dan boren. he is here. i believe wes watkins is one of the initial individuals who reminded us of this best-kept secret. so, for decades after world war ii, people did not know anything about the contributions we

started introducing resolutions and it was not until 2008 that we were successful. i want to mention that the speaker talked about edmund of the seminole nation, one of our fellow oklahomans. those of us have been fortunate, those in oklahoma, involved in this meeting today, and one of the reasons is oklahoma has the largest population of native americans and second only to california, and they cheat because they have more people. nonetheless, it became evident to us as to the contributions made. in his opening prayer, the reverend talked about the lives that were saved. we cannot quantify that but we know they were out there. because of the secretive nature of the code talkers contribution, you cannot say how many, but we know many, many lives were saved by these american heroes.

we pay tribute to today, we love you, it will always respect you and remember you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the united states army band and chorus. ♪

♪

forever"] ♪trips

>> ♪ hurrah for the flag of the free may it wave as a standard forever the gem of the land and the sea the banner of the right let despots remember the dauy when our fathers with mighty endeavor proclaimed as they marched to the fray that by their might and by their right it waves forever ♪ [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, the democratic leader of the united states house of representatives, the honorable nancy pelosi. [applause] [speaking native american language] >> good morning. it is an honor to be here with our speaker, to be here with our leaders, our native american brother congressman cole, with ron kind, with the distinguished senator johnson, and senator inhofe, and we in california take great pride in having the largest number of native americans. in 1941, and of course, with the admiral that we will hear from later. in 1941, a young member of a tribe, charles, joined the u.s. army, one of 17 members of his

tribe, he was recruited to speak their language in service to our country in world war ii. even in a nation that has long denied him his basic rights that long refused his people citizenship, that long neglected the challenges facing native americans, charles volunteered. like many of his generation, his fellow code talkers and service members, he signed up to protect and defend our communities and shared homeland. that is the oath of office that we all take to protect and defend, and the code talkers honored that pledge and helped us to honor hours, all americans to do so. years later, we save lives using the native american language. as soldiers and marines with codes, no enemy could decipher the code talkers saved lives on the beaches of normandy and at iwo jima.

they save lives on the invasion on d-day, the battles in the european theater, and fighting across the south pacific. they kept their code secret and safe, as the speaker mentioned. they served with undaunted bravery, part of a band of brothers that defeated tyranny, said a confident free, and restore the hope of democracy across the globe. the code talkers carried forward the hope of their people committed to the cause of freedom. their sense of duty was never shaken, nor was there a result. their patriotism never wavered, nor did their courage. the bonds of brotherhood were never broken, nor was there code. for their heroism and sacrifice,

the contributions that went unrecognized for too long is a privilege for congress to bestow the native american code talkers the highest honor we can bestow, the congressional gold medal, and by your acceptance -- [applause] and by your accepting it, you bring luster to this award. may these metals long and/or as a sign of respect, admiration and unending gratitude for our native american tribes and the sons and the sons they sent to battle. we all know that god truly blessed america with our code talkers. thank you and congratulations. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the republican leader of the united states senate, the honorable mitch mcconnell.

>> it is an honor to join my colleagues today in recognizing the service of the native american code talkers. a little more than a decade ago, congress and president bush honored the navajo code talkers for the tremendous contributions during world war ii. today, we honor the rest of the code talkers whose extraordinary skill and heroism will be remembered as long as the history of modern warfare is told. rarely has a group of men then so crucial to a nation's military success, yet so little known for so long as the native american code talkers. these heroes, some as young as 15, answered the call when the country needed them, and they perform their task with extraordinary courage and grace.

often working behind enemy lines, these men sent messages that once took hours to transmit in a matter of minutes or even seconds, all in the code they were not even allowed to put on paper for fear that it would be discovered by the enemy, and then when they came home, they could not even talk about their achievements. they had to keep them secret so that no one would know about this new weapon of war. so, we are deeply grateful for their service. hopefully, in the years to come, the deeds of these good men will be more widely known and all americans will know the inspiring story of these native americans who saved so many lives devising and deploying a code so effective that our enemies never broken.

it is a privilege to honor these men today, and to thank you -- thank them for their courage and sacrifice. the honor is long past due, but no less heartfelt. gentlemen, america is grateful for your service, and we are determined to honor the memory of your heroic deeds. thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the majority leader of the united states senate, the honorable harry reid. [applause] >> according to firsthand accounts from the pilgrims when they arrived on this continent, native americans did not farm the land, so it was not truly their land. according to the pioneers who pushed past the mississippi, native americans were not

civilized, so they did not truly own the land. according to prospectors who rushed for the hills of nevada, california, and even nevada, alaska, native americans did not speak english, so they did not truly own the land. strangers had forced the native people from the land, slaughtered their game, stifled the religions, outlaw their ceremonies, and ravaged their communities. next, the newcomers even try to steal their languages. in the late 1800's, the united states government forced native american children to attend english-only boarding schools. native children were torn from their families, taken far from home in boxed cars and buggies, given english names, and forced to cut their hair short.

teachers beat the children with leather straps when they spoke their native language. the government told them their language had no value, but the children held onto their language, culture, and history, despite great personal risk, and in this nation's hour of greatest need, the same native american thing disproves you have great value indeed. in the early days of world war ii, japanese code breakers cracked every american cipher, everyone of them and military members needed a code so obscure, so unknown, that even their own decoders could not break it. the perfect secret weapon would be languages all but forgot outside of a few isolated communities. the united states government ingeniously turned to people whose language they try to

eradicate, but why would native americans who have been robbed of their land and their culture of greed to use their precious language to protect a country that either neglected or abused them for centuries? here is why. one native american code talker, a young navajo man by the name of chester put it this way, "somebody has to defend this country. somebody has to defend freedom." no matter how many times the united states government had tried to convince them otherwise, the corporal knew that the united states of america was his land. this young corporal was just a boy, a high school student, when he enlisted. native americans, like the corporal, were so eager to serve that many lied about their age to enlist. these brave soldiers, these code

talkers had a special gift, their sacred languages, and they selflessly shared that gift with our country, their country. their gifts saved countless lives and helped win the war, and their willingness to share it made them american heroes. we honor our american heroes today. [applause] >> the speaker of the united states house of representatives, the honorable john boehner. >> thank you. i want to say thank you to my colleagues for their testimonials, and of course all of those in mid-december the possible.

-- who made this possible. we are going to present the medals, and i am asking you to hold your applause until the end so that we can give all of our honorees their proper due. >> ladies and gentlemen -- [reading tribe names] cherokee nation cheyenne and arapaho tribe choctaw nation of oklahoma comanche nation crow nation

fondulac band of lake superior chippewa montanaibes of hopi tribe kiowa tribe of oklahoma laguna pueblo menomine mohawk tribe muskogee creek nation oneida tribe indians of wisconsin osage nation pawnee nation of oklahoma ponca tribe of oklahoma tribed sioux

seminole nation of oklahoma sioux tribek tonto apache tribe tribemountain apache [applause]

[applause] >> if you could all remained standing, we will have the benediction. >> ladies and gentlemen, the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. >> ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats, and if our wonderful native americans who have received their medals,

would like to retire to their seats, i will not make you stand while i talk. i will say good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and while you might be taking your seats again, allow me to say -- [speaking native american language] -- and i beg your forgiveness if i did not encode my readings -- greetings and i cannot produce greetings for all of the tribes that we have here today. mr. speaker, leader harry reid, leader nancy pelosi, other distinguished guests, and most importantly, today's honorees, guests and families, we are very proud of you, and i'm very proud to be included today. here during native american heritage month, i have the great

privilege of representing the finest military in the world in recognizing the hundreds of native americans who have worn the cloth of our nation in the distinctive way that we celebrate today, and in such a courageous way defending a country that did not always keep its word to their ancestors. [applause] the 33 tribes and 216 individuals we recognize today represent native warriors that leverage their native tongue to defend our nation through an unbreakable code, patriots that possessed a unique capability and willingness to give of their special talent but their lives. as richard west, founding

director of the national museum of the american indian so elegantly captured it, language is central to cultural identity. it is the code containing the subtleties and secrets of cultural life. as it turns out, the clever usage of our nation's original, unique, and special languages -- these cultural codes was also an essential part of defending our great nation. we have all heard the story throughout history -- military leaders have sought the perfect code, signals the enemy cannot break, no matter how able the intelligence team, and it was our code talkers the creative voice codes that defied the coding in an era of slow, bi- hand, battlefield encryption, such an eloquent way to quickly provide communications. it was doubly clever in that not

only the language was indecipherable, the special words used within the language were difficult as well, such as crazy white man for adolf hitler, or tortoise for tank, or pregnant fish for bomber. the code talker's role in combat required intelligence, adaptability, grace under pressure, bravery, dignity, and, quite honestly, the qualities that fit my useful stereotype of the brave, american indian warrior. these men endured some of our nation's most dangerous battles and served proudly. the actions of those that we celebrate today were critical insignificant operations such as

choctaws, comanches on utah beach on d-day, hopis at the caroline islands, cherokees at the second battle, to name but a few. these men were integral members of their teams, the 36th infantry division, the fourth signals company, the 81st infantry division, the 30th infantry division, and so many more, learning morse code and operating equipment to translate messages quickly and accurately. in the words of navy admiral aubrey fitch, employment of these men has resulted in rapid and accurate transmission of messages that previously required hours. from the start, the service rendered by these men has received favorable comment, i praise him navy language. these men contribute it not only in battle, the fundamentally to military intelligence committees work in cryptology, and our

museum highlights the code talkers as pioneers of their specialty. here, once again, we learned that one of the greatest strengths of our nation is diversity, and your u.s. military, in particular, has always found great strength in this diversity. you may wonder why this is so. when the chips are down and the bullets are flying, and the only way out is to win, it does not take long to recognize on the one hand that one's heritage is not matter much anymore, and at the same time if you can bring something special to the fight through your own diversity, well, so much the better. your military has always lied led our way out of the cultural challenges that sometimes accompany diversity, the we are happy to leverage unique skill

the hero sitting among us are a testament to this -- 33 divers cultures, to be three divers dialect, all fighting together for one nation. native americans have long sacrifice for our nation, well presented by 20th army, marine corps, and navy medal of honor recipients. the first american woman killed in operation iraqi freedom was a member of the hopi tribe, and many others have served nobly, proudly, and well in combat. while we have benefited as a nation from our native american warriors service and sacrifice, we can also learn from how they managed their journey from war to peace. remarkable advances in battlefield and post medical care, joe a woundsany warriors with

seen and unseen who we will need for decades to come. the smithsonian makes it a point to note that native american cultures has special traditions to help warriors return home with injuries or member and veteran sacrifices forever. after the two world wars, most native american code talkers returned to communities facing difficult economic times. jobs were scarce. so were opportunities for education, training. some of the code talkers stayed in their communities doing whatever kind of work they could find. others moved to cities where jobs were more plentiful. many took advantage of the g.i. bill to go to college or get vocational training. the code talkers accomplished many things during their post-war lives. some became leaders in their community's, participated in tribal governments. others became educators, artists, and professionals in a variety of fields. many are and remain active in the cultural lives of their

tribes, and some work to preserve their languages. all remained recognized heroes within the tribe. the lesson for us today, these men and women that have served know about commitment and are ready to lead in communities across the nation. they are a national resource, a wellspring of intelligence, innovation, hard work, and resilience. they deserve our best. as we gather here together in emancipation hall, in the long and benevolent shadow of freedom, i am reminded of the by the bronze statue to my right that warriors become great not only because of the competence in battle, because of their efforts for peace and unity, and a commitment to people when they return. we can best honor these great warriors among us not just with well deserved and long overdue recognition, but also within our own efforts to continue to

leverage our nation's diversity, and to forever honor our veterans, including our native american veterans, for their narrative is an essential piece of our narrative. their journey is our journey, and as demonstrated by our code talkers, our nation's future is built on their contributions to our history. so, now, back to where i started, at least trying to speak it familiar language to our wonderful code talkers and their descendents, -- [speaking native american language] -- all special code for a special message, thank you. and thank you, ladies and gentlemen. may god continue to shower his blessings on our great nation. thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please stand as the chaplain of the united states of representatives, the reverend patrick conroy gives the

benediction. >> thank you, creator, the maker of ways, for giving us this beautiful day to celebrate life. may the hands and hearts of this nation be raised in prayer and praise for the heroic servicemen and women native to this continent, who as proud members of the united states military served our nation so valiantly battles.merous in -- though few in number and lacking any desire to heros for doing their duty, these code talkers from thisnations are honored day by a nation which rises to celebrate their important work in military intelligence.

may the breath of god uphold their noble and heroic story. they have honorably carried on the great legacy of their ancestors, who understood that service to one's people is the highest calling. may their great example of service communicate to all generations, and to all nations, a message to inspire citizens everywhere to serve their communities. bless all women and men in military service, no matter their racial, cultural, or religious heritage, and their families. god bless america, and grant us peace both in the present, and with you forever. amen.

>> ladies and gentlemen, please remain at your seats for the departure of the official party. ♪

♪ ♪

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute] >> thursday, house democratic whip hoyer spoke on the house a pro forma session where no legislative business conducted and objected to

the house adjourning for the rest of the year. is a look. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, this congress is the least productive one in which i have served over last 33 years. both from a humanitarian an economic one. this congress has earned the disdain of the american people irrespective of their party affiliation. expressmr. speaker, to my and the democratic minorities strong objection to adjourning the 113thon of congress without extending unemployment insurance the 1.3 million americans including 20,000 military veterans who will lose just 48 hours.

this number, mr. speaker, will by 73,000 people on that weevery week continue to block extension. moral outrage, and another congressionally economyd blow to our and it is unprecedented whenever have been aslevels they are today. the congress has extended benefits. is, sadly, consist epiwith failure to pass meaningful by thegislation proposed president. it is, sadly, consistent with our failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform supported bydly business, laborrion, farmers, workers add overwhelming number of religious leaders and members of the faith community. it is, sadly, consist went our

failure to pass a farm bill confidence tove those in dire need of help putting food on their family's congress wills not abandon them. mr. speaker, we do so at the very time that our a message ofates giving and hope. believe undone. after passing a a so-called compromise whose only virtue was that it was slightly the draconian and irrational sequester condemned sides of the aisle, mr. speaker, as unworkable, conceived. and ill so a so-called compromise that will be tested in just a few short weeks and which failed to assure that america will pay its months ahead. mr. speaker, if i had thought objecting to this motion to

adjourn by unanimous consent extension of unemployment for the 1.3 million who have been unable to find work or to a house leadership bringing to the floor issues that i listed, i would adjourninghis house with so much of the people's work undone. sadly, mr. speaker, such an objection would have no such effect. and my party deeply regret mr. speaker, and, we will return in january of 2014, urging our republican address the needs of so many millions of americans the work they do sent us here to do. mr. speaker, sadly, i objection.

>> the gentleman withdraws his reservation. without objection, the current resolution is agreed to and a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. up next on c-span, a a discussion with the current and former directors of the white faith-based office. then c-span's year in review laws following the december 2012 newtown shooting killed. people were later, a discussion on the increased number of women in the prison system. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] coming up on the next "washington journal" a look at the obama administration priorities.

"washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. friday, our encore presentations of q&a programs continue with baker, senate historian emeritus and author. discusses the historical narrative he co--wrote titled "the american senate" at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> i think radio is the longest that is form of media left. what we are doing right now is hour-long conversations, unprecedented, only c-span does long form conversations any more. charlie rose are the only ties i know that read books the way i ree read books.

they don't get many people that actually read their books and know what they are talking about so rewarding.s it i get a great deal of satisfaction of an author who bestto me that is the comment i had on this book tour. my day.es so i like radio three hours is an abundance of time and i can thins.any different >> more with radio talk host hewitt sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's "q&a." a a discussion on faith, the white house and public policy. methodist university's center for presidential history event with every director of the white house faith-based office since it was bush inhed by president 2001. this is an hour and 50 minutes. [applause]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> thank you for that kind introduction. ladies and gentlemen, we at smu and the center for presidential history is honored to have you here with us this evening. i hope i can speak for all of us when i say it is an honor to have our five guests and panelists with us today. these five people have served our country well. they have led the charge in finding fair, constitutional, efficient, and effective ways for our national government to assist and partner with faith-based and neighborhood organizations in our midst which are doing great social good. in short, they have invested personally in making our country a better place to live in. we have the opportunity to hear from all of them from the same stage. bush used his first

executive orders to establish faith based and community initiatives. the attorney general's office. the department of education, the department of health and human services and several more in the coming years. bush and, president his advisors believed that small faith-based and community organizations had been at an unfair disadvantage, competing field whenel playing it came to qualifying for, accessing and receiving federal funding. although they were serving american communities in many ways, they did not have the resources, information, or connections to pursue federal funding that larger, more prominent organizations have. in some instances, faith-based organizations were finding themselves at a disadvantage in applying for funding specifically because they were faith-based. the white house office of faith

the white house office of faith based and community committee was established. each of our panelists has a server is serving as the director of this very office. i encourage you to take a good look at your programs. you will see that they are all eminently incredibly qualified, experienced and hard-working people but for now, please allow me to briefly introduce all of our distinguished guests. our first guest, john dulio served as the first chairman. he is currently a professor of politics, religion, and civil society and professor of political science at the university of pennsylvania and is involved in multiple organizations aiding our nations communities in his hometown of philadelphia. after he left office, president bush appointed our second guest, jim tuohy as the new director. he served for four years and is his third year as

president of a university in southwest florida. our third guests served at the office of faith-based and community initiatives from 2006-2008. since 2008, he has served as the distinguished senior fellow at baylor university and is president of the sagamore institute and international public policy research firm. when president obama came into office in 2009, he oversaw a revamping of this white house office including renaming it the office of faith-based and neighborhood partnerships. he appointed as its new director our fourth guest, joshua dubois. he left his office after serving from 2009-2013 to author a new book and become a weekly columnist for " the daily beast" and start values partnerships aimed at helping companies and nonprofits partner with the faith-based community. finally, i would like to introduce our fifth guest, melissa rogers, the current executive director of the white house office of faith-based and

neighborhood partnerships. before assuming her white house post in march of this year, she served in senior positions at the center for religion and public affairs at wake forest university divinity school, the brookings institution, the pew forum on religion of public life, and as general counsel for the baptist joint committee for religious liberty. i encourage you to take a look at each of their bios on your program. these are truly remarkable people. we have the opportunity tonight to hear from all five of these experts and civil servants. allow me to explain how we will proceed. i have asked each of our panelists to share 10-15 minutes about their experiences, successes and difficulties, their views on the role of the white house in matters of faith in the public square. after each has had an opportunity to speak, i will lead a discussion amongst our panelists about some of the most important issues they have raised. finally, at the end, we will open up the floor for you to ask

questions of our guests. it takes very little faith to believe that i have spoken enough for now. panelists, we are eager to hear about your experiences and thoughts on the role of the white house in matters of faith and the public square. audience, please join me in welcoming our first analyst, the first director of the now office of faith based and neighborhood partnerships. dr. john dulio. [applause] >> thank you very much, brian. it is an extraordinary pleasure to be here. i want to thank brian and the other leaders of the center for us all together. it is a real personal trait to be here with my friends and colleagues, jim, jay, joshua, and melissa, melissa not only being the first woman but the first person whose name does not begin with j. [laughter]

each of my colleagues here served with incredible distinction. i say that -- this is not the thing you kind of say when you are all together and you have to be nice, i mean it from the heart. jim succeeded a crazy fat man from philadelphia. [laughter] and then succeeded in institutionalizing the office under far from easy circumstances and was able to forge faith-based and community initiatives aplenty. jay sustained that office and work creatively to grow the effort even as the sense drained from the second term hourglass. if you don't believe it, just wait for the book coming out in january. it tells the story. joshua transitioned the office under a new president of a different party and engaged the widest spectrum of leaders of all faiths and no faith and established centers in every cabinet agency and other federal units as well.

"presidential devotion" is out, too. i am a book salesman, as you can tell. i am selling their books and i am on commission, by the way. [laughter] last but not least, melissa, whose history with the office predates her own directorship, having served from her perch at brookings as a key confidant and friend to both the first bush and the first obama so-calledith czars and she has begun to develop exciting new faith-based partnerships and initiatives. god bless each of them and god bless president george w. bush and god bless president opera -- barack obama. i have been teaching at ivy league universities for more than 30 years. i qualify as having the key value of an ivy league professor which means i can speak for five minutes or two hours on any subject with no essential change in content. [laughter] before you hear from my betters

on this panel, let me inflict 10 or 12 minutes or so of my thoughts about our topic for this evening, faith, the white house, and the public square and i will offer four sets of points. the first point i would make is that today, faith-based is not only a term associated with a white house office that is soon to be 14 years old and a faith-based, more importantly, is a permanent part of the public discourse about religion, policy, and civic life. in the half dozen or so years that preceded the establishment of the office, small but intellectually and ideologically and religiously diverse cadre of policy wonks and opinion leaders came together. what happened was that we trumpeted a fact, a fact that was hiding pretty much in plain view. namely, the fact that america's urban churches, synagogues, and mosques and other houses of worship and, most of all, the

small street-level ministries concentrated in the nation's poorest places. all of these functioned as sacred places that serve civic purposes. food pantries, daycare, drug and alcohol prevention or treatment, homeless shelters, afterschool and summer education, youth violence reduction, welfare to work placement and job training, health care, prisoner reentry, and literally scores upon scores more. in many cities from coast to coast, these faith-based organizations were not just add ons but accounted for much or most of given types of social service delivery either on their own or in partnerships with other groups or with public agencies. the vast majority of these sacred places serve people of all faiths and no faith, most did not discriminate on religious grounds in mobilizing workers or volunteers and their primary beneficiaries, at least

in most urban areas, were children, youth, and young adults who were not themselves members co-religionists. while the larger more professionalize and more secularized religious nonprofits were, for the most part, treated fairly in competition for government grants and contracts, smaller religious nonprofits including communities serving ministries in inner-city neighborhoods were often discriminated against, sometimes for innocent reasons like byzantine bureaucratic protocol but also, in some not so innocent cases, out of outright hostility to religious people and places. president clinton and the first lady clinton were the first major fans, white house fans come of faith based, the first federal faith-based center was established during the second clinton term out of the office -- out of the department of housing and urban development under secretary andy cuomo. it was in the 2000 presidential

election that faith-based went national to stay. president gore and president bush had their therite locutinos on subject. their respective messages on faith based were much the same. i still think the best single sentence in this regard was the one that governor bush first delivered in his july, 1999 duty of hope speech, the speech that launched his presidential campaign. "government cannot be replaced by charities but it should welcome them as partners, not resent them as rivals." a new white house office, while respecting all federal church, state doctrines and limits would build on the federal so-called charitable choice laws that had been enacted in the late 1990s and would welcome religious leaders into the white house,

into the public square, into the public discourse and debate and dialogue and it would promote faith based and community initiatives and partnerships to expand mentoring for the children of prisoners and achieve many, many other civic goals. not everybody was thrilled with this approach. orthodox secularists, mainly among democratic party elites, and orthodox sectarians, mainly among republican party elites, did not like the bipartisan centrist level the playing field approach. still, each candidate persisted in embracing and in articulating this vision. thereafter, so did governors and mayors in each party. although it has received relatively little attention, the white house office has its younger siblings in dozens of state governments all around the country.

second, today the empirical evidence on the existence of faith-based organizations and programs is both deeper and wider than it was back in 2001 when the office was established. for instance, a forthcoming study by my university of pennsylvania colleague is being conducted in concert with orders for sacred places come of the nations leading national nonsectarian organization that tends to the historic preservation of older religious properties involved in community activities and purposes, it will indicate that the civic replacement value of the average older urban congregation is what it would cost taxpayers were these sacred places to top supplying social services and serving civic purposes as they do. this replacement value is, if anything, several times what was estimated to be when the first generation of studies were completed. faith-based organizations and

programs have, what he called, a halo effect is respected economic development that goes even far beyond social service delivery. stay tuned for those interesting academic findings. i know you cannot wait. [laughter] third, in the courts of public opinion and the courts of law, the core ideas and sentiments behind the white house office that began in 2001 are at least as widely embraced today than before. for all the church-state controversy that has turned this into a toxin, nearly 3/4 of all americans including republicans and democrats believe in the civic value of sacred places and believe that most do a very good and cost-effective job at supplying vital social services and support a level playing field for all religious nonprofits when it comes to government administration.