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. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] for what we are >s

facing here, but we are trying to get two vote in and get the .ommittee active senator whitehouse has already voted on the first amendment. i recognize him at this point. you see the musical chairs, it is an effort to keep two things going here at once. >> we can indeed walk and chew gum. i said have you all here. i appreciate this, and i appreciate the lively debate that is taking place. i think the debate about the first amendment and the lurid descriptions of how this is the first time in history congress has tried to amend the first amendment does overlook a rather significant fact in the room, indeed, the elephant in the room, which is that five conservative activists sitting on the united states court for

the first time decided that unlimited spending in elections was a-ok. they parted so dramatically from the american people. recent polling shows the court withprecedented bad odor the american people as a result of that. the most damning information was from a recent poll that showed 1 americans by 9- believe this supreme court will favor corporations over individuals. i would suggest there's plenty of evidence in the supreme court records, 5-4 decisions, driven by the right-wing activists, to justify that concern. i do not think you can get the americans to agree 9-1 that the the east.in the

i think it is a real warning shot across the bow of this court that they need to stop being activists and start trying to find consensus and start trying to rebuild this. iveyou omit the fact that f conservatives for the first time ticked down hundreds of years of controls over and unleasheding corporations, which are not even mentioned in the constitution or the will of rights to spend unlimited in elections, you are salientng a relatively fact from the discussion. i think that fact is really at the heart of this discussion. i see what we are trying to do is repair and a routine decision -- an erroneous decision by visiting core that will end up in the category of plessis as an embarrassing moment in the

history of the court. make one e additional point. we are trying to fix a court that went berserk by a narrow five conservative judge margin and did so to massive benefit the corporate interests that in many cases actually backed those judges getting on the court. the second point is that the decision overlooked some very important factors. ofy got the whole business the transparency totally wrong. they have not admitted they got it totally wrong, but it is undeniable they got it totally wrong because it is totally untrained parent. -- on transparent. another important thing the overlooked is that -- i think i am correct with this, mr. abrams -- there's a first amendment

limit in this area that allows us to protect the electoral process against fraud and against corruption. that is well-established first amendment doctrine, is it not? >> yes. around that problem they had to pretend that unlimited spending could not create any risk of corruption in campaigns, because if it did, which it obviously does, then congress would have the right and ability under the first amendment under the first amendment, to legislate in this area. and the thing that as a prosecutor i have noticed and it is not just me, senator mccain and i wrote a brief together that made processes this point, so it is a bipartisan point, if a corporation is allowed to spend unlimited money, particularly if it is allowed to

do it anonymously, guess what -- it is allowed then to threaten and to promise to spend unlimited money. and all the safeguards of the supreme court saying it would be there to seeing the ads up on the tv and knowing who was behind them and having it add to the public debate falls to ashes when you are talking about a corporate lobbyist going into a member of congress and saying here is the ad we are going to play. we are going to put $5 million behind in your district. unless you vote right. and so the power to spend that kind of money is also the power to threaten them and that power to threaten is the power to corrupt, and that is the nexus that i think we have to remember, and i will yield back my time. would you care to comment? >> thank you. senator whitehouse, several points i would like to make. one is that that you decision

overthrew two centuries of understanding what a corporation is. it goes back to 1819, marshall said a corporation is an artificial entity, invisible, in existing -- possessing only the right that the legislature confers upon it through the charter. because of that for more than a half-century we have forbidden corporations -- >> which was the understanding of the founding fathers, correct? re were few corporations and they were on a short leisure. jefferson said they have to be kept on a short leash, the state has created the corporation and the state need not permit its own creation to consume it. they made that the law and citizens united. in the austin versus michigan

chamber of commerce case, the supreme court said of course the government can't keep corporate money from flowing into political campaigns on an independent expenditure basis, because this is money that is in there for economic purposes. the reason why macdonald has billions of dollar is because they have millions of hamburgers, not because they have good politics. marshall noted there was a distinction corrupting effect in taking that money assembled for economic purposes through lots of state-conferred advantages, favorable treatment of the assets of the company. this goes all the way back for two centuries, this understanding of why the corporation has got to be confined to the economic realm. the court did say and i were senator hatch was still here because he said that i was somehow unfair in taking a case that was just about a not-for-profit's use of a movie and said it applies to all the

private corporations in america. i agree it is unfair, but it was not my decision. that was the decision of the screen court. when the case came to the court, there was a simple claim made by the citizens united group, which i think they should've won on. it was a statutory claim. aey said we have pay-per-view movie we are putting up the. it is not like an attack ad that everybody has to see. we do not think that comes within the prohibition of mccain-feingold. they could have won and they should have won on that point. they also should've one because even if you counter intuitively view a tv ad, 50,000 people would have seen it. they would be lucky to have 500 people watch it. there were lots of statutory ways to solve this case. roberts, who said he was committed to judicial minimalism and the candidate of constitutional avoidance, a central principle of constitutional adjudication, which is you do not reach a constitutional issue if there's a better statutory way coming

out in the same way, they destroyed the canon of constitutional av oidance. the gave the parties command to go back and reargue the case based on all corporations, everywhere, at all times. so when the supreme court came back and said all corporations have a first amendment right to spend money in politics, that was way beyond what they were being asked to do originally, and it depended on reargument. a series of questions have been posted the other side about today have an absolutist perspective on the first amendment in terms of child permanently and libel and defamation. i would be curious if mr. abrams would take on that. there are more direct questions that need to be asked, because we see a tremendous momentum on the court and the people bringing these cases to strike

down all campaign-finance law, all of it, including the tillman act going back to 1907. mr. abrams agreed that limits should be given. i think he would take the position since limits should be caned that corporations also give money directly to abolishe campaigns, to a century a practice of saying that there is a wall of separation between corporate contribution money and federal political campaigns. what we are facing is the complete wipeout of campaign-finance law, if they have the courage of their convictions. if cruises rectum which is that money is speech, then you have right,is -- if cruz is that money is speech, then you have to -- these issues have been with us a long time in the court did not make this stuff up. in 1947 the vetoed

taft-hartley bill which was the first bill that imposed limits on expenditures. he vetoed it and said that a reason for vetoing it was that it violated the first amendment. the very sort of issue that you're constitutional amendment would be passing on. the constitutional amendment that is before you is one which as itnot just reverse were citizens united, but the buckley case as well. we are going back and we're not just talking about conservative jurists. we are talking about justice brennan, justice marshall, justice stewart -- >> they did not sign off on citizens united. >> but they did on the proposition that independent expenditures could not be limited. that is what he was about. citizens united was not about contributions. citizens united moved from -- fromwhich doubled

buckley which dealt with independent expenditures, to independent expenditures from corporations and unions, by the way. that there simply has been a philosophical disagreement about this for many years, with many justices on the supreme court taking different positions, so that i really do not think -- >> through it all, the laws of the united states have limited contributions in federal elections. >> and they still do. wayst in very important they do not. the idea that citizens united did not change anything runs contrary to everybody's experience. we see all around us how it has changed anything. you cannot just change part of an ongoing debate. it is a huge infection point in in way democracy operates this country. look at the super pacs out th

ere. >> if i could comment briefly. >> senator. >> i am an attorney, but not the next record first amendment for. but i can't say that as a practical reality come to the united has profamily -- has profoundly change the landscape. i look at a state landscape. they have gone in there with their dark money, $1 million, to disproportionately impact the outcome of that race, unlike anything we've ever seen. the only thing it will take is one race after another race after another race. in north carolina the control of the spring court is at stake now. it is an issue because these laws have been enacted, that are unconstitutional, and

will end up there. if you use this money to change the balance on the supreme court and our state, a can be done in the state, should there be reasonable limitations, it is absolutely imperative that we do so. proportionate is -- this is proportional impact who controlled the way that legislatures are opening up the floodgates that are going to have a negative impact on our political process and the rights of individuals. recognize senator cruz. i think senator hatch has already asked. thank you. at the outset i would like to say i understand in my absence senator schumer very kindly gave a lecture on civility and

encouraged me not to go over the he'd been in the same breath accuse me of supporting child productivity. so i appreciate that demonstration in senatorial restraint from the senior senator from new york. let me say to the members of this panel, welcome, thank you for joining us. let me in particular welcome floyd abrams. lienbrams, you have been a life, thel first ofion the passion which you have defended the first amendment against assaults from members of your own party and pretty much anyone else. i appreciate your being here. there were democratic senators willing to defend the first amendment. in our history democrats have been willing to do that, and we are in a strange point of time

abandon the first amendment and propose repealing it. i want to address three canards that are put forth in support of this institutional amendment. number one, this is all about the various billionaires. it is interesting, if you look at the open secrets website which i would note is a nonpartisan group, the top 16 toors to campaigns from 1989 support0% of them predominantly democrats or on the fence. active,three donors are which has spent over $102 million, the national education situation, $58 million. koch industries, they are number

59. there's a pattern in politics where when governments try to take the liberty of the citizens away they distract them with shiny objects. we have seen the majority leader repeatedly slandering two kochate citizens, the brothers. there is a role when one senator ofugns the character another, you can rise in a point of personal privilege. aere is no rule that allows person to rise on that same point of personal privilege. forth isd canard put money is not speech. that has been repeated over and over again. i would note any first year law student who put that as his or her answer on an exam would f because it is

obviously demonstrably false and it has been false since the dawn of the republic. speech is not just any on a soap screaming on the sidewalk. from the beginning of the republic, the expenditure of money has been integral to speech. the supreme court has said that pamphlets, the federalist , took money to distribute, putting up t billboards. every of those were cars expenditure of money. every person in this room, if you think about it disagrees with the proposition that expending money is not speech. publishing a book is speech. publishing a movie is speech. ging is is speech -- blog speech. the third canard is that corporations have no rights. that gets repeated.

you would get an f if you would embrace that position. times" is ak corporation. ae sierra club is corporation. the nra is a corporation. is a corporation. none of the people who say corporations have no rights would possibly suggest that congress can then prevent the naacp from speaking, and prevent "the new york times" from speaking. nobody has agreed with a litany of arms that could occur if congress passed the still, the ability to muzzle citizens from organizing, because that is an in-kind exposure. the ability to silence bloggers. i have introduced an amendment

entitled the super pac illumination active 2014. what this bill will do is number campaign limits on individual contributions to federal candidates. right now the current system we have is stupid. you have got super pac spending out of control and it has grown because congress has attempted to regulate it. the bill i introduced will eliminate individual accreditation limits and provide immediate disclosure within 24 hours of any contribution made to a federal candidate. what that would do as a practical matter is make it transparent and make super pacs irrelevant. a number of states have systems like this and it works well. the second bill i have introduced today is a free speech for all act. we have heard corporations are not people. what this bill says is simple. any restrictions on the right, the free speech rights of

citizens shall apply with equal force to media corporations like abc, andrk times, cbs, nbc. to theon two says it extent any restriction is found unconstitutional as applied to that media corporation it shall also be deemed invalid as applied to an individual citizen. so if everyone who is arguing corporations are not people, i hope and expect all the democrats to happily cosponsor this bill, because it says an individual citizen is at a minimum entitled to the same first amendment protection that we give to these giant media corporations. free speech for all. we should be defending the bill amending, not debating , and repealing the free-speech protections of the bill of rights. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i will recognize myself. have you questioned yet?

>> you. >> senator klobuchar, our senior senator, gets to ask questions. >> thank you very much. thank you, chairman franken, and thank you to the witnesses for being here. i was in north carolina, mr. mckissick, and was able to speak dinner and hear about all the things that you have talked about today in terms of the effect of the big money in north carolina and some of the policies that we have seen and what was of particular concern was getting rid of the same-day registration. whether we elected a republican jesse venturer, and independence, the fact that we have people participate matters, and the fact that that in northcut back

carolina matters a lot. i was interested in hearing mr. abrams talk about how this should not be about bad policies, and i would agree. what we're trying to get at here a line heree is between what is corruption and what is not corruption and what this leads to. this is not defined in the supreme court case. for me is the basis for why we have to look at this constitutional amendment. i don't think anyone thinks the idea of a proposed 28th amendment in the constitution lightly, but we know there have been times in our history where congress has needed to act restore our understanding of the constitutional rights of every day people and everyday people are getting drowned out. ruled past supreme court that women did not have the right to vote. we responded with the 19th amendment. after the dred scott decision, congress responded by passing the civil war amendment. after the supreme court reasoned decision about money in politics, we have been working on disclosure bills. i have come to the conclusion

and feel very strong dose disclosure bills are important and i appreciate you do not see them as unconstitutional. they are not going to fix it. they're not going to fix the fact that what i have seen in my state, where we used to have limits before these decisions and still some of them are in place that would allow jesse venturer to run a campaign without having tons of money spent in and brought in from out of state that was undisclosed, that came as a result of that citizenship united decision -- citizens united decision. my first election was $500 for local office. it allowed someone for me to have 1/3 of the money and my opponent to have won the election. on network.ran ads i could only run on a very few local cable stations with a black-and-white ad because of money. i won by two votes per precinct. i know this story.

i want to start out with a question of you, mr. raskin, about the major shifts you have seen since the citizens united and how you see this trend is continuing in the future. >> thank you. others have spoken about the daily dish of money ---- the deluge of money which has overtaken our politics. there's a piece on this showing how in 2006 before the case there was $25 million in outside expenditures. in 2010 there was $250 million. $1 2012, it was over one billion. we are on pace to exceed that. the thing i want to focus on is there is a free market ideology which is animating the justices on the court them and i think this confuses mr. abrams'

testimony that will threaten to wipe out all the campaign-finance laws we have got. i would be curious to know do they think we should have limits on contributions or is that an unacceptable violation of people's speech? should we continue to have the continuation of the tillman act which bans conditions for people running for federal office -- tothat is a good question ask mr. raburn's. mr. abrams, you supported his closure laws when senator schumer asked that question. who you support any other limits campaign concretions like mr. raskin just mentioned? >> excuse me. i pretty well have come to the conclusion that contribution limits as well ought to fall. i think they should be disclosed

that we seems to me have reached a point, in our jurisprudence and our politics, where, if we know what the money is and where the money is coming from, that i think we can trust the public to make a rational decision. and where they do not make that that we arethink goingntly and necessarily through a cost-benefit analysis in terms of there is cost with speech. speech does not do only good things. it is a good thing that we protect speech, but speech does harm some time, and maybe the speechof having more paid for by fewer people will sometimes be harmful.

but my view is that at the end myself,ay i think, for that contribution limits as well probably should fall. >> mr. raskin? >> i'm taking it, since he thinks corporations have the same rights of people, that the corporation should also be able to give on an unlimited basis to members of congress. we have one philosophy that says money should be treated like speech, corporations like people, and that the free marketr rein. we have another that adheres to the american political tradition that within the electoral realm rough to maintain some approximation of political equality based on the core idea of one person, one vote. abrams' appreciate mr. candor, because that is where the litigators are going.

at me just say there is one supreme court decision with chuck is me a little bit of hope. it came the year before citizens massey, aperton vs. case where the ceo of the massey coal mine corporation had a litigation against him and the company going, and they were losing all the way out. they decided to get involved in the election for the west virginia supreme court, and he threw everything he had enjoy candidate who later became justice regimen. he gave a $1000 concretion. then he gave $2.5 million to a candidate -- a corporation called for the sake of the kids. and he spent more money on independent spending. when that happened, his favored candidate had his money drowned out everybody else. it was more money than anybody else gave put together by huge factor.

he won the election. he gets in and he serves on the supreme court panel reviewing the case and what do you know, they reversed the verdict 3-2 against the corporation, against massey company. that goes to the supreme court. i was too much, not just for scalia, alito, roberts, thomas, but justice kennedy flipped over and wanted the liberals there and said that does compromise at least the appearance of due process. so we are going to send that one back and say that the judge should not have sat on the case. it was fascinating to me that the next year we have the coal mine collapse from the massey 29 people died, the governor issued a report and said one of the factors and what happened was the failure of politicians to try to sell a sleek and force the laws and regulations against domestic corporation because they were afraid of the political spending and the willingness to engage in independent expenditures of the ceo. >> thank you.

i went to look at that case. we have heard about it. it is one example of that story of what has been going on. i think your argument about the corruption and what this is leading to is of great merit. i would also say that i'm glad that you have come out, mr. abrams, saying under this scenario we would have no rules, no limits on contributions, no limits on corporate contributions, and i see more of the same. i do not think this is what our founding fathers wanted. senator sessions? >> thank you. it is an interesting and important panel and discussion. i felt a bitere, aggrieved. i had some opponents who had opposed me and spent millions of dollars. i do not have any money. i was able to win. vements.me grie i asked myself a very snowquester and three months , when thisure

constitutional amendment was first brought forth, and the question was, at a fundamental level, do we want to pass an amendment to the constitution that allows the government of the united states to tell an american citizen or business they cannot run an ad and say jeff sessions is a skunk and on to be voted out of office? or are they not able to advance their view that coal is good or coal is bad? is america going to benefit if we restrict that right? isn't that contrary to the first amendment? i suggest it is because we have an amendment to amend the first amendment. i do not eat the supreme court -- i do not think the supreme court has taken any extreme position. the have interpreted constitution as written. with regard to that first

constitutional proposal, amendment, in 1997, it failed 38-61. when he came back in 2010, it failed 40-56, well below any ofpect of becoming -- passage. that seems to me, mr. abrams, that this amendment would go further. those amendments set reasonable limits which would have given the supreme court or five members thereof some ability to constrict congressional power. do you interpret this as getting almost carte blanche to the congress to limit spending? yes, i think it does just that. and i think that the supreme court itself would read it that way. and if a litigant got up in

isrt and said, look, this really unreasonable, you cannot have a $500 limit in one case out of vermont, just a few hundred dollars, which the court case which, another this amendment would overrule, the court struck it down, saying that is just not enough money to run a campaign. i do not think that would be at all the same. statethis amendment, the legislatures and congress would have i believe all but absolute authority to make these would be and centrally unreviewable, and certainly not reviewable on a reasonableness basis. theo you cannot go to supreme court and say we think this is an unreasonable limit, because the supreme court would say you did not put that test in it, in fact you explicitly pass this amendment after rejected

that word that was in the previous draft. i think that is one of the things we need to recognize. one more thing, i do not know if you have commented on this, but the dissent, four votes, said the public interest in preserving a democratic order in which collective speech matter -- does that cause any unease? should we be concerned? >> i have expressed concern in writing about this. that is justice breyer's diss ent. know, my view is that the first amendment is about protecting the individual's right, and it is not a collective right, and it is not to be interpreted in terms of a in legal terms of

everybody being able to work out social problems, which is a good thing, but not a first amendment concern. the first amendment concern is protecting the public from the government. >> well, i just left simultaneously over there saying the environmental committee hearing in which one of the witnesses, a professor, said he was severely damaged as a result of his questioning of some of the global warming arguments that are made out there. ofhink we are in a period time when speech is being threatened more than we would like to admit, political correctness has often run amok. and it is fundamental that americans be able to express their views without intimidation. i think the great democratic party that was so classically is now becoming the party of the progressives.

and progressives and believe that little things like procedures, rules, even honesty can be ejected to the agenda that they believe is best for america. serious, andhis is i feel it repeatedly in our country and in the debate that we are engaged in. tradition and constitutional order should be respected and in the long run we will be better off if we do not try to muzzle somebody who happens to have money and to keep him or her or this business from being able to express views that they think are important to the public and maybe even their own interest. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i recognize myself. i just heard-- >> you can recognize yourself? >> i do. in the mirror, i recognize i

sell. [laughter] i recognize myself here. >> you handle that deftly. >> thank you. and so did you. [laughter] it's good to see you, mr. abrams. you defended me on a first amendment case. and you one. said toember what you me after i won. even a chimp could have won that case. [applause] >> and i was right. [laughter] you are a brilliant lawyer. i noticed in your written says that mr. abrams it appears that citizens united newnot caused a flood of money and politics. it appears that way.

now from my experience i know mr. abrams is an excellent lawyer. i know he chooses his words carefully. says, "it appears" that way. there really is no way that we know if mr. abrams himself has -- he is getting we are talking about intimidation, about speech. suppose a corporation comes up and there are no limits. ended -- and it says to a senator if you vote this way on this bill we will spend $100 million to defeat you. it's fine, isn't that fine? logic -- to this

>> that is just free speech. on the empirical question let me just say this -- the 100either you put million in or you don't did they don't have to put it into intimidate you. >> the numbers i have seen have gone up dramatically. , theumbers we haven't seen trade associations, the dark money, estimates run into the billions. i don't even know why he would bother to deny it. from his perspective that is more speech and something terrific. i think the center for north your lot has a sense of what this money actually means. before we go any further you have to ask yourself the question to you deregulate money

yet but that is where the court is going, where the regulators are going, where all the organization is. committed towe are is one where people will not have say over it. it is a matter of first amendment law despite the fact people who wrote the first amendment did not know anything about dark money, super packs, or billion dollar bailouts. on their campaigns they basically spent nothing. they stood for office, they did not go out and spend any money. in the name of the founders they are going to give us a completely unregulated political system far more a stream -- far more extreme. and the take away from the people the right to have any say over it. senator cruz talk about media companies like fox news. there is an editorial on the new york times.

we had a vote on disclosure. we did not have one republican join us on disclosure. said you are for unlimited contributions but you prefer to see disclosure. we are not going to see that. so here is the key quote to me for citizens united. we now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. that, to me, is just horribly outside -- that is out of touch with reality. the minnesota league of women

is on a trust level with the visiting nurses society. they issued an import -- a -- rt that included i agree with that. what you think of the court's analysis, of justice kennedy's analysis? is it too narrow of a view? >> it is a far too narrow view that contradicts what justice kennedy said in the decision keeper 10 versus massey. we could regulate not just in the interest of combating quid pro quo corruption but also the appearance of proper influence

and undue influence. there is a whole sequence of supreme court decisions that him -- follows. caperton versus massey, justice kennedy joined the moderate liberal role justices in say we're going to the that verdict away from corporation precisely because of an independent expenditure that was spent in that way. justice kennedy refers to independent expenditures as contributions. for him there so closely connected that he calls them contributions in the first paragraph of the decision. i think it cuts against logic and common sense. >> thank you very much. i'll hand both the microphone and the gavel over to senator cruz. >> thank you to our panel and all who participated today.

let many of my colleagues i have been deeply disturbed by legal developments over the past two years and what i think were the inevitable consequences of those decisions, particularly with regard to unrestricted campaign spending. buckley versus flail established a principle for framework. therefore it is entitled to protection under the constitution and when it might be appropriately restrained. have lost allns sight of that balance and of the importance of that balance and the consequences of destroying that balance. in my view the recent supreme court majority opinion seems singularly focused on whether a specific person or corporation -- withoutving failing to consider other forms of corruption that are corrosive of our political order that undermine public confidence and distracts from the deliberative

workings of legislative bodies at all levels. the cumulative impact of money is very negative. we need to work in a bipartisan way to find a responsible solution to this challenge. if you look at the trajectory of recent decisions i think we are just one or two decisions away from the removal of all limitations whatsoever. >> i just would be interested in your comments on what the elimination of restrictions presented through citizens united -- what is the impact of that on your district and on campaigns using north carolina as an example? expenditures that reflect actual public support espoused by corporations -- they're concerned corporations not be

able to drown out the actual's free speech rights. united, what has the ground like in north carolina? licks the consequences have been grave to say the least. what you really have unleashed is the capacity for these independent organizations to come in, some of which are based in north carolina, any of which are based outside north carolina. they are having an impact on our counselor state races. judicial races, you name it. what you really see is a barrage of negative ads that are run literally around-the-clock that disproportionately highlight some specific issue they think is narrowly based. elicit anly to emotional response among persuadable voters. unfortunately at times it is doing so.

deepind perhaps these pocket corporate donors, millionaires or come in from outside the state. they have a vested self-interest. many of them do not hear the mainstream perspective as the vast majority -- tell you it is basically a centrist state. when you have a centrist state with voters better centrist they frequently, you can see this massive amount of spending. it is five times the money a candidate can put towards an issue. outcomesistorted across the board. >> thank you for that experienced taste testimony on the impact of this flood of

money on elections in north carolina. if i may turn to you, i have a limited amount of time. mr. abrams referenced the first amendment is an individual right that is protected. it is embedded in our first amendment. ?s it true money equals speech do you think -- what is the consequence? >> i think we would agree money is not speech. money can be a courier of speech, it can amplify speech, but precisely because we memorize the individual right, that is why the supreme court has always said up until citizens united that corporations as artificial entities chartered by the state governments to not have the first minute right of the people

. corporations don't have thoughts, desires, feelings, thoughts. rationaleshree basic why we have the first amendment, one is so people can express themselves. two is for self-government. we don't allow foreign governments or foreign corporations and we didn't allow our corporations to take over that process. the third is the search for the truth. corporations are not interested in the truth. operations are interested in profit. it has been fantastically productive doing it that way, to bring the present confuses the issue because we have a heck -- we have a separate clause. they have never regulated it. they certainly would be under the constitutional amendment that would be to -- that would be there today. >> good afternoon. i'm going to take over the

gavel. -- i am thetest latest and likely the last chairman you will have today. i'm going to ask the senator who was before me to go ahead. you, mr. chairman. the current supreme court is one of the most corporate from the courts in history. rulings like citizens united and others have expanded the rights of corporations significantly in a variety of areas that undermine our democracy. i would like to enter into the record 80 new york times article that reports this troubling trend entitled corporations find a friend in the supreme court. >> without objection. >> i would also like to enter into the record and editorial from the charlotte observer entitled, "another window to corruption," talking about the supreme court's continuing to dismantle the country's

campaign-finance laws. >> you describe for us to post citizens united situation in south carolina. we have heard testimony today that the next step, because the court is on the path of saying constitutional rights are a stake in these decisions, the path of a limiting individual youribution limits -- would describe for us what you think would happen in that instance. i think there is an agreement that is the next supreme court campaign spending decision coming down the line. >> that certainly appears the way the supreme court is drifting. i think it would be the wrong direction for this country to move. you have onough limited corporate contributions

coming in today that did not exist before. worst possible thing that could happen is if you also limited to these limitations on individual giving, what you essentially do is distort the whole playing field. ath those contributions $5,000 to come if you eliminate individuals that want to make certain contributions -- it is actually that particular perspective that wins the day before a general assembly, that the laws are adopted that protect those potential contributor's interests. when you think about it it undermines the integrity of our whole system. decisions basically did , theouch the individual

contribution of the individual. barrier.this one can contribute in an unfettered way. do you think that is the kind of undue influence that left states in the -- that led states to pass pending laws in the first place? i did a report for the american way of the session after citizens united, in precisely the context you identified. aggressive prudence on the court. that term of the supreme court appropriations against shareholders, there is one against government regulators. the idea of undue influence and

improper influence has been forn away from congress regulating contributions. the mccutchen decision presses up very hard against intervention -- against individual contribution limit. you cannot limit what people give overall. it reduces with a candidate can spend. >> i share the concerns you express about unfettered giving to individuals. i think that does raise the undue influence concern. these decisions and the next decision i have very little doubt senator cruz is correct and mr. abrams acknowledged that the lifting of those individual contribution limits will be left.

i think that is a huge concern and that's why i believe we need to move ahead with this constitutional amendment bill. there is an agreement we can a reasonable standard into this bill so that the states and the federal government do not go hog wild. the supreme court set up a standard that is probably impossible. the only way we can enact legislation in this area would be we would have to prevent quid pro quo. we can't do anything the supreme court is saying. the same people are now attacking disclosure, not just legislatively. we know there is partisan divide on that. constitutionally they are saying

this is unconstitutional speech under the first amendment. it is like making jehovah's witness -- look at the political realm they want to give to the american people. corporations can give on an unlimited basis, they can spend on an unlimited basis, and they don't have to tell anybody. the wind if anybody even cause a corporation out, saying somehow their first amendment rights are being violated. it is a pretty special first amendment. >> i am out of time. >> i will be very brief. to mr.begin by saying abrams that i hope when senator franken said a chimp could win that case that you double your feet. that's your feet. -- doubled your feet. i would never refer to as a chimp. you are far from it. you have been a formidable and forceful advocate. we thank you all for being here.

i want to take a slightly different line because i think a lot of the ground has been covered. standpointtitutional , and i want to pose this question to mr. abrams first but any of you are free to comment. , the supremeons court makes certain factual conclusions. for example it says the government scenarios are implausible factually to occur. it concludes that technology process to combat the evils that are raised. i have worked as a justice for

the court. i have come to know some of the justices. one fact about them that has impressed me, they are enormously able, aero tight, and caring people. are generally not well andrmed as to the mechanics the practical impacts because by and large they never run for office. many not even contribute intuit. -- contributing to it. great many areas from patents to communication cases where they may not be familiar with the details and so forth. that is their job. in this area that is so vitally affecting the fabric of our and they're being where they are -- they are in

those positions because of this system that they are now willing on. -- now ruling on. are you concerned with the is to show weaknesses of this process that may lead them to reach hugeusions that have unintended consequences way beyond what they thought would happen? >> first, i think you are right. i think that for members of the court, secluded as they are and certainly out of the political mainstream that it is difficult. the patent examples is a very good one. just as other difficult areas of law where they have to reach to try to make decisions about impact of something on the future, which is very hard to do.

that is a problem. it goes with the territory, that is to say i don't think they can avoid it. my second point is i believe that instead of characterizing as many members of this panel , the court has simply conservative or pro-business. i believe that the conservative members of this court have concluded that the first of financempact regulations has been severe. that is to say from their perspective and mine the first has reallyide

breached or threatened very badly some of the legislation that took place before them. because of that, having reached , i think weion deliberately strives to oppose will not allow the first amendment to easily be overcome. think thes where i notion that only quid pro quo corruption is corruption for purposes for these cases. it is not that they don't understand that there could be ore impact on the process that money can be intimidating , it is having concluded that the potential first amendment harm is so great

and that the first amendment risks are so real that they deliberately narrow the legal .est that apply i don't think it is that they are being unrealistic. as your be wrong, question suggested, because they don't have the background. are i am saying is they doing it in the service as they view it of the first amendment. if anyone else had any other observations. >> it is so incontestable. >> if i could be recognized briefly. recognize the direction the court is moving. i recognize when in a probate case comes they may in late that illuminate individual contributions. i think what the court has

failed to do is to understand the potential impact of first amendment rights in other constitutional rights, when you unlike the opportunity for those that are wealthiest in our society to buy elections and to change outcomes and there has to be a balancing of competing interests. i think the proposed amendment, if it were to go forward, would allow for a careful balancing of competing interests by establishing in congress the ability to have these reasonable limitations and like lies within -- and likewise in the debate. undelete ismply the the wealthiest in our society to dominate control and unduly influence outcomes in our political process, our judicial process, but more importantly

the rights of those that may be disenfranchised along the way, such as had occurred in north carolina through our for -- through our voter suppression mom. -- suppression law. >> can you imagine any circumstances or scenarios where you would favor some kind of limits on contributions? >> i don't have a firm view on contributions. i was asked that question and my answer was coming to the point where i thought that contributions would probably be over the line. considered the most or final cut -- or final opinion on my part. i can see a distinction between contributions and expenditures. i think that the buckley case offered a perfectly rational and

defensible compromise in treating expenditures differently of contributions. i do think that in the session or in later sessions of this body, that you proceed with an amendment. you ought to seriously consider why buckley is even on the table. if you are concerned with what you think, citizens united did. one of the previous senators observed at the buckley case was a principal decision. if that were your view you ought not to reverse it. this constitutional amendment reverses a slew of constitutionally roof --

constitutionally rooted cases, which requires very serious to liberation. thank you. >> thank you, senator. thatple of things about point. one is that buckley has been taken to an extreme. we have a runaway faction on the court, which now has used the idea to strike down the public finance regime in arizona, which got more candidates involved, increased speech, encourage competition, and they struck that down. position ishe pro-public finance. my respectno one in to deference of mr. abrams. there is a big division within the aclu and within civil libertarians. there's is a letter that was written by -- taking the opposite position.

free speech and democracy go together and they stand best when they stand together. what happens is in the name of developmentis the of corporate domination, which had always been rejected both by democrats and civil libertarians in the past. --hink we need to unify a need to reunify democracy. this gives us the framework to work it out because this faction under the supreme court is stealing away from democratic institutions, the power to regulate money and establish what has been a wall of separation between plutocratic wealth and democratic politics. >> my thanks to all of you. and to all of the audience for attending. i am going to adjourn this hearing and keep the record open for one week. your testimony has been excellent and very helpful and informative.

on behalf of the committee, our thanks. [captionin >> traveling in europe this week, president obama pledged to boost u.s. military deployment europe.ut this comes after russia's intervention in ukraine. this morning the president will a ceremony in warsaw, poland, marking the anniversary of to land's first free elections. live coverage at 5:30a.m. eastern on c-span. in london, queen elizabeth will travel from buckingham

palace to parliament for the state opening of the british parliament. she'll deliver a speech on for thent priorities coming year. 5:30a.m.rage begins at on c-span 2. >> on a lonely wind swept point france,orthern shore of the air is soft but 40 years ago at this moment the air was dense smoke and the cries of men and the air was filled with the roar of rifle fire and the of cannon. at dawn on the morning of # of june, 1944, 225 rangers jump the british landing craft and ran to the bottom of these cliffs. that are mission was one of the most difficult of the invasion. to climb these sheer and desolate cliffs and take out the enemy guns. the allies had been told that mightiest of these guns were here, and they would be trained on the beaches to

advance.allied the rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers, tending of the cliffs shooting down at them with machine guns and throwing grenade, and the american to climb.gan >> this weekend, american history tv will mark the 7th d-dayr anniversary of the invasion of normandy, starting saturday morning at 10:30 eastern. that's followed at 11:30 by and historian craig sues new book -- he'll discuss his new book. at 1:30, a look back at presidential speeches commemorating the day, all on american history tv, saturday on c-span 3. >> this week is the 25th tiananmeny of the square protest. coming up, we'll review some of the action from toughs government in the days following the chinese government's crackdown on demonstrators.

remarks fromith president george h.w. bush a couple days after the chinese marched on student protesters in tiananmen square, killing hundreds and arresting thousands. president bush announced self theures including suspension of sales to the military. #. >> during the past few days, of the chinese army have been brutally suppressing peacefulnd demonstrations in china. it's been widespread and violence, many casualties, and many deaths. decision to use force, and i now call on the chinese leadership publicly, as i have in private channels, to toid violence and to return their previous policy of restraint. in tiananmentors square were advocating basic

including the freedom of expression, freedom ofthe press, freedom association. these are goal west support around the world. freedoms that are enshrined in both the u.s. the chinese and constitution. throughout the world we stab with those who seek greater and democracy. this is a strongly felt view of administration, of our congress and most important of the american people. we have urgeds mutual restraint, nonviolence and dialogue. has been a violent and bloody attack on the demonstrators. the united states cannot con dome the violent attacks and the consequences for our relationship with china which has been built on a foundation of broad support by the american people. this is not the time for an emotional response. but for a reason, careful

action, that takes into account both our long-term interest and complex internal situation in china. withinlearly is turmoil the ranks of the political theership as well as political people's liberation army. time to look beyond the moment to important and enduring aspects of this vital the unitedp for states. indeed the budding of democracy in recentave seen weeks owes much to the relationship we have developed since 1972. and it's important at this time to act in a way that will encourage the further development and deepening of the positive elements of that relationship. the process of democratization. it would be a trean if china pull back to its era of isolation and repression of

mindful of these complexities yet of the necessity to strongly and clearly express our events of recent days, i'm ordering the following actions. all government to government sales and commercial weapons.f suspension of visits between u.s. and chinese military leaders. sympathetic revow of request by chinese students in the united stay. to extend their and the offer of humanitarian and medical assistance through those injuredto during the assault, and review of other aspects of our relationship as events in china continue to unfold. of democratization becommunist society will not a smooth one and we must react to setbacks in a way which stifleses rather than progress towards open and representative systems. i'd be glad to take a few questions before our cabinet

meeting which starts in a few minutes. tom? >> yes. have said the you jeannie of democracy cannot be china.k in the bottle in do you still believe that and are there further steps that the united states could take such as to furthernctions the -- >> yes, i still believe that. ofelieve the forces democracy are so powerful and when you see them as reasonly as a single student standing in front a tank, and i might add, seeing the tank driver exercise restraint, icon vinceed that the forces of to overcomee going these unfortunate events in tiananmen square. don't commercial side, i want to hurt the chinese people. i happen to believe that commercial contacts have led in

quest for more freedom. i think as people have commercial incentive, whether in china or another totalitarian system, the move to moreracy becomes inexorable. so what we've done is suspended certain things in the military side. with those in the military who were using force. i see some exercising restraint and see the big inside thehat exist we need tom, i think move along the lines i've outlined here. i think that it's important to saying to those elements in restraint, military, continue to show the restrain that many of have you shown. there are deep divisions inside the army. so onre putting the emphasis that side of it. helen? >> do you still have contact

leadership?nese why do -- >> i don't think we waited so helen. i made very clear in a personal this.ication my views on i talked to the ambassador last in touch withen the chinese officials. i can't, i don't feel that we've waited long, when you have a force of this nature and events of this nature unfolding we are the united states and they are china. i want to do is continue to urge freedom, democracy, respect, nonviolence, with grade admiration in my heart for the students. so i don't think we've waited long. >> the chinese government did wait a long time be more than we expected. >> yes, they did. >> then they finely move in. glad you raised that point. we were and have been and will

restraint, andal they did. the army did show when lee was here e, he told me, the army loves the chinese people. and they thoughed restraint for and i can't begin to fathom to you exactly what to the border to use force. because even as recently as a couple days ago, there were, was evidence that the military were under orders not to use force. have to wait now until that unfolds. >> could you give us your best assessment of the political situation there, which leaders are up, which are down, who has who has lost? >> it's too obscure, it's too say.uded to when, i would remind of the history. days, cultural revolution deng xiaoping at may say

tongue's right hand was put out. 1976, he was put last days. the his he came back in and to credit he moved china towards openness, towards democracy, towards reform. see a reversal. and i don't think there's anybody in this country that can withr your question authority at this point. it doesn't work that way in dealing with china. other reports -- >> i don't know for sure on ourer and i've talked to ambassador on that. we can't another.ne way or >> you spoke of the need for the u.s. to maintain rests with china, but given the brutality can toughs ever return the business as usual regime?e current

>> i don't want to see a total relationship. encourage a to the break. when you see these kids for democracy and freedom, this would be a bad the united states to withdraw and pull back and leave of ato the devices leadership that might decide to crack down further. suggested i take the am bass dr out. in my view that would be 180 degrees wrong. our ambassador provides one of the best listening posts we have is thoroughly experienced and to let others make proposals that in my view sense, i want to see us stay involved and restrainto work for and for human rights and for democracy. we have down the road enormous common ality of interest with china, but it will

under a brutal and repressive regime. so i stop short of suggesting to do is we ought break relations with china. i would like to en current them their change. >> you're sending a message to the governmentd about students who continue to what by their belief. message do you want the students to hear? >> that we support their quest for democracy, for reform. and for freedom. and there should be no doubt about that. and then in sending this message would military, i encourage them to go back to the posture of a few days ago that did show restraint, and that did recognize the rights of the did epitomizet what that chinese leader told me people, army loved the there's still vivid examples of that. i can't dictate to the students what they should do from halfway

around the world. support the quest for democracy and reform. to repeat that. >> mr. president, i'd like to ask you about the other development in iran. what is assessment of who is in charge and what opportunities create for in iran yet..s. are we're not sure homeini appears to be the willnted successor, the having been read by his son. of thatn in a society nature it's hard to predict. i would simply repeat what i january 20, that there's a way for relationships with the united states to improve, and is for a release of the american hostages. but charles, i can't give you an answer on that one, no experts either. yet >> do you plan any overtures or other kind of opening toward iran?

>> no. absolutely not. to do.ow what they need we have, there have been a and soon as we, see some move away from and extremism of that nature, we will review our relationship. working our way back. >> did you consider economic sanctions through this morning's will youent and what do if the violence escalates? >> i reserve the right to take a look at things if the violence escalates. but i've indicated to you why i suspension of certain military relationships is better moving against on the economic side. >> mr. president, do you feel leadershipinese cares what the united states does or thinks right now? think they are in the sense contradiction themselves right now.

less has historically been than totally interested in what other countries think of their performance. to the middle kingdom syndrome, you look back in outsiders,n including the united states, reviewed as, quote, barbarians unquote. so historically, china with its immense pride and its cultural background and its enormous history of conflict, internal has been fairly independent in setting its course. i have had the feeling that wants to be a more family of in the nation, and i think any observer would degree that indeed until inent events they had moved that direction. so what i would like to do is en current them to further in that direction by recognizing the rights of and byoung people rebuking any use of force. >> most americans would

understand the chinese, how do you account for the excessive violence? once the army decided to act drive armoredd personnel carriers into people. how can you explain that? really can't, it is very hard to explain. because there was that restraint showeds properly being for a while on the part of the military. challenge to come in and resore i'm sure they've been told order to a situation which i been told was an archaic. it. can explain unless there was under orders, thethen you get into argument about, well, what orders do you follow. and so i condemn it. i don't try to explain it. these next two rows, then i'll peacefully. >> will you be able to accommodate the calls from congress for tougher sanctions?

you were slow to criticize the violence in china before now and many are pushing for tougher action. >> i told you what i'm going to do. i'm the president, i set the policy objectives and actions taken by the executive branch. they know most of them on congress that i am not only a keen personal interest in china but that i understand it reasonably well. i will just reiterate to the afternoon my conviction that this is not a for anything other than a prudent, reasoned response. and it is a time to assert over commitment to our democracy, emphasize the strength that we give to democracy, in situations of this nature. and i come back to the front question here, i do think this change is inexorable him it go a couple steps forward and then take a step back, but it is on the move.

put backie will not be in the bottle, so i'm trying to will encourage a peaceful change, and yet recognize the fact that china own have great pride in its history. and my recommendations are based chineseowledge of history. so i would argue with those who want to do something more because i happen to feel that this relationship is states ofhe united america. and so is our adherence to and our encouragement for those who are willing to hold high the banner of democracy. i think a peru den path here. >> do you think that the events chillingcan have a effect on democratic reforms occurring in other communist countries, the society union and lookrn europe where they at --

>> no. i think the move that we're in eastern europe today arein the soviet union going to go forward. i think people are watching more saying how,and given this movement towards the chinesean leadership react in the way they have. i think this may be a sign to the world that people are heroic when its could commitment to democratic change. and i would just urge the recognizeaders to that. last row here, we're going across can that's it. >> mr. president, there are chinesethat the andtary is badly divideed that -- how does sending these military relationships encourage any kind of change? could you explain what the point is?oing that >> i already did, david, you missed it.

i explained it because i want to the military sigh. i've expressed here reforricly feel.dignation we i recognized the history of own middleg into its kingdom syndrome as it's done in various times in it's past. to encourage the things that have helped the people. i think now the suspension is signal. send a strong i'm not saying it's going to cure the short-range problem in any outsideot sure country can cure the short-range. today in, but i think it's very important that chinese know it's not going to be business as usual and it's important that the army know to see restraint. and this is the best way to signal that. there?ers in yes. >> you talked about the divisions within the chinese army. do you or your advisors fear that there could be a civil

between army channelers? towell, i don't want speculate on that, but there are clearly within the army. in terms of use of force. they wouldn't be doing what david kaufman properly happening, units coming in from outside. just in tiananmen square that the chinese, that this problem exists. it's in otherhai, places, but they brought the troops in from outside because the beijing troops apparently demonstrated a great sensitivity to the cause of the young people. and we're disciplined though opted on theey side of democracy and change and

people.g i certainly don't want to speculate on something that i don't have, i can't reach that conclusion. unitse of the soldiers burned their own trucks, and received the same type of intelligence? >> i just saw a speculation, i i don't believe the intelligence said that. but there are reports that it is for some of these military who are much more sympathetic to the openness, to demonstrators. and i again go back to the that tomquestion here asked. the change that's taken place so far, we're beyond a cultural revolution response. of the that the depth feeling towards democracy is so great that you can't put the

genie back in the bottle and return to total repression. athink what we're seeing is manifestation of that in the p.l.a.ns within the but i certainly want to stop a civil wardicting between unit of the people's liberation army. thank you all very much. meeting.cabinet >> what did you think of the election? >> james fallows for the atlantic joins us of. you've written a great deal over the years, weighs mark the 25th anniversary of the crackdown at tiananmen square. government the reacted to that crackdown.

>> i think its initial reaction was carb us and measured. three years later when bill clinton was running against the incumbent president the first george bush he criticized the to thent for todayying so-called butchers of beijing. reactionnk the initial was both for personal reasons on the then president's part, he had been the first u.s. beijing asive in relations normalized and also because i think the u.s. had gotten clear signals from the chinese. seriously andn they were cautioning the united states against doing anything reacting too or strongly. >> we heard from new jersey said a lot smith who about this and characterized that reaction by president bush as tepid. you see it? >> i think that in the sweep of history you can understand why the first president bush responded the way he d. he had a stake with many of the chinese leaders of that time.

it was on 10 years into the that had begun under president carter for whom was a sense there that the united states had to register its displeasure without rupturing relationships with chien a. because peep then and i think now recognize there even the united states can do to shift the internal calculationings of the so theent in china. u.s. had various embargoes, resolutions condemning the chinese, it tried to organize protests. but it didn't go further than the because i think calculation was what finally could the u.s. do. was goinge government to ignore whatever more the u.s. d. >> in terms of a longer term, the teen an many massacre change u.s. policy all, andhina, if at we're showing viewers video that c-span shot back in our 1998 visit. >> i think it's a permanent that do, a permanent, more than an a permanent factor in

how the united states views the chinese government. the timee hand since richard nixon through the time of president obama, the u.s. government and u.s. businesses it's better to engage china than try to exclude china. chien is a going to develop and better if the united states is part of that than not. on the other hand, the united that as aognizes democracy movement seem to be gathering force in china 25 government very brutally squashed it, so i think whereowledge of that and the government's priorities lie been a china has factor.t complicating >> in a point of reference, the number killed in tiananmen a report this week that said it's still unaccounted for. on that?ur best guess >> i've been cautious in trying people.xactly how many there are plausible estimates that range from a couple hundred couple thousand. and i've spoken to eyewitnesses

there, both chinese and foreign wildly differing reports. i think the truth is we'll probably never know for sure, large scale killing of chinese citizens by chinese military. whether it a couple hundred or a thousand, it's a very significant ep speed either way. recent years we have seen mass from tests in the middle elsewhere.ne and governmentr response -- >> i think the only real comparison is with events in the former soviet union and now in of former soviet territory ukraine. because in the today's ukrainian case ofcase as with the china 25 years ago, the u.s. recognizes that on the one hand it feels itents must condemn. on the other hand there's a of history andep complicated relations, and another power that is not our ability to control.

my view having lived in china thea number much years is united states cannot dictate what the chinese is going to do, the power to do that. i think that's similar when i ukraine.russia and syria, egypt, other places, i think there it's a different the rightn of what's intervention for the u.s. or other countries to maybe. >> james fallows, joins us to look at the 25th anniversary of square, thanks for being here much. >> my pleasure, thank you. leaders took to the floor just days after the tiananmen square massacre to condemn the killing of the protesters. we'll hear from then majority leader george mitchell of maine, minority leader bob dole of kansas. june 6,ate was held 1989. this week marks the 25th anniversary of the tiananmen protest.

>> people watched as the largest peaceful demonstration was human history.f people the world over watched overdisbelief and horror the past few days as the chinese liberation army brutally suppressed the demonstration, killing, wounding, and beating their citizens.llow this cruel suppression has been the chinese government's answer the modest demands of the chinese people for a voice in future.n the chinese people have provided demonstration of the human desire for freedom. a universal desire. time, place or

people. it is a desire for which courageous chinese students and workers, men and over the past few days been willing to die. which tanks,e bullets, bay on its and clubs not crush.will the courage of the chinese students has inspired the world and galvanized their nation democracyir call for and reform. want freedomhere and economic opportunity. to provideas failed either. tiananmen square stand as mute but moving the moralof bankruptcy a government that can in power only by killing its own people.

a vote of 89-0, the senate approved a resolution urging the government of the people's republic of china to steps tonecessary establish a just and democratic openty, with a free and political system that would protect the essential human rights of all the chinese people. at the same time we asked the secretary of state to the chineseto leadership that official violence or repression directed at peaceful demonstrators seeking democracy and workers damage would seriously relations with the united states. chinese government's answer has been tim position of marshall law and the murder of thousands of unarmed peaceful demonstrators.

adversenly have an effect on relations between the two countries. the united states cannot and should not attempt to dictate the course of internal events in china. and should state clearly and unequivocally our areng support for those who placing their lives and futures support of in democracy and freedom in china. we should send a signal to theness people -- in united states stands support of freedom, here, there and everywhere. the president has called on the to avoideadership further violence and exercise

restraint. expressed american condemnation of the brutal repression which has been chinese peoplee by suspending all government and commercial exports of arms to china, and taking certain other actions including offers of humanitarian and medical assistance to those in thens injured people's liberation army's reason unprovoked attack. i join with my colleagues on both side of the aisle in supporting the president's to the tragic events unfolding in china. outmmend him for speaking in behalf of the people who are fighting and dying for their tyranny of athe totalitarian communist government. the unstable and rapidly changing course of thats in china, i hope additional steps will be taken to further impress on the authority the serious concern we have regarding the they areand bloodshed

inflicting on the chinese people. mr. president, the distinguished republican leader senator dole and i are working together today on reaching an agreement to offer a resolution otherting certain additional actions that should time.en at this they are three-fold. i believe first that the 40,000 chinese students currently studying in the united states should immediately be granted permission to extend their stay thehe united states until government of china ceases its insecution of students china. second, that all applications to private investment corporation and the export-import bank, to finance trade with china should be reviewed carefully in the light existing legal requirements for adequate human rights

treatment. third, that the president should immediately begin consultation our major allies to determine collectively whether sanctions are necessary. colleagues to support this resolution. mr. president, it is my hope and intention to be able to offer this resolution later today as the senate completes action on the supplemental toropriations bill, encourage a debate and discussion among senators on subject. and to have an overwhelming hopefully unanimous vote of approval for such a resolution to the a strong signal government of china that the condemnsates senate the actions that they've taken and strongly urges the exercise restraint in dealing with the peaceful demonstrationings now

there.ng distinguished republican. >> your republican leader is recognized. >> mr. president, i've listened with interest to the majority leader and i share his view, and we are workinged on a nonpartisan, bipartisan, leadership resolution that i think will be supported by a number of senators who were house meeting yesterday, in key positionings. the senator from oklahoma is on floor, his counterpart on the intelligence committee, committee,ations armed services and others. it would seem to me that it's in our interest to speak with one voice. i think the president was exactly right, i think by

byporting the president and indicating other areas where we additional concerns and there are all kinds of options. i had my staff put together yesterday a list of options, things we might do and it's a pretty good list. of options, if the those can beories, ratcheted up. you can add things, do certain next week you might not do this week. no doubt about it. there's a clear understanding that we're united on this issue, about humanoncerned life. and yes we're concerned about with china, but it's also a recognition that we don't really know what's happening in beijing or other cities in china. don't know a lot of reports, lot of rumors, the premiere may been shot, not seriously, all kind of rumors, army

army, we're not certain of that. so i would hope that there's not do radical efforts to certain things that we might regret. i am certain if we follow the leadership we will be speaking with one voice and acting in concert with the president of the united states. in the past 72 hours, we've witnessed savage repression of uman rights. backward towards a brutal disdain towards human life. political turmoil. no one in the city, no one in the inner circle of the chinese government, no one knows where it will end. the chinese government's actions today have been unjustified and inexcusable. the civilized world is appalled by what we have witnessed and we have the right and obligation to speak out. as majority leader indicat