services are making their drivers run on there because the dispatchers make the bid on there, for 24 hours straight. a gentleman fell asleep and crashed and the company said he wasn't that hurt, they went and got the van, left him in the road, and fired him. why aren't they regulated like the tractor-trailers? when this was brought up to the owner, he thousand they're not going to -- he flat out said they are not going to do nothing about it. host: all right, mike. guest: we see critique is being a huge factor across the board for all people in transportation but not just of them, but all of us as americans. it is about making sure that

people get the sleep they need to operate safely. when you are working on a 24/7 operation, we have seen too many people in investigations at the ntsb be pressure to work long shifts. those laws are there to really protect the driver and all of us that are on the roadway. as you know, there are certain threshold requirements. it is the weight of the vehicle the size of the vehicle, the type of operation they do as to what laws affect them and whether or not they are considered a commercial vehicle or have to hold a commercial drivers license. until those things are changed if those vans are beneath the 26,000-pound threshold for interstate commerce, they will not get picked up. some companies insure that all of their drivers, no matter the size of the vehicle they operate, obey the rules.

those are the best companies could we have got to figure out a way to highlight those and get the bad companies out of business. host: one more call out of new hampshire. -- new hampshire. caller: two separate questions. how many total firearms deaths are there -- accidental, discharge, suicide from intentional violence -- compared to the other causes of death? just as an observation, i bought a newer vehicle which has the ability to make phone calls using bluetooth and someone. i find that is just as distracting if not more so other than the fact that you may not be physically holding the device in your hand. maybe i can take your answer on the air because my tv is downstairs -- host: just hang on their barry. guest: barry, i don't know off the top of my head the number of deaths as result of firearms,

but i'm sure that information can be found. we are focused at the national safety council on the leading causes of death and injury. i mentioned to you some of our strategic initiatives really focused on the prescription painkiller issue, teen driving distracted driving, workplace safety, and also home and community safety. a lot of people think of the workplace as being a dangerous environment. people working in factories, or we heard from a lot of commercial vehicle drivers it people are nine times more likely to be killed or injured off the job than on the job. we have a lot more work to do to make sure people stay safe forever they are -- at work come in their homes, communities, and on the roads. we have a lot of work to do. thanks for your comment about distracted driving. i think you have absolutely got the message with respect to the cognitive distraction. it is not about your hands being distracted, it is about your brain. we are serial processes as human

beings and we are switching back and forth between tasks and that becomes very public it -- very complicated. host: deborah hersman is the president and ceo of the national safety council. thanks for being with us on "washington journal. guest: thank you, every day. host: we will be get more morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. hope you are too. have a great day. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> a look at the "new york times" south carolina legislators gird for confederate flag debate. we will take you to the state capital life as soon as they

devil in for the legislative -- gavel in for the legislative business to. they are responding to demands that the flight be removed after the june 17 shooting death of nine people at emmanuel ame church in charleston, south carolina. the state senate is set to consider a bipartisan proposal to move the battle flight to the confederate relic room and military museum in columbia. and the church cost slain pastor reverend clement of pinckney served in the state senate. republicans control both chambers. a survey of lawmakers last month found there is most likely enough support to approve moving the flag. still, we can see an emotional debate in columbia. to read more about the details of the legislature at new york times -- nytimes.com. we will take you to columbia,

south carolina, as soon as the senate comes into session. house and senate are still out. they will be gaveling in tomorrow as returned from the fourth of july debate. they will finish up work on a bill to fund the interior department and epa, and a bill making changes to no child left behind, including allowing states to set their own accountability standards. live coverage of the house on c-span tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. eastern. the senate also back tomorrow taking up a separate proposal on no child left behind that would give states more authority and how much weight to give standardized test scorers. watch lightbank live senate coverage on c-span two. here are a few more details on what to expect this week from congress. cirilli.

what is the deal with the highway funding? guest: before the august recess they have to have a highway transportation bill. this is something that both sides have indicated that there is bipartisan agreement on. or else the funding bill will run out. most expect that there will be an amendment attached to extend the reauthorization of the export-import banks. in the house, there has been a lot of finagling over whether or not to reauthorize that. the bottom line is that we've seen a situation play out where there is a less controversial bill, and then the does attach. tea party members are worried about the export import banks. other members say it helps to sustain jobs. host: so there authorization ran

out as congress went to the july 4 recess? guest: absolutely. it has temporarily expired. that means that the bank officials cannot vote to have more projects. this is federally backed and is supported by the business community. a bank can still make good on the commitments that it has already made. with that being said, this is one of the most contentious sites right now. outside of congress you have every major top-tier presidential candidate in the republican field coming out against it. while democrats supported, and so do moderate republicans. host: give us an idea of where

congress stands on the annual spending bill. it seems like they're halfway through. what is left to do? guest: a great question. the house is in front of the senate on this. the house is taking a much more peaceful approach. the senate likes more of a juxtaposed position. we are heading into the fall. i would not expect there to be major spending bills going on before the august recess. we are adding it to the fall and that comes around the time of another debt limit, and it also comes when we could see another fiscal situation for the holidays. in the fall and winter, around december, it is going to be another example of whether or not congress can get something done in terms of a budget.

the background to this is that we saw this to an extent last year i expect the ramifications to be more heightened this year because we are heading into another presidential cycle. i think that the debt limit is surrounding all of the budget fighting, and it could heighten things. it will be interesting to see how it plays out. host: we talked about the highway bill. the usa today headline says that congress will tackle highways and education. the no child left behind law is coming up. what does that look like? guest: no child left behind is something from the bush administration. it is tough to talk about these and not talk about what is happening on a presidential scale. when you talk about no child left behind, you have leading

republican lawmakers in the senate like ted cruz and marco rubio, rand paul, lindsey graham all of these people are going to bring up the debate. i think that on the flipside, democrats have also attacked no child left behind. so we're going to have an education debate. and i wouldn't really expect the president to try to pass any type of comprehensive education reform. i don't think that is on the agenda. i don't think there is the capital to do it. we'll have to wait and see. the country is about to have a national debate. this will be the first instance of that in the coming weeks. host: the hill this week talks about democrats to watch on iran

nuclear bargain. how would the signing of the treaty play out on the floor? particularly in the senate? guest: we are going to see battle lines drawn. republicans have continued to raise questions about whether or not president obama has been able to get the best deal from the iran sanctions. to some extent, people within the president's own party have questions that. they have asked for the final say. i think tomorrow, it is an opportunity for republicans to criticize his foreign-policy. i would expect that to happen tomorrow. republicans have consistently

called for president obama to be more tough, for lack of a better term. that will continue on the floor tomorrow. host: kevin >> the south carolina state legislature expected to gavel in shortly, debating taking down the confederate battle flag after the shooting deaths of nine people at emmanuel ame church in the state in charleston. state senate scheduled to consider a bipartisan proposal to move the flag to the state's confederate relic room and military museum, also in columbia. the pastor of the church who died, clementa pinckney served in the state senate, and if the measure passes in the south carolina senate, the debate will

shift to the house. republicans control both chambers of the state senate in south carolina. one member lee bright, is seeking a statewide referendum. we will cover the action as soon as they gavel in. in the meantime, your calls and comments on "washington journal ." as the u.s. women's soccer team won against

japan. another flag is being waived prominently in greece as a defeat of the european financial package. greek voters rejected a bailout deal, that is the headline. the next steps are unclear "as people gathered to celebrate 61% of the voters had said no to a deal that would have imposed greater austerity measures. the no votes carried virtually every district in the country handing a sweeping victory to the prime minister. he called the measures and injustice and economically self-defeating. " so 61% of the people have rejected that deal. the finance minister has resigned.

we are one day away from the second deadline on the iranian nuclear negotiations. this is the front page of the bbc. john kerry says very hard choices are needed. he spoke to reporters yesterday in geneva. here is what he had to say. >> whether or not we are able to close an agreement in many ways this negotiation has been going on for a number of years. over the past few days, we have made genuine progress. but i want to be absolutely clear with everyone, we are not yet where we need to be on several of the most difficult issues. the truth is, that while i completely agree with prime minister's a -- that we have

never been closer, at this point, the negotiation could go either way. if hard choices get made in the next couple of days, and made quickly, we could get an agreement this week. but if they are not made, we will not. so our teams are going to go as hard as we can we are not going to be negotiating in the press. we will be negotiating privately and quietly. when the time is right, we will have more to say. host: secretary john kerry yesterday, the headline of usa today says "iran's nuclear windfall alarms lawmakers." >> we are managing privilege and

-- managing proliferation. right now we have the issues of whether we are going to have any time. will he know what their past military dimensions were? it is very important. everyone who is coming to testify has talked about the ones of that. they are required to declare that iran has a civil program not a military program. so there are a number of issues, it has been going on a negative trend for quite some time. it is not congress that is pushing to have all the documents by july 9. it is the six major countries less iran -- countries plus iran that wants them to only have 30 days to review the steel instead of 60. this has been going on for almost two years. it is amazing to me that as we

come to the end, the biggest concern is that congress would only have 30 days and not 60 days to review the deal. i urged kerry to take the time, make sure that the last remaining lines do not get crossed. don't make it worse than what it already is. host: that was the senator on the nuclear negations -- nuclear negotiations in iran that end tomorrow. your thoughts. 202748 8004 democrats, 202748 8001 four republicans -- for republicans. caller: i would like to make a

comment on the greek situation. i think we have to take a look at the world's financial system more so than to just greece. you have spain italy, ireland isn't doing good. to me, if it was one or two countries, i could say it. when you have a multiple amount of countries that are in trouble, less there's so much debt in the world, you even hear them talk about cutting social security benefits. i think the world's present financial system has to be on the table. host: ok, bill. comments from stephen moore in the washington times this morning. "let it go. bankruptcy is the only way that

greece can fashion a new beginning. all the conventional solutions sidestep the root cause of the greek situation. the greek citizens are simply living way beyond their means. this is a nation with an average retirement age of 60. one in four adults are unemployed. half of its young people are out of work. -- are they going to pay more taxes to provide lavish benefits? probably not. " host:caller: good morning. i would like to see more in-depth reporting on the train to rome and in tennessee, and the evacuation. they were moving hazardous wastes, and i would like to know

who was shipping it. how was it produced? where did it come from? how often is it shipped? what would be the result of exposure to it? when we had the gulf of mexico oil spill, we heard how many gallons were spilled. how it affected the birds and wildlife. there has been very little said on what is happening in tennessee, other than that there is an evacuation because of hazardous waste materials. host: it sounds like an issue you have taken some interest in before. caller: it is interesting because unless we know in-depth we can't prevent it. so that has my comments.

i think you. have a nice morning. host: i appreciate that. we will be talking with the former head of the national transportation safety board deborah hersman she is now the head of the national safety council. catherine was calling from new hampshire. usa today was talking about the bush history in new hampshire. "family history in new hampshire , not insurmountable. " "now, jeb bush is in political purgatory. the successes and failures of his father and brother hang over the former florida governor as he faces what might be a must win in the primary."

call our phone lines at 202-748-8000 if you are democrats, 202748 8001 if you are republican. caller: good morning. i wanted to comment on what is ironic with what mr. trump said about illegal aliens. it was not delegate, not the best choice of words. although he did throw in a qualifier that said he wasn't referring to "all." but we had a murder in san francisco i and illegal alien. he had been deported five times. he was a violent, criminal illegal alien. he had warrants out for his arrest.

he shouldn't have been walking the streets of america, and yet san francisco is called a sanctuary city. i am from denver, colorado. these are cities in the united states that do not enforce or cooperate with finding people like this person who murdered this woman. so that comes to mr. trump's point. they are not all bad, that there is a large section of them that are. and because we have a border that is out of control it isn't that we have a broken immigration system. we have laws that we don't enforce. that will dovetail into the second part of my comment. that is what happened in chicago over the weekend. i think we had 80 people shot. a seven-year-old boy killed because they were trying to kill

his father, a gang member. chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in america. strict gun-control laws, and yet the chief of police, they say it is because they do not enforce the gun law violations. the getting bankers who buy guns outside the state, and are not prosecuted for that. this is what we are reaping. that is my comment. host: mike, i appreciate your comment. california murder suspect is deported five times. they writes that the man accused of gunning down a woman along the waterfront is a convicted felon who had been deported several times. francisco sanchez, who was arrested in connection with

the apparent random slaying of -- while she walked along the city's. . he was last supported in 2014. on the front page of the washington times this morning, they say "trump drives wedge further along the gop. " businesses are distancing themselves from donald trump's comments. at an independence day parade in new hampshire governor jeb bush says that he doesn't represent the republican party or its values. rick perry also put out that question on donald trump's comments. >> everybody gets to pick and choose who they want to be four.

but i said that donald trump does not represent the replicant party. hispanics in america and in texas from the alamo to afghanistan, have been extraordinary people, citizens of our country and our state. they have served nobly. to paint with that brought of a brush as donald trump, he is going to have to defend those remarks. i never will. i will stand up and say they were offensive. host: rick perry, former florida governor on abc. here on washington journal. the u.s. women's team won the world cup 5-2. president obama said "what a win for team usa. your country is so proud of you all."

also, a tweet for another issue on the open phones, "they spend money they don't have and repeatedly expect others to bail them out over and over again. " in peachtree city, georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. all of the issues that you have mentioned for today, there is such a tendency for people to use examples that are deviations from the norm. to try to imply that they represent the norm. since i am kind of liberal, it seems to be that people on the right doing it more than people on the left. it is so destructive because it distorts the argument so much. the issue is, what is the norm? the question is not what is the

exception? host: what particular story are you talking about? caller: earlier, they were talking about the murder of the lady in l.a., i think, by an illegal alien. but that is an exceptional situation. it does not represent the norm. for people to use those unusual examples to imply that they represent the average is just destructive. it distorts the issue that it is almost impossible to have a decent discussion about what the real issue is. host: let's hear from chicago next, andnna is on the democrat line. caller: good morning. i wanted to say that seven people died. host: thank you.

the fight against isis coalition airstrikes hit islamic state in raqqa. here. we go to leo in washington d.c.. caller: good morning c-span. i want to comment on the immigrants. this country was built with immigrants. the immigrants that you are talking about are the -- immigrants, the brown skinned immigrants. once again, this country was built upon immigrants. host: independent line, barry in vermont. caller: i wanted to have a

comment on donald trump's thing with the hispanics. donald trump is not doing politics as usual. he is being straight up and honest. his opinion may not be buttered up so that the democrats or republicans can understand him. what he is saying is that there is an issue here and we need to address it. i don't agree with saying that all hispanics, but he didn't say all hispanics. he said that we have the ones who jumped the border. if they came in and paid taxes and took care of all the bills that the rest of us had to take >> we are going to leave this to take you live to the south carolina senate could debate expected to get underway on taking down the confederate battle flag.

>> senate will please come to order. members and guests will remain standing while we are led in our devotion by the chaplain followed by the pledge of allegiance. >> praise the lord, give thanks to the lord, for he is good. his love endures forever. who can proclaim the mighty acts of the lord and fully declare his prior? blessed are they who maintain justice and constantly do what is right. from psalm 166:1-3. please doubt with me as we come to the lord -- bow with me as we come to the lord in prayer. these servants and their staff

members have dealt with most of these matters for quite some time, oh god, and the pressures on this body today are considerable. we pray that you will continue to embrace these senators in your care, lord. strengthen them come and fill their hearts with a determination to, as the psalmist puts it, to maintain justice and do what is right. gradually to senator the courage and the will they need to bring ever greater unity and blessings to south carolina, the state we love. in your glorious name we pray, o lord. amen. >> our guests are invited to join with us as we pledge allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance -- >> to the blog of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands one nation, under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> please be seated.

senator, for what reason do you rise? >> unanimous consent for the four the senator from greenville, senator corbin until august 3, 9:40 p.m. >> without objection. >> and leave over the senator from spartanburg, senator martin, until 2:00 today. >> without objecting, so ordered. >> unanimous consent for the senator from georgetown senator cleary. >> without objection, so ordered. >> unanimous consent request for leave for the senator from edgefield until thursday at 10:00 p.m. >> without objection, so ordered. are there any petitions for presentment of grand jury:?? no communications, the clerk reports.

therefore, we are on the introduction of new bills and resolutions. the clerk will please regret >> read. >> to provide in addition to the matters which may be considered by the general somewhere for june 18, 2015, legislation related to the institution of marriage also may be introduced after considered by each body of the general something. >> senator from spartanburg. >> mr. president, members of the senate, can i get a little order? >> yes. a little order, please. >> members of the senate, i heard our president sing a religious hymn, and that friday night i watched the white house be lit up in the abomination colors. it's time, we've got amazing grace -- it is time for the

church to rise up, time for the state of south carolina to rise up. romans chapter one is clear. the bible is clear. this nation was founded on judeo-christian principles and they are under assault by men in black robes who are not elected by you. we better make a standard what i would like to see is these folks that are working in the positions that are doing with his marriage certificates do not have to betray their faith or compromise their faith and noted to subject himself to the tyranny of five -- in order to subject themselves to the tyranny of five judges. we need to debate this on the floor. our governor called us in it to deal with the flight that sits out front. let's deal with the national cinema we face today. we talk about abortion, but this gay marriage thing will be one nation gone under, like president reagan said that if we

are not one nation under god, we will be one nation gone under. to sanctify deviant behavior from five judges, it is time for us to make our stand, church. and we are not doing it. we can rally together and talk about a flag all we want, but the devil is taking control of this land and we are not stopping him. it is time to make our standard if the states have got to get out of the business of marriage, let's get out of the business marriage, because we cannot become what is being done to the future of this nation. i believe that christ teaches us to love the homosexual, but he also teaches us to stand against sin. we need to make our stand. i know how people feel of all colors about this, and i know we need to respect our brother and love our brother. but we cannot respect our sin -- this sin in the state of south carolina. let's do with marriage -- if we are not going to find some way to push back against the federal

government like our forefathers did or push back against a canonical government like the founders of this nation did, let's not put pieces citizens of south carolina in a position where they have to choose between their faith and their jobs. thank you, mr. president. >> thank you. concurrent resolution referred to the committee on judiciary. >> brief interruption. >> proceed with your introduction. >> thank you, mr. president, members of the senate. it is with great privilege and honor that i stand before you today on this very historic day in south carolina. we had been through a lot in the last month, and i want to thank the senate for their actions and accord as it relates to the same. as you all know, we lost a brother that i thought was the conscience of the senate, and

obviously, we have been talking a lot about his life, his sacrifices, what it has to do with reconciliation, and the fact that we should not close the doors that life has opened up for us. but today, as we embark upon some issues that we need to end up addressing, we have to know our history as to where we have been to see where we are going. i say that with all due respect even history from several hundred years ago, because it puts us in a place that is unique and a place to direct us into the future. but without prolonging it, i thought -- and was on my heart a week or two ago to end up inviting one of our finest, that was our conscience over here as well, and that is senator kay patterson. senator kay patterson

obviously, is from darlington county, where i am from now, and whenever i called him, i said i want to thank you for all you have done over the years, the fights that you have had, the struggles you have had, and to see where we are now. i don't know that we can address this issue without having senator patterson's voice somewhere around us. he has graced us with his presence today. there was discussion as to where he would sit, and one of the voices told me anywhere he wants. i just want to end up taking a moment for -- i guess in 1999 2000, the years earlier, senator patterson, you all know his history, he was a marine and you end up -- remember what happened. this interview for, when we

started talking about issues was to us, i never forget the speech similar to the one senator pinckney date on the 10th amendments, and senator patterson said "put it in your heart. i also remember him talking about the fact that whenever he served in our military, those individuals they were bringing back in caskets and body bags, he said, no one looked at them for their race, their religion from anything else. there were all south carolinians and all americans. our conscience is back with us today and i hope you get a chance to speak to him let's give grand senate of laws for someone i would ever see in this chamber again, senator kay patterson, senator from richmond. >>[applause] >> welcome, senator.

we are still on introduction of new bills and resolutions. clerk will please continue to read. >>stand at ease for a moment.

senate will please come to order. senator for from supper, for what reason do you rise? >> personal interest. >> proceed for five minutes, please. mr. mcelveen. senator mcelveen: if i could get a little bit of order. we have had some dark days recently and i want to thank you for what we did, good people in my homesenator, sumter county. you may not remember this, but it is something we did that brought a lot of joy to people's lives. they have been a mainstay of our downtown, and this past may 9

she had her 95th birthday. around that time, my wife spoke to her and she had been going downhill. and this senate actually passed a resolution probably sometime in april making may 9 naomi warner day in south carolina. i'm here to tell you, that lifted her up. she bounced back and it was miraculous. well, she passed away on june 18 and she is someone who is very near and dear to us. i'm convinced and her family is convinced that the funeral, something we did hear from was a positive thing for her. i found out last week that mary austin in sumter county passed away. her grandson, you may know, is brian austin. we had her over here, and it was

a really wonderful day for her and her family. i know a lot of times when we do these resolutions and things, we get a little numb to it because we see it every day, but for these people it made a difference in their lives and it brought some joy to their lives during the last months on earth. i want to stand up and thank you, and also, mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the senate adjourned in memory of ms. naomi warner and ms. mary austin. >> without objection, it is so ordered. senator from richmond warner and. point of personal interests, mr. jackson. senator jackson: first of all, let me welcome our former suite-mate. i learned a whole lot from senator patterson. one of the most important things is how to shut up and sit down and how freshmen don't talk very much. however, i think that was thrown out a couple years ago. thank you for teaching me the rules of the senate.

i want to stand and offer a very special thank you to the president and our former colleague, and during the planning of the homecoming service for senator pinckney, i was contacted by johnson's office, and they wanted to get a larger place to actually have the service, and so i called and was able to communicate with president mcconnell and his staff, and right away he said "i will do whatever needs to be done." he made a whole facility available to all of us. i just thought it would be really nice for us as his former colleagues and member of the general assembly to say a very special thank you to the whole college of charleston family. they laid out the red carpet. they had refreshments. the open up the total facility.

then to over backwards to make everybody feel very comfortable. i don't know about you, but i was really proud to say that institution and that president and that staff represents the best of south carolina. i don't think we had an opportunity at the service to actually do that. and he didn't ask me to do this. i wanted to do it, because i had to call up and ask him to do it and he agreed right away. such a fantastic job. all of us know the former senator from charleston. he doesn't do anything just to have his name called. he would probably prefer us not even recognizing him. but you know what, i was taught by my dad that honor is due where honor is earned. and he has earned this recognition from all of us to say a very special thank you to former senator, president of

college of trust and, and the entire college of charleston family. when you join me -- i know he isn't here -- let's just give around of applause for the great hospitality of the college of charleston and senator glenn mcconnell. [applause] >> senator from lexington, for what purpose do you rise, sir? >> i ask unanimous consent that the words from the senator from richmond be printed in the journal. >> without objection, it is so ordered. the clerk will continue to read on introduction of bills and resolutions. >> reported favorable on the center county magistrate, social jackson of sumter. >> those in favor, mr. cecil k. jackson, single by saying aye./ ayes have it. >> favorable on the technical college commission -- ms. brenda

williams. them a question his confirmation, ms. brenda williams as magistrate. those in favor, signify by saying aye. ayes have it. any requests for local bills? hearing none, we are on the call of the uncontested state my calendar and that takes us to page or in the calendar. senate bill 897, page 4. clerk will please read. amendment on the desk. clerk will please read. >> the amendment is senator bright amends the bill to provide an additional referendum as to whether south carolina infantry battle flight of the confederate states of america should remain in its current location on the capitol complex. >> senator from pickens. >> if the senator from corporate

would allow, i would like to go first to talk about the bill briefly. >> senator from pickens. while he is coming forward senator from charleston. >> parliamentary inquiry. how many amendments are on the desk? >> number of amendments on the desk are currently one. that's this one? that's this one. thank you, sir. mr. martin. senator martin: i will be brief. when the numbers were called out, i didn't have the calendar. i knew it was 897 because i printed the bill out. i think it read as 894. that caught me offguard. but we got to it quick. that is one of the reasons i wanted to get up and make some brief comments regarding the bill. several folks asked me, why didn't this bill go to judiciary committee? we look at it when he was introduced by -- it was

introduced by 29 members of the senate senator kershaw the primary sponsor but i had looked at it, the staff had looked at it. i wanted to make brief comments about before. i will not say a great deal about the bill. i know we will get on the amendment, and a lot of folks need to be heard and say whatever thoughtful comments that they might have about this issue. but the bill itself very narrowly addresses this provision in the heritage act that relates to the confederate battle flag on statehouse grounds. as you recall, the heritage act also has other provisions with the monuments, the street names building names, so forth. none of that is really subject to discussion in the narrow

confines of this bill. some people have asked, quite frankly, this is one of the things that i wanted to make known as we begin this the day today. many people have contacted me, and it is obvious, the part of the state i come from, there's a lot of strong sentiment about the confederate flag and what it means in terms of heritage and that type of thing. they have suggested to me, even some of the ones that have called or e-mailed me and said, senator, i understand your position, i respect your position, but where is this going to end? where will it end? are we going to displace a remove all of the recognition that has been given over the years to confederate ancestors that so honorably served this

state? wall street names, monuments buildings, and that type of thing be dealt with next? well, i will tell you -- >> senator, what purpose do you rise sir? >> was senator yield for a question? >> glad to. >> proceed. >> i heard be speaking about the heritage act. one of these did you know -- did you know that i have in the box -- i just got it there would have been read across earlier -- a constitutional amendment to memorialize the heritage act in our constitution in statutory language? >> i wasn't aware of that. >> it's there. i would like to ask unanimous consent that it be right at this

time and referred to committee. -- be read at this time and referred to committee. >> is there objection? >> i would object. senator martin: well, mr. president, the issue as it relates to the heritage act is obvious that it requires 2/3 vote. there's some discussion around that and i will not get into it. this is a very narrowly drawn bill and we can be thankful that pursuant to our rules, it will keep us within the resolution, extended for this particular matter on this particular day, this issue. the resolution gives us very narrowly drawn, but also, this particular bill, the way it is drawn pursuant to rule 24, i believe, in my judgment, keeps it very narrowly drawn during this debate. what happens down the road, any member like senator berkeley has

introduced the resolution, it will be looked at by the committee. i'm certain there will be others that will introduce different bills, different resolutions involving other aspects of the heritage act. they will be looked at as well. my personal opinion as it relates to the heritage act, if you go back historically a new look at south carolina, look at any of the southern states, and you know, i don't think the history of the war between the states, civil war, whatever you want to call it, some of the reading i have done suggests it wasn't even undeclared war per se, particularly the north on the south. it was more of, i guess, the vietnam-era conflict that existed. the fact of the matter is, there were a lot of different underpinnings that went on with the war.

and a lot of the history is not well known about what happened after the war. we didn't live it. we tend to revisit and revise history to suit our own perspectives. i know i do. i tend to look at my post man a little favorable like today than may become senator, when we were serving in the house together. i'm so glad you are here -- that was the other point i made when the resolution was discussed that was mentioned in a news account as the issue began to be discussed i think the weekend before last now, and it was mentioned that the first time it had been dealt with in the statehouse was in 1983 and it was an amendment you introduced. and i rose and hold the senate know, it was much earlier than that.

it was in 1979, it may have been earlier than that, that i was first in the house, and i recall and observed that day that amendments were put up during the budget debate and you were the one who put it up to take the fight off the dome at that time. that is how far back that discussion went. i remember that because i was a freshman member at the time. there has been a lot of division over the years about this, and historically that is the other thing i want to say about the history of it -- historically the flight wasn't on the statehouse grounds as a memorial to our ancestors, until the 1960's. the first and second generation after the war, when the great former general of the south and governor, u.s. senator, wade hampton -- when he took over in

1876, very controversial election, and then finally became governor, full governor, because there was too will governors -- we had to governors -- two governors at one time in the 1876 election. general hampton figured out a way to get control of the treasury and that is how he dealt with it. mr. chairman of the finance, as you so well would understand, he got control of the state's finances, which were dismal, as result of reconstruction, and he took over in the spring of 1877. when he took over, and then later, other governors succeeded him and he became u.s. senator for two terms to my think serving until early 1890's, they didn't put -- they put the monument in 1879 out where it is now, but they didn't put the confederate banners on

statehouse grounds or the state house down -- or the statehouse dome. the next generation didn't do that. when people mentioned to us about, well, you need to remember your history and this is what it is all about, our heritage, our history, well that's not how they chose to remember folks in real-time that they actually served with an memorialized that is not how they chose to do it with the different banner. the nation came back together. it was important for the nation to come back together under the flag of the united states. it was a terrible, terrible time in the south after the war. i have letters that were written -- or transcripts, i have not seen the actual letters -- but somebody come a few years ago -- this is a really juicy story about my family story, everyone has a family story, if you have

been here all your life and your ancestors were here at the time. mine were. my great great grandfather from pickens -- you know, big and became a separate county back in the 1850's -- when he came back during the war, they had these letters that my great great grandmother and great great grandfather had written each other. my grandmother wrote better than he did. these are transgressions and it is kind of hard to read and places. but, the struggle -- they did not talk about what they were fighting for. they talked about the everyday struggles that they went through . my great great grandmother was from a very young family in the wilderness and pickens county. how tough that must have been.

they did not talk about the everyday things about the war, they talked about the everyday things -- the hardships that they face. if you see pictures of your relatives from the 1920's, 1930's, and 1940's, those hardships carried over into the last century that all of us were born in. it was hard in south carolina as a result of all of the devastation that was created after the war. again, they went back to work, they came home, but they came home under the banner of the united states. they built their lives again as desperate as the situation could have possibly been. under the banner of the united states. we just had the fourth of july. we celebrated under the banner

of the united states. that is the reason, as one historian -- the guy from the georgia historical society was quoted as saying in an article people think that somehow when you talk about the fire, and the defense of it -- and i have been a defender of it -- the former said it will tell you, every time he put that amendment, i voted against it. he will also tell you, and i will really ruin his memory with this we change the rules over there several times to put a question of. here is what this fellow, the senior historian at the georgia historical society, said.

when you think about in terms of what your ancestors had to say people think it somehow demonizes their ancestors to have fought for slavery. the people fighting at the time were very much aware of what was at stake. defining the war is our problem. i do not think it was theirs. to fighting the war -- defining the war and what all the heritages about is our problem. it was not theirs. they understood what was at stake here and even though my great great grandpa's did not write about it in their letters back-and-forth, they mostly talked about struggles, food deprivation, no shoes, the commodities that they did not have on the farm in rural pickens county -- that is what they talked about. it was a great upheaval. the flag was not displayed for 100 years on the statehouse

grounds. 100 years. think about that. it was put up offensively for the centennial celebration in the early 1960's. then, it was put up by resolution. there actually was no resolution in 1961 to put the flag up. historically, it has been verified that the flag went up prior to the 1962 resolution. that is when it actually went up for the duration, and it never came down. i think, in that respect, you and i can look back, and those of us who have been here for a few years served with people who served during that era, that were actually in the senate and house in the early 1960's.

they made no bones about it, white was put up. we both know why it was put up -- or left out. it was put up to honor the centennial that was the reason. it was also left him for another reason. that other reason was the great upheaval that was going on in the 1960's regarding the civil rights, integration of the public schools, and all those issues that we do not really think so much about today, but for those of us actually living at the time -- and i was a child in the 1960's -- i remember well the adults in my life and what they had to say about it. it was not pleasant. you can not repeat it today, what was being said about the fact that we were going to be going to school with black children. the adults in my life did not

want to hear it. the adults in many parts of south carolina to not want to hear it. in my view, that is the reason the flag state up. today, the heritage that the flag stands for is really for the 1960's, as much as it is for the 1860's. think about that. you want to get right down to it, it had more to do with what was going on in the 1960's, as opposed to the 1860's. today, the senator from spartanburg introduced a resolution about gay marriage, gave a speech about the supreme court. think about that. one was brown versus board of education decided? 1954. before i was born. i was in the fourth grade when

the public schools and pickens county were integrated. i was in the fourth grade. that was about 11 or so years later after the u.s. supreme court ruled. my point and sharing that with you is the reaction to that -- and it was not just the south, i remember vividly vividly -- i think one of the problems we had as a nation for many many years was that the north, in many respects, did not apply the same interviewergration policies -- society, even in the north, had issues black and white. you know what? we have gotten past that.

we have the ongoing discussion about school funding and all that type of thing, but i can tell you, when it comes to race relations in south carolina, what happened after the shooting incident in or charleston, what happened after the god-awful incident -- it just broke all of our hearts -- at the mother a emanuel church. we did not have the riots and looting and all the reaction that we have seen all over the nation. we are thankful for that. race relations in south carolina -- are they perfect? no. i can tell you that they are exponentially better than that

fourth grade that larry martin remembers from the 1960's. we have come a long way. the fellow from nascar, he said this -- i will wind is up. i did not plan on saying a whole lot. this will be it for me and i will sit down. nascar -- we have talked about the monuments, street names, all that kind of thing. folks have been flustered with other decisions about the flag. "the dukes of hazard" being taken off television. what people do privately is entirely up to them. i do not comment on it. it is not my business. folks have the right to put whatever banner they want at their house. on these statehouse grounds, it is different. i was going to use a former

senators term, that is different . the fellow from nascar said, obviously we have our roots in the south, there are events in the south, it is part of our history, like it is for the country, but it needs to be just that, part of our history. it is not part of our future. that is the way it is with me. you know, the discussion will be how the flag is very honorably moved to the confederate museum. the discussion that will take place today will be on those lines, i hope. it ought to be done in a very honorable way. what is on the statehouse

grounds as far as a banner -- there is a difference between a banner that flutters in the breeze out there versus a monument. huge difference. i do not think until what happened a few weeks ago that so devastated the state and our country, i don't think i had ever really appreciate it., at least through the lens that may be said martinsburg may look at or the senator from richland. i do not think i have looked at it that way. to see that thing fluttering out there in a way that gives some official status to it on behalf of the people from south carolina -- that does not represent all the people of south carolina. we need to remember that. in that regard, it is part of our history. it needs to be honored in whatever way, but as far as on

these statehouse grounds, it is not part of our future. it is part of our past. i think we need to leave it at that. thank you very much. >> senator, for what purpose do you rise? >> senator from richland. >> the words from the center of pickens, will they be recorded in the journal? >> without objection. senator from berkeley? >> i would like to ask unanimous consent to distribute materials to the members desks. >> without objection. >> i appreciate what the senator from pickens had to say. i want to speak briefly against in the met before the bill -- amendment before the bill. i introduced this bill and am proud to have introduced it with so many cosponsors, not because i our friend was

assassinated not too many days ago. we should pass this bill not because of that, or because of the eight members of his congregation who were murdered, and we should not pass this bill because some national figures say so, or because we have been getting e-mails, or pressure one way or another. i am asking you to pass this bill as it stands today, not with the amendment for a very simple reason, and it is because it is the right thing to do. i want to pull us out of the past, that the senator from pickens discussed. i want to talk about the president. i want us to talk about the future. that is why we are going to pass this bill, and lower the confederate flag from the statehouse grounds.

i want to share with you -- first of all, thank you. you know that almost one year ago, i stood out there in the hot weather, and said, during a heated political campaign that we should remove the confederate flag from the statehouse grounds. many of you in this chamber, on both sides of the aisle, were very kind to me, and treated me very nicely, and very gently. you shared with me or thoughts but you did it in a way of genuineness and kindness. i want the debate today to be in that same spirit. there are others outside this chamber, including our current governor, who did not take that approach, but mocked me for raising this as an issue, for saying it was important. i want to share with you today the reasons that i felt compelled to do that. they are the same reasons that we should vote for this bill to

remove the confederate flag this week. they are personal reasons. if you think about every one of you, regardless of how you think about this is affected personally by the symbols that fly in the state. i will share with you a few stories that led me to do what i did and let me to introduce that bill today. as i traveled around south carolina and look more closely into the place where i was raised and loved is that we still have a very serious culture of division within our state. it is a culture of division that we as leaders have to take stands to change. i was in anderson, south carolina, a hot day campaigning -- anderson is important place for me. it has important memories of my college days.

it is where i took my wife amy on our first date. in case you're wondering, i was a big spender, and we went to applebee's. anderson is important to me because of those years i spent but it is a place where was driven home to me the culture division that remains in the state. as i stood out there that day eating a hamburger, shaking hands, talking politics, a lady pulled up in a car right next to where i was, she looked just like anyone's mom or aunt, and she got out of her car, and marched up to me with something she had to say. she looked at me and said, all you care about is black people and mexicans. that is what she said. i tell you that story because

that told me a lot. it made me look a little more carefully at what goes on in our state. this was a voter, a person, a mom, p probably. my children went to clinemson this past year, my alma mater. i was a proud. i will say what i was not proud of. my sons, they are twins, they came home -- they were raised in camden, a city that had its share of divide, but they went to schools that had both blacks and whites. they came home, and as we sat down at the table, one of them

looked at me and said, daddy, i did not realize how racist people are. if we listen, we will hear the reality of what is going on. there are many great things in the state. i would not live anywhere else. there are the best people in the world. but, we also have to realize that if we live in a family, you do not speak the truth about problems, nothing ever changes. as they traveled around the state, i also got to speak in some the african-american audiences. in fact, the senator from jasper was with me on a number of occasions, as were other members of the senate. one thing that struck me when i spoke to large groups of african-americans, publicly, they never asked me about the flag. they never asked me about the confederate flag, but after i

spoke and after the public questioning ended, as i was leaving and mingling, it never felt that someone would get me in the corner and very quietly say, is there anything we can do about the flag? you see, it was personal. it was emotional. during my time around the state, i learned of a young black man who had attended one of our nation's greatest colleges, i think it was west point. he had married his sweetheart, they moved back here, she was white, he was black. he said that when he got here he was disappointed and troubled by the looks that he all too often got walking down the street. he said that he wanted to leave when he walked up main street in columbia, south carolina and saw the confederate battle flag

flying on the statehouse grounds. you know, the confederate flag means different things to different people. that is ok. i know when the senator from richland looks at it, he sees one thing. when other site or looks at it, he sees something else. that is reality. i went to hilton head after i called for the fight to be removed, and i was with a group of business people, probably 12-15, all white, and one looked to me and said, why would you bring up the confederate battle flag? it just stirs things up and makes the national media attention to us, we do not need that. i said, one thing i have learned is that if you have a problem and do not talk about it it only gets worse. these wounds that we have been

dealing with for 200 years plus, we have been pulling the battery band-aid off very slowly and it has not been good for us. if you do not believe that we have a problem with the culture of division in the state right now, and across the state, and country -- i will read your e-mail that i got. just a few days after our friend was murdered because of the color of his skin, no other reason. this lady e-mailed me she said, i've said it before, and i will say it again it is not about the confederate flag, it is about the entitlement given to minorities, and folks are getting tired of it. that is days after nine people were murdered because their skin was dark.

what happened happened in our state. there is a quiet bigotry that still exists. if we, those of us that are white, do not say anything when those jokes are told or those statements are made, like the statement that this woman made then we are part of the problem. i say these things because these are the things that led me to believe that we, as leaders, could no longer afford, said of dickens, a symbol to fly on the statehouse that divides us. it is one small piece of that culture division that we live in.

it is one small piece that we can do something about, and we can do it this week, and we should. right now, in our state, the number one indicator of how you will is not how lucky you are how educated you are, it is not your position on issues, your belief in environmental issues -- it is the color of your skin. the number one indication of how you will vote. we have to take whatever steps we can to begin to change that. this is one small step that reduces the culture of division. it is not about the history. it is not about heritage. it is not about hate. it is about how to heal wounds that stretch back many many years. most importantly, it is about the present and the future.

i heard it said not long ago that slavery was the original sin of america. if slavery where the original sin of america, then south carolina is where we picked that fruit and ate it over and over again. maybe we need as much healing if not more, as anywhere else. symbols do mean different things to different people. that is why this debate should be, and can be, carried on without antagonism, and with respect. that is ok. one thing i think we should all agree on by now is this is a simple, regardless of what you believe it divides us. we cannot afford to be divided anymore. one of our members sent me a message last week that meant a lot to me. he said that he wished his eyes

had been opened earlier. that is how i look at what happened a few weeks ago. what we vote for this bill to remove the flat, it will not be because of what happened a couple of weeks ago, but what happened a couple of weeks ago opened the eyes of many people in this chamber, and many people in the state. i think i heard that same feeling from the senator from pickens. i believe that out of horror can come healing, and i believe it will. i believe that out of death can come redemption, and i believe it will. i believe we can do this if we do it together, and i believe we will. thank you for your patience and your time. >> mr. jackson? while he is coming forward senator from lexington. >> unanimous consent that the

words of the center be printed in the journal? >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. president. members of the senate, i will try to be brief. first of all, i want to thank my friend from kershaw, the senator for his leadership during the campaign. i was one of your very close friends that you called that in fact asked you the question, why are you doing this? have you decided that you did not want to be governor? he said to me, he thinks it is the right thing to do. i think that has to be pointed out. not to make this political, but it is one thing to do it when you are politically safe. it is another thing to do it when everything your political career depends on is on the line. some of you have made that

commitment. you made it 15 years ago. i wanted to stand as one of the authors of the heritage act to say, and with all due respect to my friend from richland county, i made a mistake with that. the mistake was that we did not go far enough. my great friends, one is in the balcony right now reverend rivers, and we have known each other all our lives, and we have beenn friends through thick and thin, we share locations together. one of the things that i realized after the heritage act is that we had an opportunity to put it to rest. i think, it is hard to say when you are in the midst of the war, and to all my friends that are not here, it is really easy to

criticize senator patterson when we had to make a decision. my dad always said that retro vision is always 2020. that is why i'm so happy that we are doing what we are doing here today. i'm proud to say that i'm still here, i survived two reelection campaigns. i was told after we made a decision to thousand, it would be very difficult to be reelected. then, when i made the decision to support somebody other than our current president, i was told, i hope you have enjoyed serving in the senate, because you will not be thatback. the people in south carolina,

especially in my district, understood that we are not a single issue state. i am happy to be a peer that said of berkeley, said her grooms, i objected with your motion. we will have to deal with the heritage act, but not put in the constitution. we do not need that fight right now. you and i would be on the opposite side of that. i think it is not right for the state of south carolina to determine what a monument in greenwood -- what monument to put on their property. if a street in columbia, south carolina would like to change the name of its street, i do not think it is right for this general is something to say you have to come through us, particularly how proud we are that we started a war because the federal government was intrusive. we fired on fort sumter because the federal government was trying to dictate to us what to

do. that is a debate that i really look forward to having. the good thing about this and is that we can disagree vehemently and yet we walk out of here friends. i often tell my wife that one side is my favorite because he can put things in ways that we can understand. we will disagree on issues, and perhaps he will on issues that come up very soon, but the one thing i wanted to say for the record is when i heard the senator from pickens talk about south carolina and why they were fighting in 1860, keep this in mind that is not often pointed out. the population in the state of south carolina in 1860 was 57% black. let me read it for you. 707300 people total

population, and out of that, 400 wor00 were black. that is why i'm opposed to putting the south carolina flag next to a booth. he was not fighting for the majority of south carolina. one of those individuals was a guy by the name of ishmael jackson, the slave on the adams plantation, who happened to be my great grandfather. he had a brother named william jackson. he had a brother -- and you have heard me tell the story -- march through columbia joined sherman's army, and named his son, william sherman.

history is his story. that is my story. when i seek a better soldier, i do not get goosebumps and feel all warm and fuzzy. i respect the fact that you do. all i am saying is you cannot force all of us to have the passion that some of you have about certain things. remember the 57%, the highest percent of african-americans in 1860 in the united states of america was in south carolina. the second highest percent was mississippi at 55%. georgia, 44% of the population were african-american. when we talk, senator from pickens, about south carolina eans in 1860, do not forget about ishmael jackson.

he did not have a vote. no one asked him about the articles of consumpt conception or if we should fire on fort sumter. the other thing you said that i thought was ironic is that we lost the war. no, we didn't. not ishmael jackson and the 57% of people who looks like him. as far as they were concerned, they won the war because they were set free as a result of winning the war. thank you. >> senator from florence, for what purpose do you rise? >> thank you. the two chairmen of the two caucuses that requested that they be allowed to take their caucuses to a meeting and also pick up a bite to eat while they are there, i move for a motion to recess until 1:00. >> the motion to recess until

1:00. precede. >> prior to that, i request that the senator from richland's comments be recorded. >> the motion is to recede until 1:00. for those in favor? we will recede until 1:00. >> you can join the conversation online about the flag in south carolina. luisa writes on facebook, common sense should tell the south carolina senate that the flag is toxic, represents racism more than heritage, and above all represents slavery, take it down. michael says banning the flag would be an assault on the first amendment. you can tell us what you think by going to facebook.com/cspan. on capitol hill, the house and senate are still out.

they will gavel in tomorrow as. the house is working on a bill to fund the interior department and the envirpa. we will have live coverage starting tomorrow. the senate also back tomorrow taking up a separate proposal on no child left behind that would give states more authority, and how much weight to give standardized test scores. and, a confirmation for a federal court judge. host: a headline here in the "u.s. news and world report" highway funding, what is the deal? guest: thanks for having me. you are right.

they have to pass a highway transportation bill. this is something that both sides have indicated that there is agreement on, or the highway funding bill will run out. what will complicate this is most expect that there will be an amendment attached to ask the end -- extend the import export bank. in the house, there has been a lot of fun needling -- finagling , to say the least. tea party conservatives have raised concerns about the import export bank, they say it is a form of corporate welfare. other lawmakers say that it helps sustain u.s. jobs. host: the export import bank, their authorization ran out as

congress went to the july 4 recess? guest: absolutely. at this point, the charter temporarily expires. that means that the bank officials cannot vote to have more loans for projects. it is widely supported by the business community. it is fully funded until september 30. that being said, this is one of the most contentious fights in congress. moderate conservatives in congress also supported. host: give us an idea of where congress stands on the annual

spending bill? what is left to do? guest: that is a great question. you are right, the house is once again out in front of the senate on this. the house has taken a much more piecemeal approach, and more of a juxtapose position. we are heading into the fall. i would not expected to be major spending bills voted on before the august recess. we are heading into the fall and of course that comes right around the time of another debt limit. it also comes when we could see another fiscal situation for the holidays. the fall and winter, around december, and the holidays, it is really going to be another example of whether or not congress can get things done, in terms of the budget.

of course, the background to this fight is that -- we saw this to some extent last year. i expect the ramifications to be more heightened. we are heading into another presidential cycle. i think that the debt limit surrounding all the budget fighting, could heighten things. it will be adjusting to see how that plays out. it is too early to tell at this point. host: we talked about the highway bill. the "usa today" headline says that congress will tackle highway and education. i understand that a no child left behind debate is coming up in the senate. what will that look like? guest: you are right. no child left behind, from the bush and administration. again, it is tough to talk about these issues and not talk about what is happening on a presidential's tail. when you talk about no child left behind, you have leading republican lawmakers and the senate like ted cruz, marco

rubio, rand paul, to some extent, lindsey graham. all of these people are going to bring up the debate about common core. i think the on the flipside, democrats have also attacked no child left behind. we will have an education debate. i would not really expect the president to try to pass any sort of copper hinges -- copperheads of education reform. i do not think that is on the agenda or that there is the political capital to do it. we will have to wait and see but the country is about to have a national debate on the senate floor. host: from "the hill" and talks

about democrats to watch on iran nuclear oregon. there is a deadline tomorrow. how might a decision in geneva on that treaty play out on the floor, particularly of the senate? guest: that is a great question. i think we will see the political battle lines drawn simply because republicans have continued, as you know, to raise questions about whether or not president obama has been able to get the best deal from the iran sanctions. to some extent, people within the presence own party have questioned that as well, and asked for a final say regarding the negotiations with iran. i think tomorrow, it is an opportunity for republicans to criticize his foreign policy. i would expect that to be heightened tomorrow. republicans have consistently called for president obama to be more tough, for lack of a better

term, with his negotiation with iran. that will continue on the floor tomorrow. host: kevin cirilli reporting at thehill.com. we appreciate your reporting. >> the president is heading to the pentagon for a briefing on the u.s. strategy against isis. we will hear from the president later. we will have that live on c-span. >> tonight on "the communicators," we visited a tech fair on capitol hill to hear what policy issues technology innovators want to discuss with congress. we spoke with a person from

yelp and several others. >> this is basically when a business owner does not like a review of their business and says, i will sue you. interaction go forward with it. you, as a user, you know it is firsthand, actual and true, but you are the little guy. you might not have the money to go to court over what you wrote about a chinese food restaurant. instead of doing that, you just take off the review. while yelp is protected because of section 230 of the communications act, what we are worried about is the chilling effect that those types of lawsuits will have on people that otherwise would share their firsthand experience. >> we are going to deploy about 600 satellites.

there are a lot of regulatory items that we have to address. clearly, that is one of the reasons why we want to be on the hill. the mission is to bring affordable internet access to the masses, and also provide services of public safety, military, and nongovernment issues that would benefit the violation at -- population in general. >> our hope is that wireless can be treated differently recognizing that it is a scarce resource so it is not quite the same of data flowing over a network, for example. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span two. >> next, the future of the new

york times in the digital age. a conversation with the editor. about half of the subscriptions are for digital content, a major shift for the paper which offer digital subscriptions just four years ago. the conversation was held at the roosevelt health in new york. >> good evening. i have the great privilege of being the president of this extraordinary institution hunter college. it is a great pleasure to offer -- welcome you to the discussion about the future of the new york times. thanks to the power of arthur, jack, more people rsvp so we moved to hear. we celebrate hunter's connection

with the roosevelt, as well as the long and complex relationship with the new york times. the times has been largely supportive of their programs especially in early years. it turned against him in 1940, endorsing his opponent. the times have become increasingly critical of roosevelt. the last issue irritated fdr. that prompted him to offer what was, as far as our researchers could determine, his only public criticism of the paper.

while the endorsement did not back off from the earlier friday, it did offer this assessment of what the new deal had meant to america. these measures, they wrote were aimed at reviving the hopes of millions of people and establishing a larger degree of social justice. fdr was one of a long line of presidents who had their ups and downs with the new york times. i want to express hunter's great gratitude to the underwriters of this and so many of the roosevelt house public programs.

while expressing our got, i want to say a special thanks to our moderator, jack rosenthal, who has been a particularly superb job as the interim director of the roosevelt house. this evening special is special for jack because he spent 40 years at the new york times, winning a pulitzer prize and serving as editor, among his many roles there. in 1970, when arthur was editor he asked jack to look 10 years into the future. jack dismissed digital as a passing fad. to his enduring credit, arthur resisted scorn, took the committee's advice, and the

newspaper has become as excellent online as in print. it is not digital or print, it is, "did we get the story right? the platform may change, but the times has always been dedicated to those goals, which is why it has won so many prizes. the question for this evening is how will they carry on the mission in the future. we are here with a real affinity to this question. our motto is "the care of the future is mine." we are trying to find what is around the corner and the repair the next generation of leaders for it. fortunately, there cannot be a better timeeam to lead the times than arthur and dean. all of us are interested in their success because we know our nation cannot be successful

democracy without having a strong press. our gratitude to you for doing all that you do to protect america's democracy. to jack rosenthal, a hearty thank you. welcome, jack, arthur, and dean. [applause] jack: let me begin by thanking you both for accepting this invitation. arthur: you're welcome. that was not quite as eloquent as jennifer, but that was nice. [laughter] jack: i want to recall one evening around 1980 when i encountered arthur in the times ' lobby wearing a leather jacket and carrying a lunch pail.

he was headed downstairs on his way to work. as a fourth-generation member of the sulzberger family, he did not have to work his way up the ladder, but he did work in every corner of the times. his first job was in the washington bureau in 1978. later, he sold ads, worked on the desk, and eventually became deputy publisher, then publisher, and then chairman of the times company in 1997. in that time, as jennifer mentioned, he was determined to make the digital times as excellent as it had been in print for more than one century. you, in our audience, reflect that concern for excellence. this program sold out overnight. dean baquet, the executive editor of the times, did work

his way up the ladder, twice. after winning a pulitzer prize for reporting in chicago, he came to the times in 1990 as a reporter, became deputy editor national editor, and then was hired by "the los angeles times," where he served as editor. he came back to "the new york times" as washington bureau chief, managing editor, and in may of last year, executive editor. that means he is the number one amongst some 1200 jobs in the newsroom, where he is known for his approachability and personal interest in staff members. our topic tonight is the future of "the new york times." for many in this audience, i think the concern about the future of the times in print. let's start with some facts.

how does circulation breakdown between digital and print? how much revenue now comes from advertising and how much from circulation? am i right to believe that print subscriptions are dropping 4%-5% per year? if that is right, how much will the print of the times continue? arthur: thank you so much. thank you, jack, for having us here. it is a pleasure to be in this auditorium. thank you, also, for starting off with such a nice and easy question. jack has always been good at that. let me take those in pieces. i will start with what i think is most interesting. when you and i were in our

positions, earlier in life deputy publisher, that period of time -- roughly the revenue breakdown of the times was 90% advertising, 10% circulation. now, because of print and digital, it is more 60%, 40%. 60% circulation. 40% on advertising. that is actually a strength. i know it sounds like it is not, but the strength is the stability of the circulation revenue. it gives us a firmer footing on which to build our future than many of our traditional, and even nontraditional, competitors have. so few of them have had a digital subscription plan that

has succeeded to the degree that we have. when i say succeed, we are somewhere around 950,000 digital -- paid digital subscribers. jack: compared to what in print? arthur: i'm struggling with the numbers. there is public information on this. i think it is about 800,000 daily. dean: that sounds right, and more than that on the weekend. arthur: what is interesting is when you see circulation decline -- print circulation decline -- where we take the hit is on street sales. not home delivery. what we have seen over the last 10-15 years, home delivery is shockingly stable.

if you have two-year subscribers or more, so getting people to subscribe for two year, -- i'm including weekend as well as weekday -- you find people stay for a significant period of time. we have them more or less for life. that is a great base. now, the digital revolution continues. people are moving -- they moved to the website, the screen. jack: the website? the homepage? arthur: they moved from the desktop -- what i'm trying to say -- and now they are moving increasingly to the mobile.

people have come to a variety of devices over a period of time. they will see us on the smartphone first thing in the morning. they will see us on the desktop at lunchtime. they will see us on their ipad later at night. print is woven into all of that. people are across multiple platforms now. that is the future. jack: that raises a question for dean. with such a large proportion of younger readers, especially online, can the times display its traditional high quality on the tiny screen of a smartphone without dumbing down? dean: yes. can i back up one second? at the heart of the question which is a question i have been asked a lot before, is what is

the lifespan of the print "new york times?" i think the question of print versus digital has become such a distraction from the real fundamental question about journalism. i think the fundamental question about journalism is what the great journalistic institutions will survive? how will they survive? i guess i do not buy at all that the phone means readers of "the new york times" want to read something lesser or dumber. all the evidence is people read long series on their phones. all evidence is people read -- we have more -- almost, if the goal of a newsroom and a leader of a newsroom is to be read which has got to be my fundamental goal, vendor number of readers we have in the digital era is astounding, unimaginable. take a series like the story we

did on the conditions at nail salons across the country, 5 million people read it. go to the print era where you have to readers of the print paper, that would've been unimaginable. my view, people want to read smart, sophisticated stories in every format. my job as the editor of "the new york times" is to figure out ways to make stories in every format as smart as all full and hard-hitting as possible. all evidence is we can do that. jack: arthur, a year ago you received report of your innovations committee. called for many changes. a main point was stop being so complacent about your readership.