which this year takes the form of a conversation of supreme court justice elina kagan. my name is matt shearer i'm associate professor of policy and government in this our school and director of the undergraduate program and philosophy and politics and economics the eb for short at george mason. the program is honored to be theinstitutional sponsor and host of the roger wilkins lecture . we are grateful for the trust and support place in us by the university andby the friends and family of roger wilkins . what's the connection between our pbe program and these lectures? i'm glad you asked. i spent a fair amount of time explaining what pbe is and what makes mason's program unique. i can go onbut today i'm going to go straight to the ttbottom line .our program exists to serve highly motivated to who want to help create better solutions for the difficult and pressing problems arise in the public life of a complex society. the problems that arise in different emsit in what roger wilkins in the first chapter of his autobiography calls with immense understatement obligated ti

[laughter] justice kagan: chill out. [laughter] steve: so, let's talk about careers, particularly yours. harvard law school, law school, white house, dean, solicitor general. was there a grand plan? did you plan that whole thing out? justice kagan: yeah, it was all written down. that's a joke. come on. [laughter] steve: in high school though you appeared in your yearbook wearing a gown and holding a gavel. was that just coincidence? justice kagan: a bunch of us raided the costume closet in the drama department and that is how i ended up, but i had no idea i was even going to go to law school before basically the year i went to law school. i guess my view of the way things have turned out is that most of it was serendipity and unplanned. college students, law students, they tend to plan too much and the best advice you can give people is planning some is good and important, but it's really just keep your eyes open to opportunities that might just pop up, because i think most of life happens that way. things come about tha

that certainly has been justice kagan's m.o. throughout her career, born and raised new yorker, justice kagan attended princeton, harvard, serving as a law clerk and then to justice thurgood marshall. university of chicago law school, she was then asked to come into the clinton administration first as associate white house counsel, then domestic policy adviser. she went back to harvard law as a professor but quickly became dean where she is widely accredited for institutional reforms. president obama then appointed justice kagan to be the first female solicitor general of the united states and quickly followed up by appointing her to the supreme court. two less well-known but nevertheless very important achievements, she was the dean who brought free coffee to harvard law and she was also the justice who brought frozen yogurt to the supreme court, which i appreciated very much. in all seriousness, i was extremely fortunate to have clerked for a person like justice kagan. if my father taught me to you to become passionately to se

let's think justice kagan for being with us. [applause] >> thank you. >> thank you can i ask you to stay seated for a while. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [applause] . . . good

justice kagan: i don't know. we have had a contentious legislature and strong executive in this country for a while. i'm not sure why the court, whether it is more or less contentious, more or less strong, i don't think the court .hould define its own role based on what happens in the executive or legislature. which is not to say that over long stretches of time, developments in the political process surrounding us do not affect what the court does. of course, it does. that on a morenk short-term basis that we should or -- curb ourselves either become less aggressive or more aggressive. based on what happens to be happening at that moment in the political process. i think we should look after our own business. suzette: chelsea. third-year law student pursuing a career in public defense. >> it is really wonderful to have you. i know we are all honored. you touched on this question already but it is the question i submitted so hopefully it allows you to assist -- allows you to expand. how do you think the court wil

but with justice kagan's fax there is a statement and you have factual circumstances to lead to that then you would please that. >> if you plead those circumstances that give rise to the inference then you have a case that possibly complies. >> bet you said that and it seems quite right but we had this case before which is in the title vii context i don't know how to pronounce it. which said we are thinking about that case and it is still good law. the wet that case said with the shifting case and said you don't actually have to in your pleading to show the case that we understand the pleadings in this field are different and then we say that still good law. >> i don't think that is entirely accurate or how people distinguish it. what was happening in that case that the second circuit had ruled they were deficient because the plaintiff had failed to allege the framework in the complaint but now the court will say that framework is to make you sad a trial not the pleading framework later that was reaffirmed and to basically say you could choose to prove your case in a particular way b

thursday, supreme court justice elana kagan on the innerworkings of the court amid today's polarized climate. here's a preview. message would be to the court and part of my message would be to the public. and my message is that everything i just said suggests the court should think hard when , abouting its work trying as hard as it can not to look politicized and polarized and deeply divided. because i think we live in this polarized time, and the last thing the court should do as look -- is look as polarized as every other institution in america. it would be great for the courts to be seen as not that. and the only way to be seen as not that, is not to be that. so i think that there is a lesson for the court and how it operates, but i think there is also, i would also say to the american public that they shouldn't jump to conclusions so fast, on the basis of one decision or another, that we are to decide hardest really difficult matters, and that we are all doing so in good it willd that sometimes look like the world is falling in, because of one decision. look at otherto people, be

. >> i thought that justice kagan at the end of showing the but/for causation. >> the the court adopted the framework it suddenly shifts the burden of production but never the burden of persuasion so in thatdu sense it seems to answer the question. >> so if you plead a motivating factor it's enough. but would you accept as a matter of burden at trial you do have to prove but/for /fcausation. >>. >> so what do you do with the examples the assistant solicitor general raised? you are black but you are not a lawyer we don't hire nonlawyers. for that you graduated from law school. >> in that instance so just imagine a different example of somebody files a complaint that says i went to a hotel to rent a room and i was told i could not get a room because none was available but i was also told that because they don't rent to blacks is that sufficient to survive the amount - - the motion? we say yes the argument is if it doesn't allege the but/for causation it would not be enough it shows that is an impossible standard. >> if i understand your answer about the hypothetical why is it that fails u

next, supreme court justice elena kagan speaks to students at george mason university. justice kagan spoke about the legal system, her life and career and the polarization of the confirmation process for the supreme court justices. >> welcome. students, colleagues, guests, president holton, justice kagan, friends and family of roger wilken. it's my pleasure to welcome you all to the second annual roger wilkens lecture, which this year takes the form of conversation with supreme court justice elena kagan.

the bench liken alito who shows up with his ipad to the hearing, kagan, sotomayor. when they arelks, getting towards the majority. once justice ginsburg whose 86, clarence thomas is in his 70's. once those older folks leave the court i think they will be a little more open to it. there is a website ready to go that can do live audio. make it happen. i think that will be a good start and we will get to cameras a few years after that. in independence, missouri. caller: i'm glad you are having the court -- to this show. the court has become way too political. handing down such damaging decisions as citizens united. corporation ever be an individual? it's not a human being. and i think gerrymandering and those things that came down on the wrong side, we should get rid of all gerrymandering and they didn't do that either. i think our supreme court has become way too political. we should take the selection process. judges randomly decide who the next supreme court justice to be because who better to pick a justice than people who are already in the business of maintaining

supreme court justice elena kagan talked about the inner workings of the court and how it is viewed inay's political climate. her remarks were part of the annual john paul stevens center -- lecture. >> i can't see anything. it looks like there are a lot of you here. i'm very honored. it's great to be here. over 2000, i think. that's great demand for you to be here. it is such an honor. thank you so much for being here. we are thrilled that youre

after that, discussion with supreme court justice alayna kagan. >> for 40 years c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, supreme court and public policy events from washington dc and around the country so you can make up your own mind. crated by cable in 1979 c-span is brought to you by your local or cable satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> marc randolph is the cofounder of netflix and he is the author of this new book, that will never work. mr. randolph where did the idea of ethics come from? >> guest: ideas come from the strangest places. in that will never work i talk about

>>'s elena kagan on the elenaorkings of -- kagan, here is a preview.na: the court should think hard when it is doing its work. it is hard to not look politicized and polarized and it was divided. i think you're right, this is a polarized time. the last thing the court should do is look as politicized as every other institution in america. it would be great for the court to be seen as not that. -- toly way to see that be seen as not that is to not be that. i think there is a lesson for the court and how it operates. -- i wouldre is also say to the american public, they should not jump to conclusions so fast on the basis of one decision or another. toare trying her hardest decide really difficult matters. we are all doing so in good faith. it will like the world of oneing and because decision but maybe to other people it will look like the world and because of another decision. >> you can watch that here on c-span. extended weekend of book tv this holiday weekend. here are some of our features. haley recounts her time as u.s. ambassador to the u.s. in th

i take mister walls answer to justice kagan's last action that the government has changed its position from hernandez one where they argued inside the border hypothetical would be actionable under bivens area i do want to go back to putting this case in the broader context because it's important to understand how we got here. historically, the whole way that the tort liability regime worked for government misconduct was that this court and state courts looked to existing common law causes of action and focused on immunity defenses as a way of calibrating the harm that citizens and others faced when injured by government officers against a need to protect officers acting in good faith . that's to judge hand. the court struck this balance by fashioning immunity defenses where the fight would be over whether the officer was entitled to immunity or not and for law enforcement officers specifically this court has long rejected the argument that there should be any context in which law-enforcement officers because of the frequency with which they interact with average individuals, because of

to point out what justice kagan was saying, are you relying on a generalized statistic, and you said no, but in answering justice sotomayor, you're saying the common sense is based on this general idea that people are driving their own cars. >> my point was a generalized observation how many people in the world commit a certain crime -- >> suppose that a municipality has a law that says everybody has to carry their license with them at all times. suppose a particular police department did a survey or a study of their practices and found that 50% of teenagers do not carry their license with them at all times, all right? so now it's common sense that if you see a teenager, she won't be carrying her driver's license with her. does that give the police officer the ability to stop every teenager he sees? >> generally not. that's what it means for the suspicion to be -- >> how is that different from this case? you pull over a teenage driver because you suspect they're texting, and there are statistics on that? so it's the same hypothetical. and disting wish that from the case. >> the offic

this as supposedly like marginalized their use mechanism, thank you for ensuring that we have justice kagans she strongly to the university of colorado, to speak there, she also go on a fancy ski trip with some donor who might care about was going on to the court next week. i feel like there's just gaps in the boarding. they are big wire to report some of them but not the amount and just that they were reimbursed for the travel food and lodging and working with both democrats and republicans on the bill that was introduced to aco that would require the justices and federal judges have the same exacting reporting standard members of congress and executive branch officials have in terms of making a timelyls report so that few days of the trip to bayport in the exact amount so that we know trip to colorado like you mentioned maybe a couple thousand bucks about 20 or 30 an effort to troy to elicit justice. direct the course will probably be is with export their executive director. this is kurt in new jersey. that is the line. >> i gave. bear with me, i imagine and then educated but very opinion

. >> what it what you just read also have made daca unreviewable to pick up on justice kagan's question from earlier. >> no because it falls -- >> what's the distinction between fda and daca. >> the fda policy nobody was claiming that a statute restricted the fda ability to not enforce the law. nobody made that argument. in the daca litigation, texas specifically argues that the ina did in fact restrict the agency's authority to exercise this enforcement discretion to not enforce the law. >> one of the things that texas argued in the daca case was the agency action in question conferred certain benefits on the individuals who were affected and if that was sufficient to make that reviewable, does the wind down of daca remove certain benefits that individuals would have and whawould that make this reviewa? >> i think the answer is no and no. and the reason why, first of law the rescission of daca does not resend any benefit. those benefits are allowed to expire on their own terms. but even putting that aside, the worth a realization and other benefits are collateral consequence of the exe

. >> today supreme court justice elena kagan talks to george mason university students about the american judicial system. live coverage at 4:30 p.m. eastern on on c-span3, online at c-span.org or listen live on our free c-span radio app. >> general john raymond is the command of your space command and he has been invited to talk about building this space force. this is posted by the center for strategic and international studies here in washington, d.c. live coverage on c-span2. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> we are live this morning to remarks about building the u.s. space force. general raymond is the command of the u.s. space command. this is hosted by the center for strategic and international studies here in washington, d.c. live coverage on c-span2. we expect it to start shortly. [inaudible conversations] and hicks. i direct the international security program here at csis and it's my pleasure to welcome y

entire event tonight with supreme court justice selena kagan at the university of colorado law school tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. the impeachment inquiry hearings continue next week when house judiciary committee chairman jerrold nadler holds the committee's first impeachment inquiry hearing into president trump focusing on the constitution in the history of impeachment. watch our live coverage wednesday, to summer fourth, at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three. chairman nadler extended and end up -- an invitation for the president and his counsel to appear before the committee. read the letter to the president on our website, c-span.org/impeachment. and follow the impeachment inquiry live on c-span3, online at c-span.org, or listen live on the free c-span radio app. former house speaker john boehner was honored at the u.s. capitol during a portrait unveiling ceremony. the ohio republican served in congress from 1991 to 2015 and was elected speaker in 2011. at the ceremony, we will hear from current house speaker nancy pelosi and other congressional leaders. >> ladies and g

. >> supreme court justice elena kagan talked about the inner working of the court and how it is viewedn today's political climate. her remarks were part of the annual john paul stevens lecture at the university of colorado law school in boulder. >> i can't see anything. it looks like there are a lot of you here. i'm very honored. it's great to be here.

kagan: i can't see anything. it looks like there are a lot of you here.

supreme court justice elena kagan talked about the innerworkings of the court and how it is viewed inoday's political climate. this is at the university of colorado law school in boulder. >> i can't see anything. it looks like there are a lot of you here. i'm very honored. it's great to be here. over 2000, i think. that's great demand for you to be here. it is such an honor. thank you so much for being here. we are thrilled that you are here for the stevens lecture. one of the special things about you being here, as the dean mentioned, is i know that this this lecture is actually named r

later this afternoon on c-span3, supreme court justice elena kagan will talk to students at george mason university about u.s. legal system. live coverage begins at 4:30 eastern and you can follow all online at rage c-span.org or listen with the app.c-span radio >> this week, the house chairigence committee and adam schiff continue public impeachment inquiry hearings morning at esday 9:00 eastern on c-span3. watch live testimony from williams, aide to vice president mike pence. and director for european securityt the national council, lieutenant colonel alexander vindman. 2:30, ambassador volker, white l security council house aide tim morrison. on wednesday at 9:00 a.m. testimony continues with u.s. ambassador to the union gordon sondland. nd then deputy assistant secretary of defense laura cooper and david hale, undersecretary of state for political affairs. and on thursday at 9:00 p.m. eastern, the committee will hear hill, ony from fiona former national security council senior director for europe and russia. first two public hearings in their entirety on our website c-span.org/impeac

the bench liken alito who shows up with his ipad to the hearing, kagan, sotomayor.n they arelks, getting towards the majority. once justice ginsburg whose 86, clarence thomas is in his 70's. once those older folks leave the court i think they will be a little more open to it. there is a website ready to go that can do live audio. make it happen. i think that will be a good start and we will get to cameras a few years after that. in independence, missouri. caller: i'm glad you are having the court -- to this show. the court has become way too political. handing down such damaging decisions as citizens united. corporation ever be an individual? it's not a human being. and i think gerrymandering and those things that came down on the wrong side, we should get rid of all gerrymandering and they didn't do that either. i think our supreme court has become way too political. we should take the selection process. judges randomly decide who the next supreme court justice to be because who better to pick a justice than people who are already in the business of maintaining our

. >>> we'll take you live to an interview with justice elena kagan from george mason university in northern virginia. >> this year takes the form of conversation, supreme court justice elena

breyer and kagan have a more accommodating view. i will just sketch very quickly. it is the latest in this long line of cases involving essentially school vouchers is the broad rubric for these cases. this one is structured more as a tax credit. i don't think that really matters at the end of the day. the question is essentially when a state sets up a program to allow this, are they actually forced by the federal constitution to include religious schools in the program, or can they limit it by their own state constitution to just private, nonsectarian schools and exclude religious private schools? does that constitute discrimination on the basis of religion? this case illustrates how the court has moved over time. cases, theyon said you could not have a state voucher program at all. it is too much of a link the between religion and the state. the supreme court about 15 years ago overruled that and said canes, if they want to, include religious schools within their voucher program and not violate the federal statute laws. if they are going to have a voucher program

monday, supreme court justice selena kagan talks to george mason university students about the americanicial system. live coverage begins at 4:30 p.m. eastern on c-span at three -- on c-span3, c-span.org or the free c-span radio app. monday night, on the communicators, mike randolph, cofounder of netflix and author of the book "that will never work" shares his experience starting the online streaming service. >> our cto hit a few keys and we were live. it did not take long and we got the first ding, and we cheered and opened bottles of champagne. a few minutes later, three more orders. we were so excited. then we got two more orders. in all the excitement, we lost track of things until someone noticed it had been a while since the bell has run. problem --gged door or a problem? it turned out we had crashed all of our servers. >> mark randolph, monday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern, on the communicators on c-span2. >> our c-span 2020 bus team is traveling across the country, visiting key battleground states the 2020 presidential race, asking voters which issues they want voters to address --

justices breyer and kagan have a more accommodating view toward religion with respect to the case -- i will let you take that. >> very quickly, it is the latest in a long line of cases involving school vouchers, a broad rubric for these cases. it involves the structure of more of a tax credit. it doesn't matter at the end of the day. the state sets up a program to allow this, are they forced by the federal constitution to include religious schools in the program or can they limit it by the terms of their own state constitution to just private nonsectarian schools and exclude the religious private schools or does that constitute discrimination on the basis of religion. this illustrates the fact that this is appear in this posture, illustrates how the court has moved over time. with a lemon cases, and in the intervening decisions of parents, and and states, if they want to can include religious schools within their voucher program and not violate the clause. we have moved all the way to asking the question if they have a voucher program at all do they have to include the religious scho

court0 eastern, supreme justice elena kagan delivers the stevens lecture in boulder.heriday, spend a day in life with three of the 2020 democratic hopefuls, senator bennett, mayor pete buttigieg and senator cory booker. we'll look at u.s. relations with iran and security in the gulf region with a panel of u.s. ambassadors to persian gulf countries from the clinton, george w. bush and administrations. saturday at 10:00 eastern, a house ways and means committee inring on the difficulties caring for aging americans reasonablyhe lack of priced long-term care. actor and environmental advocate ted danson testifies on the plastic pollution at a subcommittee hearing. sunday night at 9:00 p.m. for campaign 2020, c-span speaks with presidential andidates deval patrick michael bennett. patrick talks about his background, friendship with aspirations if elected president and entry into the field of candidates. senator michael bennett on why he decided to run for president, his leadership style on policy issues. watch c-span this four-day weekend. next, california senator and democ

moving into now something that is closer to 7-2 in general, but i think justices briar and kagan have a more accommodating view to religion. -- veryhappy to quickly. it is the latest in this long line of cases involving essentially school vouchers, just a broad rubric for these cases. particular involves a bit structured as more of a tax credit but i do not think that matters. the question is when a state sets up a program to allow this, are they actually forced by the federal constitution to include religious schools in the program , or can they limit it by the terms of their own state constitution suggest private nonsectarian schools, and limit it and exclude the religious private schools, or does not constitute discrimination on the basis of religion. this case really illustrates the fact that this is up here in this posture and illustrates how the court has moved over time. with the lemon cases, there were lower court cases that said you cannot have a voucher program at all because even the indirect provision of state ages through the intervening decisions of parents is still too

now, as you know, justice kagan and i had not married. we don't have children. we've had successful careers. and i don't think you have to be unmarried and have children to have successful careers. but i do think it helped back then that she represented everything that people expected and more. >> justice ginsburg, what qualities did you see and experience with justice o'connor that helped craft her for the position, as evan thomas says in his book, first? and you were second. and you were third. it has got to be carry special burdens and a sense of obligation to the people that are out there watching and seeing you as an example, as a role model. what qualities did she bring to that role? >> sandra was responsible more than any probably any justice in history for the collegiality of the supreme court. that was very important to her. when she revived the tradition of having lunch together and urged her colleagues to attend, she was also a good listener and she had patience and i never saw her snap back in anger. sandra was a person who woefr came her way in life

on c-span3,fternoon supreme court justice elena kagan will talk to students at university about the u.slegal system. live coverage begins at 4:30 all rn and you can follow of our coverage jonathan at c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app. congressman, let me begin with the results yesterday in new orleans and louisiana in which john bel edwards, the democrat, winning with --t: joining us from loifl, louisville, kentucky on c-span's newsmakers program, democratic congressman john yarmuth, chr

i think justices breyer and kagan about more accommodating view toward religion with respect with the case of the all that paul or jan take that specifically. >> very quickly, it's the latest in the long line of cases involving school vouchers and the broad rubric for these cases, this one involves more of a tax credit, i don't think that matters at the end of the day. and the question is, essentially when a state sets up a program to allow this, are they actually forced by the federal constitution to include religious schools in the program or can they limited by the terms of their own state constitution to just private non-secretary school districts and limit and exclude the religious private schools or does not constitute discrimination on the basis of religion? all also say, this case illustrates its. and how the court has moved overtime. because with the lemon cases, there were lower court cases that said you cannot have a voucher program at all because the indirect provision of state aid through the intervening decision of parents is still too much of a link between religion and

and coming up later this supreme on c-span3, court justice elena kagan will talk to students at georgeon u.s. legal bout the system. live coverage starts at 4:30 eastern. all of our ow coverage online at c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app. house week, the intelligence committee and chair adam schiff continue public inquiry hearings beginning tuesday morning at 9:00 eastern on c-span3. from live testimony jennifer williams, aide to vice president mic pence, and pence, and ke director for european affairs, lieutenant colonel alexander venman. at 2:30 -- vindman. 2:30, white house aide tim morrison. a.m. eastern,9:00 testimony continues for ambassad ambassador, gordon sondland. and secretary of defense for ukrainian and eurasian cooper. laura and on thursday at 9:00 p.m. eastern, the committee will hear fiona hill, m former national security council senior director for europe and russia. first two public hearings in their entirety on our website c-span.org/impeachment. here, you'll also find transcripts of witness testimony and procedures for the hearings. plus, a points

. >> there's so there's no generalized testing, so what justice kagan was saying, are you relying on generalize artistic snow, unjust i hurt you correctly you're basically saying the common sense basis, this general idea that people are driving their own cars? >> my point is it's a generalized observation how many people on the road.. >> let me give you a hypothetical, supposed municipality has a law everybody has to carry their driver license at or time suppose a particular police department did a survey, or study of their practices and found that to actually 50% of the teenagers do not carry their driver license with them at all times all right? so that's a common sense if you see a teenager if she will be carrying her driver license with her, is that gave the police, officer the, ability to stop every teenager, air they see them? >> generally not you honor, that's the suspicion to be particular rise to the individual, you need a resend. >> how is that different from this case? were you pull over a teenage driver because you suspect they're a's license, and the statistics on that,

. >> on the question justice kagan followed up that you were arguing that the officer had no were to fall, page 35 and 36, you say that. >> the officer can do that, were not trying -- >> you said is relatively easy for an officer to do this by tracking the driver until the driver does some minor traffic violation and then you can pull the driver over. >> which is what is the ordinary way. >> delaware in that case did not involve someone with a suspended license. >> you looking for people. >> that's what they were looking for but they did not have information that the owner of the car in question had a suspended license -- >> the whole point in the last paragraph distinguishes the situation. >> that's absolutely true. the court said that the ordinary way to enforce these laws and that's one option. when i'm talking in the brief about how it's relatively easy for officers to do this, his reasons to depart from the ordinary fourth amendment to adopt a rule and no safety. >> i'm just try to figure out what sense that makes. you made a point in a brief that the officer should just follow

conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> today supreme court justice elena kagan talks to george mason university students about the american judicial system. live coverage begins at 4:30 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. on-line at c-span.org or listen live on our free c-span radio app. app. >> this week the house intelligence committee and chair adam schiff continue public impeachment inquiry hearings beginning tuesday morning at 9:00 eastern on c-span 3. watch live testimony from jennifer williams, aide to vice-president mike pence and lt. colonel alexander vinman and at 2:30 ambassador kurt volker, former u.s. special enjoy to ukraine and white house aide tim morrison. at wednesday 9 a.m. eastern testimony continues with u.s. ambassador to the european union gordon sondland and deputy for russian ukraine crane affairs, laura cooper, and undersecretary of state. and fiona hill, watch the first two in their entierment c-span.o c-span.org, a key interest features indicated by a star in the timeline. this week, watch live coverage of the house impeachment inquiries on c-s

announcer: you can watch this entire event tonight with supreme court justice elena kagan at the universitylorado law school tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. announcer: here are some feature programs on c-span this weekend. on friday starting at 3:30 p.m. eastern, spend a day in the life with three of the 2020 democratic hopefuls, senator michael bennet, mayor pete buttigieg, and senator cory booker. edit :00 p.m. eastern, we look at u.s. relations with iran and security in the gulf region with a panel of former u.s. ambassador's to persian gulf countries. saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern, the house ways in on the of caring for aging americans, including the lack of long-term care for senior citizens and their caregivers. and at 8:00 eastern, actor environmental activist ted danson testifies on the environmental impacts of plastic pollution at a natural resources subcommittee hearing. p.m.y night at 9:00 eastern, c-span speaks with presidential candidates deval patrick and michael bennet. deval patrick talks about his background, friendship with president barack obama, his aspirations