responses. you can join the conversation on com/cspan. reid and minority leader mitch mcconnell testify at a hearing for campaign dynamics. this marks the 25th anniversary square -- 10 and tiananmen square. >> we bring public affairs event from washington putting you in the room at congressional hearings. we are c-span created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago

ambra to you as a public service by our local cable or satellite provider. >> primaries in eight states today. alabama, mississippi, new jersey, montana, new mexico, south dakota, iowa. brownatic governor jerry is seeking his party's nomination for a fourth term. republican thad cochran chris a primary from mcdaniel. we will bring you results from this on the c-span networks. the senate judiciary committee is considering a constitutional amendment in response to the recent campaign-finance decision. now from harry reid in majority leader mitch mcconnell.

hearing deals with a serious issue and i'm delighted to seen so many members of the public who are interested and we dealing with the practice that we stream these in may expect all members of the public to understand this is a serious matter and to act accordingly. the rules of the senate

prohibited outbursts, clapping, demonstrations of any kind. for or against positions i might take or any other senator might take or other members might take including the democratic leader in republican leader. euro prohibited blocking the view of people behind you which means if you hold up signs that block views, we will ask capitol police to remove you. stood in line a long time. everyone deserves the courtesy of being watched. there will be plenty of room outside for people for people to to be in the press

.ither for or against i don't want to stop them from getting press. there will be a press corps .utside those who can be the most imaginative whether they are in the minority or majority usually end up getting in the paper. god bless them. this morning, as the judiciary committee begins the consideration of the withitution amendment supreme court decisions overturning long-standing precedents of the court on campaign-finance laws. i believe if left unanswered, they will continue to change aspect of our democratic process.

therefore the congress and american people have to act. these were passed by large majorities, republican and democrat, in the senate and house, with five justices now repeatedly overturning these time-honored protections. the citizen united cases. in doing so, the supreme court opened a floodgate to billionaires pouring in vast amounts of undisclosed dollars across the country. john paul stevens had it right when he wrote in the court decision in citizens united threatens the integrity of institutions across the nation.

i have heard about how this threatens the constitutional rights of americans wanting voices heard. i would also like to know who is actually behind as were or against a particular person. the american people continue to voice from other avenues there more than 2 million individuals signed petitions call for a digital amendment to fight back against the corrosive effects of the supreme court decisions regarding money and politics. those petitions have been

brought to our hearing room today. those boxes in the back. they are a tangible reminder that americans are calling on congress to act. the ability of all americans and not just wealthy ones to his press their views and have voices heard in the political process is vital to government. the common sense of the american people tell us corporations are not people. this report says corporations are people. we're probably not going to like the general electric resident. those who claim to adhere to the original texts of the

constitution cannot reasonably argue the framers view of the rights of reparations as central to our electoral process. i served in the senate for nearly 40 years and the chairman of the judiciary committee for nearly 10. our fundamental chart is sacred and only as a last resort. i strongly believe we must address the divisive and corrosive decisions by the supreme work to dismantle a reasonable protection against corruption in the political process. we've have tried for years to pass a law that were wired for nancy. and disclosure of political spending. let people know where the money is coming from and from whom and which special interest it might be. senate republicans repeatedly

filibustered that legislation known as the disclose act. it would have at least allowed people to know who is putting the money into the process. i hope to be able to convince my friends on the other side of the aisle to overcome the filibuster in this transparency matter. does the supreme court based its rulings on flawed interpretations of the earth amendment, this will not suffice. i would turn first to senator, and then we want to hear from senator reed and editor mcconnell. i want to thank my friends, harry reid and mitch mcconnell, for being here. a first in this committee's history, as near as we can tell. it underscores the importance of

the public discussion we're having today. we may disagree on some issues, they're both good friends of mine and i am glad to have them here. >> mr. chairman, our leaders and my colleagues on this committee, what is more important than protecting our rights? this hearing also shows, as clearly as possible, the differences between conservatism and progressivism. let's start with first principles. a declaration of independence states that everyone is endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that governments are created to protect. those pre-existing rights include the right to liberty, and the constitution was adopted secure the blessings of liberty to all americans. americans rejected the view that the structural limits of government power contained in the original constitution would adequately protect the liberties they fought a revolution to preserve.

they insisted at that time on the adoption of the bill of rights. it protects individual rights, regardless whether the government or the majority approves of their use. the first amendment of their rights protects the freedom of speech and that is basic to self-government. other parts of the constitution falls to or equality or justice and our representatives in government. the bill of rights is only about one thing. individual freedom. free speech creates a marketplace of ideas in which is and can learn, debate, and persuade fellow citizens. it enables citizenry to be educated, to cast votes to elect their leaders.

today, freedom of speech is threatened, as it has not been in many decades. too many people are impatient and will not listen and debate and persuade. instead, they want to punish and intimidate and silence those with whom they disagree. a corporate executive who opposes same-sex marriage, the same physician president obama held at that time, is to be fired. universities who are supposed to be fostering academic freedom, cancel graduation speeches by speakers that some students find offensive. cut from the same cloth, wood amend the constitution or the first time, to diminish an important right americans have that is contained in the bill of rights. it would cut tax on the most important of these rights, cord free speech about who should be

reelected to govern ourselves. the proposed constitutional men would enable government to live in funds contributed to candidates and funds spent by or in support of candidates. i would give the government the ability to limit speech. the memo would even allow the government to set the limit at zero. there could be no contributions, no election spending. no public debate on who should be elected. as you can conclude, incumbents like us here the table, but find that outcome to be acceptable. they would know that no challenger could run an effective campaign against them. speech at low limits would produce similar results. what president with this amendment create? suppose congress passed limits on what

people could spend on abortions or what. there's or hospitals could spend to inform them. what if congress limited the amount of money people could spend on guns or a limit on how much money they can spend on their -- of their own money. on their own health care. for instance, it could not make it a criminal offense for sierra club to post an ad that favors logging international or is there they could not stop the national rifle association board could stop them from publishing a book seeking published -- public support to a senator who favors a handgun ban, or for the aclu to post on his website before boulders to support a

presidential candidate because of his stance on free speech. that should be frightening prospects to all of us. under this amendment, congress and the states can limit campaign contributions and expenditures without limit. congress could pass a law limiting expenditures by democrats but not by republicans by opponents of obama care but not by supporters. what does the amendment mean when it says congress can limit funds spent in opposition to candidates? congress under this amendment could criminalize that as spending in opposition to a candidate. a senator on the senate floor appearing free of charge could the same a private citizen. a member could say the citizen was eyeing elections. if the citizen spent any money to rebut the charge, he could end up being charged. we would be back to the days when criticism of elected officials was a criminal offense. you remember the history of the acts.

supporters say the amendment is nessus very word democracy. it is outrageous to say that limiting each is necessary for democracy. the only existing right that the amendment says it will not harm his freedom of the past. so congress and the states could limit the speech of anyone except those reparations that control the media. that would produce an orwellian world in which every speaker is equal, but some speakers are more equal than others. freedom of press has never been understood to give the media national constitutional rights denied to others. after years of denying it, supporters of political spending limits now admit that enacting their agenda of restricting beach may require an amendment to our fundamental charter of liberty.

in light of recent supreme court decisions him an amendment may soon not be needed at all. there were four justices right now that would allow for political speech to be rejected. there would be no need to amend the constitution cut act on freedom. just as rye or's dissent for these four justices in the decision does not view his freedom of beach as an end in and of itself there at our founding others did view it as an end in the health area justice rye or thinks free political speech is about the public's interest in preserving a democratic order in which collective speech matters. to be sure, individual rights often advanced socially desirable goals. our us to show rights do not depend on whether unelected judges believe they advanced to moxie as vacant -- conceive it. our constitutional rights are

individual. they are not collected. never in 225 years have any supreme word decision described our rights as collective here as the declaration of independence states, our rights come from god and not from the government and the public. an sitter the history of the last 100 years. freedom has flourished where rights belong to individuals were governments were bound to respect, where rights work elected and existing only at the whim of a government that determines when they serve socially desirable purposes. the results have been horrific. we should not move even one inch in the direction of little justices where this amendment would take us there it is takes could not be higher for all americans who value their rights and freedoms.

beach concerning who the people selected representatives should be, speech setting the agenda in public discourse, speech designed to open and change the minds of our fellows and since,'s each criticizing politicians, and speech challenging government policies are all in this nation vital rights. the amendment puts all of them in jeopardy upon the penalty of prosecution feared it would make america no longer america, and though i intend to do what i can to stop it and i urge others to do the same. >> thank you. i appreciate what you said about the supreme court. we may have supreme court justices who actually follow -- i want to hear from senator reed and senator mcconnell and then, because they are chair and rank members of the subcommittee, will be handling this, very brief remarks from senator cruz.

and senator durbin. senator reid. >> for convening this hearing, you remind me all the time about the work done in this committee, having served in they legislature in a judiciary committee, i understand much of the work is funded through this committee. even on a state or federal level. senator, thank you also for your statement. i am very impressed with attendance for the day. it is really heartwarming to the everyone caring so much about this issue. members of the committee, i am here because a flood of our money in the political system post the greatest threat to our democracy that i have witnessed during my tenure in public service. the decision of the supreme or left the american people with a

status quo where one side's leaners are pitted against the other side's billionaires. we are with a simple choice. keep the that is: argue all day and are up -- and all night, weekends, forever about who's billionaires are right and who's billionaires are wrong, or we can work together to change the system and get shady money out of our democracy and restore the basic vegetables of one american and one vote. mr. president, a little bit of history from my perspective. i ran for the senate in 1980 or. i had to be educated as to what federal laws were. we had an entirely different system. the federal system, that is not the case. that was not the case.

very close advisers, wayne pearson, who was supporting me, said, understand, under the federal rules, be very careful. you cannot take cash from anybody. the rules are very strict. there is a limit to how much money they can give you. their address, occupation, and be very careful of any money you take. mr. president, -- mr. chairman, i have been asking nevadans to vote for me for decades. i have seen firsthand how the dark money is reverting our political system. way back 40 years ago, it was pretty easy to do. follow the rules.

i have seen it change. in 1998, i had a close election john and we each spent about $10 million and we were allowed to do that because the supreme word again had left an opening that said you could divert money into the state party and that more -- that money could be corporate money, and used for denigrating the other person, building the other person who had the money up. i felt so, unclean for lack of a better word. a person could give a lot of money. one person gave a quarter of a million dollars to the state

party and he wanted me to know he had done it there it i hope he did not corrupt me, but he is correcting. after 1998, two good senators got together and work very hard to change that. we had the law that came into a act and took her but money out of politics. when iran in 2004, it was like i had taken a bath and i felt so clean. it was an election that everyone involved in a federal election had to list where they got the money and there was a limit to how much you could ask or get someone else. you were listed --

their occupation and so on. it was wonderful. then comes 2010. back into the sewer. that was the race citizens united in january had ruled no holds are. any money could come from any source, with rare exception. that race, as far as i was concerned, not a lot of fun. 1998. i talk to you about that in 2010, 1998, he may 1998 seem like a picture in the park. money coming from every place. not a suggestion of where the money came from.

citizens for good government, good guys, sponsored this one. now, from 1998, to 2010, i have no idea. i have an idea, but that race in nevada, from oblique $120 million were spent in that race. can you imagine that? no one knows where the money came from. the people in nevada were subjected to false and misleading ad. not knowing anything about these shadow groups fear that was 2010. in 2012, it got worse.

here we are, mr. president. citizens united and the other decisions the supreme court has made has only made it worse and during the 2012 presidential campaign, outside groups spent more than $1 billion and that is a conservative estimate. that is about as much money as was bent in the previous 12 elections. this spike in the amount of shadowy money pumped into the elections is not surprising. recent decisions rendered by the united ace up in court, citizens

united, mccutchen, our campaign finance laws were eviscerated and it opened up the floodgates. the cynics scoff at the idea of us working together on an issue as critical as good government, but it was not all that long ago campaign against reform enjoyed support from both democrats and republicans. campaign finance from arm has proposed a number of times before. even by my friend, the republican leader, senator mcconnell. senator mcconnell's his own constitutional amendment, his own sponsor, empowered congress to enact laws any person which

-- from his legislation -- can be made to advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate or office. navigating for the reform, senator mcconnell's head, and i quote, "we have put together a responsible campaign reform agenda that would restrict the power of special interest backs, stop the flow of all money, keep wealthy individuals from buying public office, close out -- office." that gives you the general idea. at one time, senator mcconnell agreed, without question, with me and most of the people behind me. senator mcconnell had the right idea than. i found it hard to fathom when my republican colleagues want to

defend the that is both. is there any member of the committee who really believes the status quo is good? he opposed billionaires using their own money for office, senator mcconnell now funds the ability to fund campaigns and independent expenditures. in fact, he even declares today, in our society's spending is speech. money equals free speech. american families. they cannot compete with billionaires if free speech is based on how much money you have. they defend the money pumped into our system by the koch brothers as free speech. mr. president, i define anyone to determine what the koch

brothers are spending money on today. they have all of these phantom organizations. they have one on veterans, one on senior citizens. they must have 15 different phony organizations they use to pump money into the system to hide who they are, the two wealthiest men in america, interested in their bottom line. our involvement in government should not be dependent on bank account balances. in american people reject the notion money gives the koch brothers a greater voice in government than a mechanic, a lawyer, a doctor, a health-care worker, because they believe that elections should be decided

by voters. those americans who have constitutional and fundamental right to elect their representatives. the constitution, that everyone most to talk about, does not give corporations a vote and it does not give dollar bills a right to vote. the undue influence that my friend decried three decades ago has not transformed into free speech. david copperfield in las vegas, the great illusionist, could not come up with that one. it is still bad for america. it is bad for the politics. we must undo the damage done by the supreme court's recent campaign-finance decision and we

need to do it now. i support this constitutional amendment. i admire and i congratulate senators udall and bennett for their offering this amendment, which grants congress the authority to limit the raising and spending of money for federal political campaigns. the amendment will rein in the massive spending of super packs, these secret organizations, which has grown so much since the january 2010 decision of citizens united. the amendment also gives the states the authority to institute campaign spending limits at state level. simply put, the constitutional

amendment is what the nation needs to bring sanity back to political campaigns and restore confidence in elected leaders. american people want change. they want their voice to be protected. free speech should not cost a penny. i am happy if you have questions you want to ask me. otherwise, i would ask your leave and i will leave. >> following the tradition of the committee, i will let you both speak and leave and we will have enough time for questions on the floor. i thank you very much, senator reid. >> i want to make sure that my leaving does not take away from my friendship with mr. mcconnell. we have heard each talk and criticized each other for years. he will not be upset that i am leaving. >> no, no problem. >> i appreciate -- i assume you are referring to my time as -- pro tem. senator grassley and i are friends of senator mcconnell and senator reid.

we have been for years. i keep my baseball bat in my office. >> you never know when you might need it. >> please, go ahead, senator mcconnell. >> given how incredibly bad this supposed amendment is, i cannot blame my friend from wanting to talk about things like the koch brothers or what i may have said over a quarter of a century ago. i am going to confine my remarks to what is before us. i want to thank you for an

outstanding observation about what the first amendment was supposed to be about. at the very core of it, political speech. americans understand how extraordinarily special the first amendment is. the exchange of ideas and the ability to criticize their government is necessary for democracy to survive. benjamin franklin noted "whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by some doing be freeness of speech." attempts to weaken the first amendment, such as the proposal before this committee, should pass the highest scrutiny. resolution 19 falls short of that high bar. it would empower politicians in congress and state to write the rules on who gets to speak and who does not.

the american people should be concerned. many are. those in power would use this to suppress speech that is critical of them, as senator grassley pointed out. no politician likes to be criticized. some are more critical -- are criticized more often than the rest of us. the recourse to criticize is not to shut your fellow citizens up. that is what this amendment is about.

the solution to this is to defend your ideas in the political marketplace. to paraphrase justice holmes, or to come up with better ideas. the first amendment is neutral when it comes to speech. it respects the right of every person to be heard without fair or favor. whether or not there views are popular with the government. the first amendment is unequivocal. it provides that congress shall make no law -- congress shall make no law -- abridging the freedom of speech. the first amendment is about empowering the people, not the government. the proposed amendment has it backwards. it says congress and the states

can pass whatever laws they want, abridging political speech, the speech that is at the core of the first amendment. if politicians were in charge of political speech, a majority could design the rules to benefit itself. a new majority would try to disadvantage the other part of the country. this is at odds with the first amendment. it was defeated on a bipartisan basis. i get the impression all the democrats have walked away from the first amendment. back then, senator kennedy and several other democratic colleague voted against it. a similar proposal was disputed in 1997. our colleagues who voted against those proposals were right.

i submit that they would be wrong to support the latest proposal to weaken the first amendment. this is clear when one compares the language of the amendments. joint resolution 4, back in the 107th congress, would empower the government to set reasonable limits, whatever that is, on political speech. the same was true of senate resolution 18 in the 105th congress. as bad as those proposals were, they at least limited the government's power to setting reasonable limits on speech. again, whatever that is. by contrast, the amendment we are discussing today would drop the pretense. it would give the government control over the little speech of its citizens. allowing it to set unreasonable

limits on their political speech. including, banning it outright. it would favor certain speakers over others and guarantee preferential treatment. it contains a provision not found in prior proposals, which provides congress cannot abridge the freedom of the press. this is great. if you are a corporation that owns a newspaper. this is terrific news for you. you get your speech, but nobody else does. the media wins and everybody else loses. everyone on this committee knows this proposal is never going to pass congress. this is a political exercise and

that is all it is. the goal is to stir up one party's political base so they will show up in november. that is to do it by complaining loudly about americans exercising free speech and association rights while being happy than other americans, those who agree with the sponsors of this amendment are doing the same thing. this is embarrassingly bad. to be advocating, for the first time in history, that we amended the first amendment to restrict the right of citizens to the. when it comes to free speech, we should not substitute the protection desires of politicians or the protection of all americans. i remember a time when most of us agreed to it. it is too bad we cannot agree on it now. i appreciate the opportunity to be here. i would love to stay for the rest of your hearing, but i will talk to you later. >> i have a feeling you will be able to overcome your sorrow of not being able to be here.

to quote the statement most often heard, of course i will read your statement for the record afterwards. thank you. senator durbin. >> as chairman of the subcommittee of the senate judiciary on constitutional amendments, i have had a personal point of view on this for a long time when it comes to the nature of amendments being altered. i think the constitution is written with the amendments that have been adopted, it constitutes a sacred document that has guided this country well for decades and centuries. too often i have seen proposals for constitutional amendments

which take a roller to a rembrandt. i have resisted efforts into cosponsoring amendments. this is an exception. i am cosponsoring this amendment. the time has come for us to do something to save this democracy and the political process that supports it. secondly, there is hardly a politician elected official alive who is not changed his over position on an issue. that happens. i can recall when abraham lincoln was criticized for changing his position on an issue and he said i would rather be right some of the time than wrong all of the time. it is breathtaking, the change

that has taken laced with the republican party in the united states senate on this issue. in 1987, the senate leader, the republican senate later, -- this would give congress an opportunity to level the playing field, to eliminate the millionaire's loophole, put everyone in the same footing so that anyone in american society who can get support could still raise the money, use the television, get into the race and build the contest. the fellow who inherited it or could go out and get it could not use his personal money to buy political office. he would have to get the same broad-based support the rest of us must do. that is a problem we can cure immediately.

that is what senator mcconnell said about his constitutional amendment offered in 1987, which parallels the amendment before the committee today. time passed. by 2002, the story was different. then, the position was taken by the senator from kentucky and many on his side, we want full disclosure. we want to know who is contributing the money. the american people have a right to know. that was the mantra for a long time. i just asked whether any republicans supported our effort when we introduced the disclosed bill. our best memory is no. they do not support disclosure. here we are today. many of us had hoped that fair elections, a public financing bill, which i introduced seven years ago and keep

reintroducing, might have a chance. with the citizens united decision, that is not likely. when you look at the reality of what we are facing, spending by outside groups and campaigns has tripled. in 2006, these groups spent $3.5 million. in 2012, superpacs spent more than $130 million on federal elections. 60% of all superpac donations came from an elite class of 159 americans. 159 americans accounted for 60% of the money for superpacs going into these campaigns. in north carolina, a group had one member. 72% of all outside spending in 2010 came from a millionaire named art pope. he bankrolled the governor's campaign and supported the super majority that recently enacted

the most strict voter suppression law in america. we need to do this to say the political process in america. what is at stake is going to discourage mere mortals from engaging in this process. when you are up against multimillionaires from the start with unlimited contributions through citizens united, you will lose the appetite for the contest. we cannot let that happen. >> senator durbin, i thank you. i know at some point you are going to take over the gavel for senator cruz. we have a statement for the record. it will be made part of the record. senator cruz. >> when our country was founded, we crafted a constitution that would serve as chains to bind

the mischief of government. there has never been more mischief then there is right now. the bill of rights, the first 10 amendments to the constitution are precious to every american. the bill of rights begins with the first amendment. congress has not dared to mess with the bill of rights for two centuries. this amendment here today, if adopted, would repeal the free speech protections of the first amendment. when citizens hear that, they gasp. as immune as we are from the abuse of power from government,

citizens are astonished congress would support repealing the first amendment. let's be clear. this amendment does not just do it for corporation or billionaires. nothing in this amendment is limited to corporations or billionaires. it would give congress absolute authority to regulate the political speech of every single american. no limitations, whatsoever. this amendment is about power and it is about politicians silencing the citizens. mr. chairman, when did elected democrats abandon the bill of rights? where did the liberals go? in 1997, when a similar amendment was introduced, here is what ted entity said. in the entire history of the

constitution, we have never amended the bill of rights. it would be wrong to carve an exception to the first amendment. finance reform is a serious problem, but it does not require we twist the meaning of the constitution. here is what russ feingold said. the constitution of this country was not a rough draft. we must stop treating it as such. it is the bed rock of the bill of rights. if this amendment passes, congress can say you, the citizen, are no longer citizens. you are subjects. we have repealed the first amendment and taken away your ability to speak. senator feingold said the following about a similar amendment. this constitutional amendment

would change the scope of the first amendment. i find nothing more sacred and treasured than the first amendment. it is the bedrock of the bill of rights. it has the notion that every citizen has a fundamental right to disagree with his or her government. i want to leave the first amendment undisturbed. i agree with ted kennedy and russ feingold. where are the liberals today? why is there not a liberal standing here defending the bill of rights and the first amendment? democrats have signed their name to a constitutional amendment that would give congress the power to muzzle planned parenthood and the national right to life. 42 democrats have signed to giving the right to muzzle the national rifle association. to muzzle michael moore.

to muzzle the national education association, to muzzle the naacp. to muzzle priests and rabbis. i am introducing two bills to further protect the free speech rights of individuals. i will be discussing those later in this hearing. this amendment, if adopted, would give congress the power to ban books and to ban movies. citizens united was about finding a moviemaker who made a movie critical of hillary clinton. ray bradbury would be astonished because we are seeing fahrenheit 451 democrats today. the american people should be angry about this.

the senators who put their name to the should be embarrassed that they have signed up for repealing the free speech amendment, the first amendment. thank you. >> the statements have been completed. i wonder if senator mckissick and mr. abrams could join us at the appropriate places on the table.

please remove the man holding up a sign contrary to the rulings of the chair. as the committee knows, i do not take a petition one way or another. we are having a hearing. i want people who are for or against it to be here. i do not want people blocking the views of others. you have plenty of time to do that outside. let's hear from the witnesses. the first witness is floyd mckissick. he served in the north carolina state senate since 2007. he is the deputy minority leader as well as -- for mckissick and

mckissick. i apologize for the voice. it is allergies. i also note that your son is in the audience. i note that for when someone is searching through the mckissick archives, they see that. >> thank you. it is a privilege to be here. i want to thank you for the opportunity to testify. i am a longtime resident of north carolina. i have the honor of serving in north carolina where i represent durham and granville counties. i entered politics for the same reason many of you did. i sought ways that north

carolina's government could work more effectively. in 2010, americans for prosperity, a group funded by the koch brothers, spent money in north carolina. a new organization sprang up called real jobs north carolina spent almost $4.5 million. overall, three quarters of all of the outside money in state races that money were tied to one man, art pope. they poured money into 22 targeted races. the candidates they backed one in 18 of those races. in 2012, $8.1 million flooded into the governor's race. a large portion of that money

was tied into pope. surprise, surprise art pope is our state budget director. when justice kennedy wrote in citizens united, he said limit us outside spending does not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. try telling that to anyone who saw how the -- in north carolina. there are winners and losers in every budget. in the budget he produced, it is undeniable mr. pope won big. tens of thousands of people lost unemployment benefits.

public education funding was cut back. low income people were refused access to medicaid we had already paid for. while millionaires got a tax break, some families got a tax hike. after the money flooded into our election, we saw those two more big changes. a month after the supreme court gutted the voters rights act, the past one of the most restrictive voter laws in the country. it eliminated the ability of teenagers to preregister to vote before their 18th birthday and illuminated same-day voter registration. -- and eliminated same-day voter registration. art pope and the koch brothers paid to roll back civil rights advances. a got easier for rich people to pour money into elections.

donors got new opportunities to write bigger checks to candidates and they got more ways to avoid any kind of disclosures in any public financing system. including one that provided for clean judicial races. that was painful to me because i watched one of our supreme court justices, robin hudson, attacked in the most despicable way. more than $650,000 came from a washington-based organization trying to protect the anti-voter laws that were pushed through to legislature. i cannot think of a more vicious cycle than taking a little more power from the voters and handing it to the big spenders. once big money got into our elections, that is what happened. public service is a calling. we are called to use our gifts to create laws and to administer our cities, states, and nations.

citizens united in the supreme court decision that have occurred have made this a mockery. it does not look like democracy. a mocker see is when the government represents the people. it seems that money and big donors pull the strings. i urge you support senate joint resolution 19. >> thank you. the next one is mr. floyd abrams. not a stranger to this committee over the years. please go ahead. >> i appreciate your invitation to be here today. the description of the

constitutional amendment that is before you today states it relates to the contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. that is one way to say it. i think it would have been more revealing to say it actually relates to speech intended to affect elections. i think it would be more accurate to say that it relates to limiting speech intended to affect elections. that is the core problem with it. it is intended to limit speech about elections and it will do just that. to start at the beginning, this has been said before. it is worth repeating. no ruling providing first amendment protection has ever been reversed by a constitutional amendment. no ruling by the supreme court. no speech that the supreme court has concluded.

think of what we protected under the first amendment. chief justice roberts observes that money and politics may be repugnant to some, but so too does most of what the first amendment vigorously protects. if the first amendment protects flagburning and not see parades, despite the profound offense that such spectacles cause, it surely protects political campaign speech, despite popular opposition. the proposed amendment before you deals with nothing except political campaign speech. it does not deal with money that is spent for any other purpose other than persuading people who

to vote for or against. as such, it would limit speech at the heart of the first amendment. the fact that the investment is proposed in the name of equality makes it no less running. the supreme court observed, with particular -- in the buckley case, stalwart defenders of the first amendment, that the concept that government may restrict some elements -- may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the voice of others is wholly foreign to the first amendment. it is that view which is at the core of this amendment. that would reverse the buckley case as well as citizens united. this amendment is not a citizens

united amendment. it goes back to the 1970's and would reverse buckley's ruling. the title of the proposed amendment goes even farther. it says it would restore democracy to the american people. i am willing to pass over in silence, rhetorical overkill about what democracy means, but the notion that democracy would be restored, saved by limiting speech is a perversion of the english language.

i conclude with this thought. it is not a coincidence that until today, the first amendment has never been amended. it is not a: students that no decision of the supreme court confirming first amendment rights has never been overruled. emotions have run high before about decisions of the courts, which provided higher levels of liberty than members of this body thought were appropriate. self-restraint won the day. i urge that self-restraint windy day today. >> the next witness is jamie

raskin. he teaches constitutional law and legislation at washington college of law in washington, d.c. he also serves as a senator in the maryland state legislature. mr. raskin, welcome. >> thank you very much. we built a wall brick by brick over a century to separate the craddick money from them credit politics. starting with the 1907 band on corporate contributions, which still stands, we have worked to --.

four years ago, citizens united bulldozed a major block of the wall. the one that kept trillions of dollars in corporate wealth from flowing into our campaigns. five justices shut down the public financing programs that use matching funds to amplify the voices of poor candidates competing to be heard. the majority treated additional campaign speech as a first amendment industry. it provides more voices, wider discussion and greater competition. this year, the same five took a sledgehammer to aggregate --. after five decisions, the wall between democracy and plutocracy is crumbling. they are at odds with the dogma

of five justices. money is speech and corporations are people. to identify corruption, you have to find a bride. this will enable us to protect democratic politics. we need to revive government where all voices can be heard. in economics, we need to strengthen his misses that practice free-market competition and pull the plug on rent seeking --. adam smith would tell us that laissez isn't fair.

i think thomas jefferson would have said the more speech, the better. the sage of monticello never equated operations with citizens. he warned future generations not to embrace aristocracy. this nightmare vision sounds like a citizens united aero. the majority of americans are appalled. 74% of voters in colorado and montana voted to call for this amendment. 79% of the people favor limits

on campaign money. this amendment protects our power to set such limits. billionaires will always have greater resources, but it is shores the rich will inhabit the same polity as nurses, businesses, and small people. it is one thing to tell middle-class citizens that the scale is 50-1. a regime like that fits plutocracy, not democracy. i think the amendment should empower the people to wall off campaigns from corporate treasury wealth. citizens united does not increase the rights of citizens to express views. all it did was confirm our on ceos to write checks without a vote of the shareholders and without notice to the shareholders.

it has nothing to do with free speech of the people. it has everything to do with increasing the power of the ceos over the people. pretty soon, people will no longer govern corporations. at times like this, when the court has undermined democracy, we have amended the constitution. we did it with the disenfranchisement of women. the bill of rights has strengthened the self-government. it has expanded the political rights of the people. do not be intimidated. the people are with you. >> thank you. let me begin and then i will turn the gavel over to senator durbin. senator mckissick, the story of

our constitution has been one of progressive inclusion. our founding fathers believed only white land owners should be allowed to participate in elections. each generation of americans has expanded the promise of our founding -- a more perfect union. we have amended the constitution many times. the 14th and 15th amendments, for example. they transform the constitution, guaranteed equal protection of law. they prohibited the right to vote on the basis of race. the 17th amendment gave americans a right to elect senators of their choosing. there was a concern that corporations were corrupting state legislature. they would elect senators to be

home to those corporations. we continue with the 19th amendment. the civil rights act. the 26th amendment extension of the vote to young people. i mentioned those because they mark progress on the path of inclusion. they make our country more representative. i have heard the supreme court decisions reverse that course. do you believe the money put into the state races in the wake of citizens united has led to a more representative state government in north carolina? >> it has not led to more representative governor in north

carolina at all. the will of the people is not being heard. i think that is represented by the moral monday demonstrations. it started out with 500 people coming out every monday when we can our session, protesting these policies that have been implemented. they grew to masses of 7500 people. there were close to a thousand people arrested. they were absolutely opposed to the policies and legislation's coming out of raleigh. these were actions that not only impacted voter rights for individuals. if you would have pulled people about the voter suppression laws and asked if they like the early vote period, we have eliminated one week of that. in 2008, we had over 700,000 people vote that first week. people had same-day voter registration. there were people getting able

to preregister when they were 17 so they could vote at 18 years old. if you ask the majority if they like the early vote period and the right to exercise their constitutional privilege in a more expansive way, the answer would be, resoundingly, yes. >> i hear in paid ads and others, and i guess some of the billionaires are going to profit by this paid for that. you are a scholar. if this amendment were to be ratified, would it repeal the first amendment? >> of course not. the citizens united case did not

endow a single individual with any right to speak that he or she did not already have. employees of the corporation, the members of the board, they could spend what they wanted of their own money. citizens united said the ceo could take the court her checkbook and write checks to put into politics. that ceo could have spent his own money. we have converted every corporate treasury in the country to a potential slush fund. in a deeper sense, mr. abrams raises the question about buckley versus valeo. there is a very important supreme court decision called ward versus rock against racism. rock against racism would put on

concerts in central park, but they wanted to crank it all the way up. the preschool could not me, the yoga class could not meet, other people could not do exercises. they were told they had to turn it down. the supreme court said that is right because you do not have the right to drown out everyone else's speech. if you understand that, you would understand north carolina. i encourage everyone to read the filings and montana. they describe a history of massive corporate corruption outside the state to take over their democracy. the ban on corporate spending was an attempt of the people of montana to govern themselves. this is about self-government. >> i have further questions, but

i want to keep the time limits. my time is up. i yield to senator grassley. >> before i ask my first question, i want to correct something that often shows up in the press. one of my colleagues has said the same thing today. citizens united said -- the comment was made that citizens united opened the door to millions of dollars in contributions. what they dealt with, and only, with expenditures and has no effect on campaign contributions. a front-page article of "the washington post" says political nonprofit groups have become major players in elections since the 2010 citizens united decision paved the way for unlimited political spending by corporations and unions. political nonprofit groups have

been active in campaigns for at least 10 years, long before citizens united was decided. am i right in thinking this point made in "the washington post" article is incorrect? >> i would say that i do not think it is correct to say that these groups are playing an enormously greater role than they used to. they have been around for a while. there is nothing wrong with them playing a greater role. the underlying thesis of critics of this is that -- you have heard it a lot today -- outside money is bad money. it is money that should not be around, should not be allowed

and i reject that and the supreme court has rejected that. on the specific issue of nonprofits. nonprofits do not have to publicly report their spending, except in certain areas. it is hard to know exactly how much more involvement that they have had. only a small percentage, this we do know, the $7 billion spent in the 2012 election came from nonprofit groups or other resources. >> there are organizations -- again, there are organizations in washington that want to limit the role or influence the money

in politics. is that goal consistent with the first amendment? >> i think what they are saying is they want to limit the speech that money allows. when people complain that there is going to be more of this and more is that, or that the speech will contain falsehoods or that politicians or others will be accused in ways that they find uncongenial, what they are really saying is that the money is doing bad things. that is, at its core, inconsistent with the first amendment. the first amendment favors speech. it favors speech from diverse sources. it rejects the notion that speech can be constrained or limited because one person has more than another person. amid all of that -- that all comes with the first amendment. a denunciation of money in politics is a denunciation of politics itself and of the public debate that we have in

politics. >> my next question deals with a point you made in your opening remarks. i ask it only to give you an opportunity to emphasize what i think is an important point. supporters of the proposed amendment think it is needed to prevent wealthy donors from drowning out ordinary citizens and to restore democracy. can you elaborate how this is at odds with the protection of free speech? >> when somebody says that my speech will drown out someone else's speech and i should say less, it is the functional equivalent of telling a newspaper, you ought to have fewer editorials, you should not spend your space denouncing one candidate for office. it is not fair. you have too much power. i grew up in a time where democrats were running against a one-party press.

every newspaper was republican. just about everyone, in those days. no one would have thought that the answer to the so-called one-party press was saying the press cannot print something or that they are printing too much or they are drowning out the opposition. that comes on the menu of the first amendment. that menu includes as much speech as one wants. >> i would like to address my first comment and question to professor raskin. we invited john paul stevens to testify before the senate rules committee, which was an exceptional opportunity to hear his thinking. he raised interesting questions about this issue. he said money is used to finance speech, money is not speech. speech is only one activity financed by campaign contributions and expenditures. those activities should not receive the same protections as speech itself.

campaign funds were used to fund the watergate burglaries. in closing, he proffered a sample of a constitutional amendment. he made an observation we ought to consider, even those of us who support senate joint resolution 19. he suggested we should include the word reasonable when we are talking about limitations on campaign spending. " i think it wise to include the word reasonable to ensure legislatures do not prescribe limits so low that incumbents do not have an unfair advantage or interfere with the freedom of the press." do you think reasonable would be

a positive addition to this resolution? >> reasonableness applies to all of the constitutional amendments. you can find dozens of courses -- i would take care of the problem by inserting the word. money not equaling speech is a critical point for people to understand. there are forms of purchase and exchange that we criminalized. buying sex, we don't say if someone wants to buy the surfaces of a prostitute it is a violation of their freedom of speech.

even mr. abrams and the people on the other side take the position that laws against bribery are. it is not clear why. i feel strongly about an issue and i want to give you money to go my way, why should you not be able to accept it? it is because we believe within the governmental process and electoral process, there are right reasons to make decisions and there are wrong reasons. a wrong reason is the money that you're going to put in your pocket or huge amounts of money you will put into your campaign, or lots of spending to take place. why can't we take into account the social context of money? money is not speech. it is property. speech has verbs and adjectives and nouns. it is what the philosophers call a category error to mix them up. >> incumbents are trying to protect themselves by arguing against citizens united. we offer a greater opportunity

for challengers than experience suggests that they currently experience -- that they currently have under the law. senator mckissick, one thing that has been raised consistently -- we have been chided, saying we are not being good liberals by not expanding this. when it comes to north carolina, it appears that mr. pope was responsible for 72% of all outside spending in your state in the year 2010. instead of being an open process in north carolina, it turned out to be an elite situation where his wealth gave him more power than the average person living in north carolina to express his political will. could you comment on what has happened to the north carolina political process because of this favoritism towards the elite?

>> i think as a result of his capacity to give millions and millions of dollars, he basically tainted the whole election process. he had influence disproportional to the number of people who share his beliefs. when it comes to the political process, as we have seen it today, there are many people who feel as if they have been disenfranchised. they have gone and as a result of legislation, there will be new ambulatory standards applied to abortion clinics. 16 abortion clinics, all were closed except for one. they have purged people from boards and commissions that have been previously appointed by prior governors and members of --. all of their terms were shortened. public education, there was

legislation that was passed that eliminated teacher tenure. it was challenging the court and found unconstitutional. no limitation to the number of kids in the classroom, we are 46 in teacher pay in the country. things that are putting north carolina behind. many issues, unemployment compensation. we are now giving people 26 weeks. we are the only state in america that restricts long-term benefits to people who were eligible for it. a lot of things that happen in our state that the vast majority have told would not agree, but they have been implemented as a result of the amazing level and financial capacity of our ability to influence the outcome of 18 critical races.

>> senator hatch? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. abrams, i am not the only one to believe you are the leading first amendment lawyer in the country. you're not a member of -- >> that is true, not yet. >> i like the thought. we are very privileged to have you here today and grateful to have the other witnesses as well. mr. abrams, this is not the first amendment that proposes frustrations on speech. this one goes beyond what we have seen in the past. as far as i can tell senate joint resolution 19 is the first one for the purpose of achieving what it calls political

equality. under this amendment the constitution could redefine equality and decide whose speech should be suppressed or allowed. isn't this at odds with america's entire history of controlling speech? >> it is. it gives enormous power to the legislatures, congress, and states to enforce the law. i would assume that the courts would be very deferential to anything that those legislatures did. that being said, while there might be an equal protection or other arguments made, i really believe that an amendment of this breadth would change

substantially and in an irrevocable way, except another constitutional amendment, the whole nature of american society as a speech-protecting society. >> another difference is this amendment will give government to control not only money, but also it would cause in-kind equivalents, like the notion of political equality. this is something completely new. it appears the government will be able -- if this amendment passes -- will be able to define this category, however it wants, and therefore control -- they would be able to control whatever government wants. how far do you think this new dimension of regulation extends, and do you expect -- it would have to be litigation to figure

out how it applies? >> no doubt. there would have to be enormous litigation. the reality is -- how shall i say this to members of congress here? -- if you provide a congress or state legislatures with power, they are likely to use it. and they are likely to use it in this area, in a speech-destructive way. that is what this whole thing is about. i understand the argument of equality, that more people, few people have great wealth and wealth gives more power, as has been said. but the effect of this amendment

would be to embody into our law by changing substantively, changing and limiting the first amendment in a way that at the least we are going to have years and years of litigation. but i do not mind that personally. what we are going to have beyond that is a significantly diminished ability to have this sort of ongoing confrontation at length that we have in our electoral process. the 2012 election in my view was a good example of this system working. there was lots of money out there. there was lots of speech.

people heard, sometimes more than they wanted to, but they heard the views of the parties and had a chance to vote. that is way the system ought to work, and that is threatened by this legislation -- this amendment. >> professor raskin says the supreme court's decision in citizens united eliminated the provision that kept trillions of dollars in corporate wealth flowing into federal campaigns. i think that is a misleading description of the case. as i read it, the citizens united case involved a nonprofit organization, not a wealthy for-private corporation, and the case did not involve campaign contributions at all. am i right? >> it left standing the contribution sections. >> we have seen a flood of corporate wealth flooding into campaigns since the citizens united decision? >> we have seen a lot of individuals giving money. we have seen an increase in the amount of money from what i call main street rather than wall street. but we have not seen is precisely what was predicted. we have not seen enormous sums, let alone trillions of dollars, from the biggest companies in america flowing into the electoral process. that just has not happened. >> my time is up, mr. chairman.

>> senator schumer? i might note there are two roll call votes on the floor. there is an effort to keep the committee hearing continued. senator schumer? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i appreciate leader reid and leader mcconnell being here as well. i have been really surprised at the level of rhetoric that we have heard from senator mcconnell and senator cruz. i think they want to replace logic with hyperbole. the bottom line is senator mcconnell said how shockingly bad this proposal is. i will tell you what most americans think is shockingly bad, that our system has become distorted by a few who have a lot of money drowning out the voices of the others. when john stuart mills said the answer to restrictions of speech is more speech, he did not just

mean from one side. the world did not exist that way then. but it exists now. then senator cruz said americans would gasp if they heard what incumbents are trying to do. i will tell you what makes the american people gasp, is that a small handful of people can have a huge effect on our political system and not just offending incumbents. what a canard that is. most of the money that has come from the super pacs and for many of these groups are knocking out incumbents, particularly those from the other side, whether republican or democrat. senator cruz said we should be embarrassed about this amendment? i will tell you, senator cruz, i am embarrassed about how this system is distorted by literally billions of dollars coming into the system undisclosed, unregulated, and unanswered. and senator cruz, maybe he considers himself to be a constitutional expert.

he knows that no amendment is absolute. his rhetoric is over the top and makes it seems like if you support this amendment you're against the first amendment. i want to ask you, senator cruz, are you against anti-child pornography laws? he is not here. if he against anti-child pornography laws? is he an absolutist on the first amendment? does he think everybody should be allowed to falsely scream fire in a crowded theater, and if anybody's opposed to that, are they opposed to the whole first amendment against free speech? libel laws? if you're for libel laws, does that mean you're against free speech and you are against the first amendment? absolutely not. we have always had. balancing tests for every amendment some of my college on

the other side believe there should be one for the second amendment. i believe there should, but i believe there is a right to bear arms. i do not like seeing it through a pinhole. that is neither here nor there. we have always had balancing tests for every amendment. they are not absolute. and to say that you cannot have some regulation when billions of dollars cascade into the system, and that is unconstitutional? it is false. it is absolutely false. it is against 100 years of the tradition in this country, and we know what is going on here. i guarantee you that senator mcconnell would not have flipped his position, particularly on disclosure, if the vast majority of the money, unregulated money, coming into the system were from democrats, not republicans. we know that, because i remember him being here, the strongest advocate of disclosure.

we cannot get a republican to be on a single disclosure bill. i'm sure even mr. abrams would agree that this closure, the supreme court agrees, is not against the first amendment. >> yes. yes, that is correct. >> and i believe he would believe this is closure would be salutary. do you agree with that? >> yes. >> to say when it comes to money there should be no balance contests, but when it comes other parts of this amendment and other amendments there should be a balancing test is logically false, demonstrably false. and all the rhetoric, the overheated rhetoric, the hyperbole that we heard from senator cruz just defies logic, device constitutional tradition, and it is not going to make us back down. i do not believe the koch

brothers are being denied their rights or would be under any legislation this congress would pass. i do not believe it is the same exact heart of the constitution, the same dearness that we hold in free speech, to get up on a soapbox and make a speech or to publish a broadside or a newspaper, as it is to put the 11,427th ad on the air, so your opponent cannot get a word in. i do not believe that is in the spirit of free speech, not just today, but when james madison, thomas jefferson, and our great, great founders, the most brilliant group of men ever assembled, in my opinion, people, although they were just men -- i wish there were some women there -- [laughter] i think of thomas jefferson

would look down on what is proposed here he would agree with it. he would agree that the first amendment cannot be absolute. he would agree that to keep a democracy going you cannot have a handful of a few who are so wealthy that they can influence the process and drown out the voices of the others. any of us who has run for offices and against one of the super pacs knows you can distribute a leaflet and answer it, but the way our political system works on it does not work. i would like to get back to a fact-based debate on this matter. first amendment has always, always, always had a balancing test. it did then. it does not. if there were ever is a balance that is needed, it is to restore

some semblance of one person, one vote, some equality that the founders sought in our political system. i have gone over my time because i was a little bit excited. [laughter] >> ok, they are asking us to take a brief recess or i will miss the vote, which will be monumental. we will return very soon when senator durbin returns. thank you very much. we are in recess. >> primary elections are being held in eight states. a tea partypi, challenger chris mcdaniel.

. look at politico senator cochran is leading his opponent by less than a thousand votes. this week marks the 25th anniversary of the tenement -- the tm and square protest -- the tiananmen square protest. bush'sl see george h.w. news conference. that is coming up in 15 minutes from now. on this morning's washington journal, we talked with a number of congress who took part in the debate in 1989. there was a tremendous move. 400 cities and beijing as well. students and others all joined in, and for the and respect for fundamental human rights. it was probably one of the

greatest hopes and expectations all of us had ever had. , approximately two months of relatively peaceful demonstrations, the dictatorship decided to come down with an iron fifth -- fist. they sent in and a large number of they net wielding soldiers , tookthey hunted down to many to prison, where they were tortured. the labor camps, which many of them ended up in erie it was one of the worst, write in plain view of time magazine. cnn was covering it live. of chile, the response from the west was very weak. and enabling. perhaps unwittingly, but it was. very little outrage. fore was a big move

democracy. we saw it in the union and the east block, but not so for the beleaguered activists who have sat five so much erie it i just had a hearing. with ofred it friday the activist who were there, all of whom spent some time in toldtion or in prison, who the story of make -- missed opportunities, especially including june 4, when there was such a lackluster response from interested parties around the world. host: there have been varied accounts and we have been looking for -- at some of the pictures. toll?as the final death >> it is still open for discussion. the government never allowed and in the end and investigation. on times, the numbers are in the thousands.

at least 200 were killed right on this where as all of this was happening. the interesting music you years invitedresident clinton the operational commander who ordered the slaughter of the students, had him into the white i thinkave him is moot, he should've been held liable for crimes against humanity. a horrible erie it he went to the army war college and said in answer to a western in 1996 thomas nobody died at this where. i put together a hearing and had who of those who were there said, we watched as people were killed by tanks, bayoneted, shot and beaten by the time to death. press back in china, how he went to the white house and was treated like an honored

guest. was a horrible show of lack of concern with the man who said to go in there and kill those students. >> you talked about reaction. let's go back to june 6, 1989. george h.w. bush had this to say at the white house area -- house. student standing in front of the tank, and then, i might add, seeing the anchor driver exercise restraint here and i'm convinced -- restraint. the forces of democracy will overcome these events in the square. on the commercial side, i do not want to hurt the chinese evil. -- people. i believe commercial contracts have led, in essence them to the west or more freedom.

i think people have commercial incentive, whether in china or other totalitarian systems, the move to democracy becomes more inexorable. president george h.w. bush served -- and china. . was that strong or tepid? guest: i think tepid. to talk about hurting the chinese evil, our trade deficit and trading relationship with china at that time was miniscule. many of us were arguing in the 1980's and 1990's we need to link it can progress in human rights with a most favored trading status so the chinese. x -- chinese get well treated. but only if human rights are followed and ed. two.

be achieved, significant progress. bill clinton actually called president bush's response -- he called it coddling dictatorship. even though i am a republican, i agree with him. then bill clinton did one of the most shameless things in history. we had the votes to take away most favored nation status. totally bipartisan. in 1993, the president said to just if him a year. he wrote out any that you order that talked about significant progress in all categories of human rights observance. it was a beautiful order. true solidarity. in, no matter what they do in china, they were going to get the trading privileges and human rights will nearest waste the bin. i met with foreign minister

people. hundreds said we stand with clinton and we mean it. if you do not improve, you will lose the trading privilege. i was laughed at in beijing. a big smile came on the face of one of my interlocutors. sure enough, on may 26, 1994, and c-span covered the press a friday, i had, on when no one was left in congress were very few were still around, late in the day, a new cycle was over. though clinton took his exit of order and ripped it in half. even though there was no progress, there was sickness and deterioration. no human rights conditionality what's a lever. -- what so ever. that is when we lost china. andut rockets above people

above torture, religious persecution, and all the other human rights abuses. president bush was wrong. clinton got it right. then buckles, may 20 6, 19 -- 1994, we lost china. host: part of the diplomatic equation is the debt we had with china. is how that has impacted this debate. >> hillary clinton made the her first trip in china. she said, i will not let human rights interfere with little to -- interfere with global climate change issues. many activists, all of the great activist who have spent decades of their lives in prison suffering torture.

harry role was in my office a day or two after she made that damon. he got angry, his hands were shaking. he's at, clinton does not care about human rights. .t is through the dissonance human rights always at the center piece of our relationship with a country am a and human rights and christians ain't persecuted, always at the center of that relationship and not so with china. that again was another iteration of 1994 capitulation with her husband, bill clinton. these are all unnecessary. there have been missed opportunities get i asked the question friday. all of the witnesses recounted these opportunities staring us right in the face to have the facts of the best and brightest in china whose effort human

rights. changs and these other great men and women, who just want democracy and freedom and they deserve it erie these our universe the -- universally recognized values. host: let me get your reaction to these headlines. -- guest: i have been working on the internet or balance and answer ship issue as well. i had a hearing devil years back in which we had mike is, google, yahoo!, all test the five. i soar all of the individuals in. swore all of the individuals in. names were given up of e-mail .ccounts

telling in prison for an engineer in new york city what they could and could not do around the observance of tiananmen square. we cannot have corporate complicity either. google and some of the other internet providers now support a bill i have introduced, called the global online freedom act, which would require a full disclosure of what is being answered. i went to a computer café in beijing and googled my name, block. i googled obama's name, locks. and i gottorture guantanamo and what the japanese did to d china and world war ii.

i got a guantanamo report but on the scathing report torture against chinese dissidents, christians, muslim lakers, and tibetan looted -- and tibetan buddhists. be seen oncould regular google but not on china. two things are necessary for a dictatorship to survive, a strong secret police -- it is ubiquitous. .econdly is the propaganda if you ask a student in tnm and square in beijing -- in tnm and tieneman square. host:

>> the heritage foundation, the history of the u.s. negotiating for the release of pows. heels of the the obama administration on the release of taliban prisoners. plus, it your phone calls, facebook comments, and treats. -- tweets. lonely point on the northern shore of france, the air is soft, but 40 years ago, the air was dense with smoke and the cries of men and the air was filled with the crack of rifle

fire and the roar of cannon. rangers jumped off the british landing craft and ran to the bottom of these cliffs. their mission was one of the most difficult of the invasion. to climb these desolate cliffs and take out the enemy guns. the allies had been told that some of the mightiest were here and they would be trained on the beaches to stop the allied advance. the rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers at the edge of the cliffs shooting down at them with machine guns and throwing grenades. >> this weekend, american history tv will mark the 70th anniversary of the d-day invasion. starting saturday morning at 10:30 a.m. eastern. historian,lowed by he will discuss his new book.

will take yourhe questions and comments live. at 1:30 p.m., a look back at presidential speeches commemorating the day. >> traveling in europe this week, president obama pledged to boost u.s. military deployment. this comes after russia's intervention in ukraine. tomorrow morning, the president will speak at a ceremony in poland marking the anniversary of the first elections. live coverage at 5:30 a.m. eastern. queen elizabeth will travel from buckingham palace to parliament for the state opening of the british parliament. she would've -- deliver a speech on that government priorities for the coming year. this week is the 25th anniversary of the tiananmen