. >> that's the united states department of agriculture.he last plantation. >> and they haven't changed even after the national lawsuit. >> in 1997, timothy pickford and four other other african-american farmers sued the usda for systemic discrimination against black farmers. the farmers won but the payout took 11 years and required ongoing litigation. >> it was merely an apology and an acknowledgement of guilt by the united states department of agriculture. my grands father used to say, every step you take, every step you make, requires ownership. you can be walking on your own or somebody else's and they can have you locked up. the choice is yufrls he said the lands was the only way to be free. if you're 55 and up, t- mobile has a plan built just for you. we want you to get the value and service you need to stay connected. saving 50% vs. other carriers with 2 unlimited lines for less than $30 each. we know that connection is more important than ever. and we're here to help, when you're ready to switch. call 1-800-t-mobile or go to t- mobi

the united states department of agriculture right down the street, that is a federal agency. so we have different entities in charge. in -- arestreets are guarded but -- you have all these entities and essentially what they say is not on my land. so, when the smithsonian wants to have the folklife festival, they have to get a permit from the park service. for the past years, they've been fighting each other. parks service doesn't want the smithsonian on the new grass, but the smithsonian wants to bring people to the new grass. everyone understands this is the fundamental problem, which is why they like my diagram. it's not their fault, they say. we have jurisdiction only over this land. we can't get land to expand. but there could be great possibilities if we could create something like a mcmillan commission and put all of these people with others on the commission so we can talk about the totality as a unified place thatposed to jurisdictions plan for only their own policy. yes? >> did the eisenhower memorial go through the same process you just described? judy: yes. i was i

united states and other nations can do. there's something here the united nations should be doing, but no one, no one, i assure you, is holding their breath about that. the department of agriculture mysterious chinese seeds that were a mailed to americans may be a marketing scam known as brushing. they suggest it's also a way to artificially boost their sales by sending free seeds to all 50 states. no word yet on who mailed the seeds, whether they are harmful, nor how that particular scam works, but that's what we're getting. just wanted to bring you to date. now you know what we do which is not enough about this sorry e business. that mystery batch of seeds mailed all over the country. joining us tonight, dr. michael pillsbury, director of the center for chinese strategy at the hudson institute. mike, great to have you with us. let's start, first of all, with a quick reaction to senator graham complimenting himself for coming up with a, with an answer to holding china accountable by allowing americans to sue the chinese. how effective do you think that would be? i mean, are they quivering in beijing at the prospect in. >> no, they're not quivering in beijing, lou. i think i've h

you spend a buck on snap and i will make sure i cite the source here, the united states department of agriculture's economic research service is spend a buck on snap benefits in an economic downturn, and guess what, you get a buck 50 in return. maybe as high as a buck 80. but let's go with the conservative number, a buck 50. that's a pretty good return on invest -- investment. if that's all you care about, return on investment, you don't care about the program. you're not really troubled by food insecurity, you're not really persuaded by the pain of hunger, then support it because it's a good banking for the buck. that the would make sense. that's the american way to consider what we should be doing here. consider the moral case. that should be enough, but you can also consider the efficacy, the effect, the value of the program in an economic sense. we are all better off when snap is funded at an adequate level. all of us because of that banking for the buck. because when people get snap dollars, they spend them. guess what. that's good for all of us. it's good for our local economies. it's good fo