>> we leave now and join the senate, going live to the floor of the u.s. senate as they convene for a brief pro forma session the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, december 27, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable harry reid, a senator from the state of nevada, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 11:00 a.m. on until 11:00 a.m. on

>> you can watch live coverage here on c-span2. >> here's a look at some of tonight's primetime programming across the c-span networks.

is losing ground to texas congressman ron paul according to some recent polls. they join mitt romney as the top three candidates in the iowa polls. and our coverage from iowa will continue later today as we send our cameras to an occupied des moines meeting and a reminder that for all things campaign related we have got got a clearinghouse available for you on line. you can watch events from the trail, stump speeches and town hall meetings and also links to the candidates and related editorials and endorsements all that c-span.org/politics. spin michele bachmann is here though i understand, and she is thinking about running for

president. which is weird because i hear she was born in canada. [laughter] yes michelle this is how it starts. [laughter] >> it still amazing to me washington d.c. office history, all these amazing buildings and yet here we are at the hilton. [laughter] the red carpet outside was amazing. who are you wearing? what does it matter i'm going into a hilton? >> the more than 9 million views of president obama's appearance and 2.5 million for seth meyer c-span's coverage from the white house correspondents' dinner are ranked among youtube's top 10 most viewed political videos. watch them on line on our youtube channel, youtube.com/c-span. >> first lady betty ford died in july at age 93 and next we bring you a memorial service in her

honor with guests including michelle obama, three former first ladies and former president george w. bush. mrs. ford's longtime friend and former first lady roslyn carter and journalist cokie roberts gave eulogies. mrs. ford was buried aside her husband, former president gerald ford and his presidential museum in grand rapids michigan. this service is about 90 minutes.

[background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds]

i know that my redeemer live with and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth as though this body be destroyed, yet shall i see god who i shall see for myself and my eyes

behold and not as a stranger, for none of us live with to himself and no man diet to himself, for if we live we live and to the lord. if we die we die and to the lord . whether we lived there for or die we are the lord. blessed are the dead who die and the lord. even so say that the spirit for the rest from their labors.

[background sounds] [background sounds] >> the lord be with you.

let us pray. ogata of grace and lori, remember that for you this day our sister betty, we thank you for giving her to us, our family and friends to know and love as a companion on our grimsley program which. in our boundless compassion, give us faith to see in-depth the gate to eternal life said that in quiet confidence we may continue parcourse on our if until, by your call, we are reunited with those who have gone before through jesus christ our lord. most merciful god is with him is beyond our understanding do graciously with mike, jack,

steve, susan, and they're families in their grief. surround them to los that they may not be overwhelmed by their loss but have confidence in your goodness and strength to meet the days to come through jesus christ our lord. please be seated. [background sounds]

>> a reading from the book of isaiah. has a vow not known, have vowed not heard that the everlasting god, the lord, the creator of the ends of the earth scene did not, neither is very. there is no searching of this understanding. he give it power to the faint and to them that have no smite he increase the strength. even the huge show fall faint and be wary, and the young men shall utterly fall, but they that wait upon the lord shall renew their strength. they shall mount up with wings as eagles. they shall run and not be weary. they shall walk and not faint. the word of lord.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

[background sounds] >> a reading from the first letter to the corinthians. as i speak in the tongues of morals and his angels but do not have love i am a noisy gun or a clanging symbol. if i have prophetic powers and understand mysteries and knowledge and if i have all faith so as to remove mountains but do not have love i am nothing. if i give away my possessions and if thy hand over my body so that i may boast but to not have

love again nothing. levitation to, love this kind. but is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude . it does not insist on its own way. it is not irritable or resentful it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in truth. it bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things ended doors of things. love never ends. as for prophecies, they come to an end. as for knowledge, it will come to an end. we know only in part to and prophesies only in part. when the complete comes the partial will come to an end. when i was a child i spoke like a child, i fought like a child,

i reasoned like a child. when i became an adult i put an end to childish ways. for now we see in the mirror dimly, but then we will see face-to-face. now i know only in parts. then i will know fully. even as i have fully been known. and now faith, hope, and love abide, these three and the greatest of these is luck. the word of the lord. faith, hope, and love. three remarkable qualities of the human spirit. qualities that we as her family have seen and experienced in mom

throughout her entire life. faith in god and in jesus christ as a maker and provider, redeemer, her counselor and friend. mom's fate was especially evidenced through her personal renewal and faith, and her life. the beginning of recovery and a dependency on out gall and prescription drugs. we know mom's fate. bonn's faith in the value, the dignity, the word of a fellow man. more specifically her faith in each of her children in her brother and sister.

sun and daughter-in-law's, her grandchildren comer great-grandchildren, as men and women of good character, great potential, and great promise to lead and serve others. we know of mom so that god's design and his gracious purposes for all mankind would be worked out and filled through human history. we know of for hope that each of us as family might discover and embrace that special call of god on our lives and for our futures . finally, mom's love, we know about love.

the love of god and his personal touch of her life pretty good out of evil, healing out of broken this, joy and dancing, yes, dancing. she was quite a dancer. britney dancing out of sorrow. we know of for love for debt. she called him, my boyfriend of 58 years of marriage. just yesterday my sister susan was rummaging through some of their special family letters and came across a western union telegram from january 1st

1948. it was from jerry ford. he was in santa monica, california at the rose bowl. he sent this to miss betty warren, that's my mom. he writes in the telegram, miss you, betty. wish you were here. loads of love jerry. what a beautiful journey they shared together as husband and wife, faithfully standing by each other through the hard times, through the good times, to the challenges, through the crucibles of life only to grow stronger in their devotion to one the other end closer in

their united love. and we know of mom's love for her family. each one of us as her children, son, and daughter-in-law's to my grandchildren, great-grandchildren. we each have our own stories, stories to tell the members to cherish of how mom loved us, how she took the time to no less, each one in our own special way and to love us so well. we know of mom's love for others whether it be a friend in need or a patient at the betty ford center, mom extended freely, extended herself freely in love and compassion to so many.

once again, her desire to know a person's heart, to know their broken is to muster rolls, and her willingness to share and care for them through words of grace and act of mercy. so does her extended family we are here this day to give thanks for precious life. we celebrate her life. we rejoice in the goodness of it, and how she lived it to it's full, leaving no regret tamale hope and joy. we celebrate the precious life of faith, of hope, and of love.

the greatest of these was to love. ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ >> the holy gospel of our lord jesus christ according to matthew. [background sounds] seeing the multitude's jesus went up into a mountain and when

he was set his disciples came on to them. he opened his mouth and taught them, saying blessed of the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. blessed are they that more and, for they shall be comforted. blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. blessed by they which 200 thirst after righteousness. they shall be filled. best -- blessed are the merciful they shall obtain mercy. blessed are the pure in heart. they shall see god. blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of god.

blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. blessed are ye when men shall revalue and persecute you and michele say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake. rejoice and be exceedingly glad for great is your reward in heaven. ..

[background sounds] [background sounds] >> betty ford was my friend, and i'm honored to be here today to help celebrate the life of this truly remarkable woman. i never imagined when we first met 40 years ago that we would develop such a close personal friendship. at that time, betty was the wife of the vice president of the

united states. she had danced with a cup and performed in carnegie hall. she was the leader in the fight for women's rights and should come to georgia with a train, a project taking six cars filled with art to rural communities across the country. gene was governor, and we invited betty to stay at the governor's mansion. i was nervous. she was the most distinguished guests we had ever had. that when she arrived, she was so warm and friendly, but she immediately put me at ease. we had a good time together. of course i didn't tell her then that my husband was thinking about running for president. [laughter] the next time i met betty was at the white house shortly after the 1976 election. it might've been a very awkward moment. i know from personal experience that it was a difficult time for

her. yet she was just betty, as gracious as always. as i assume the responsibilities of first lady, i had an excellent role model. and a tough act to follow. betty broke new ground in speaking out on women's issues from her public disclosure of her own battle with breast cancer, lifted the veil of secrecy from this terrible disease. she used influence of office of first lady to promote early detection, and millions of women are in her debt today. and she was never afraid to speak the truth. even about the most sensitive subjects, including her own struggles with alcohol and painkillers. she got some criticisms. i thought she was wonderful. and her honesty gave her to others every single day. by her example, also helped me

recover from jimmy's lost in 1980. having embraced the cause for many women recovering from alcoholism and chemical dependence, she worked higher leslie as former first lady to establish the betty ford center. and showed me that there is life after the white house. and it can be a very full life. in 1984 we both participated in a panel at the ford presidential library on the role of first lady's. we found that our interests in an addictive diseases and mental health came together in many ways and that we could be a stronger force if we worked as partners, and we did for many years, sometimes traveling to washington to lobby for our causes, especially parity for mental health and substance use disorders and all health insurance plans.

and i am so glad she lived to see this happen. we didn't get everything wanted, but we got a good start. i know that made betty as happy as it made me. we talked about it. when we go to washington, she would round up the republicans, i would round up the democrats, and i think we were fairly effective, most of the time. [laughter] after the 1984 conference, betty wrote me a note that i still treasure in which she expressed her admiration for women had the courage of their convictions and did what others were too timid to attempt. isn't this the most appropriate description of betty? someone who is willing to do things a bit differently than they had been done before, someone who had the courage and grace to fight fear, stigma and prejudice wherever she encountered it. and today it's almost impossible to imagine a time when people were afraid to reveal they had

cancer or to speak publicly about personal struggles with alcohol or addiction. she was a tireless advocate were those struggling. some struggling alone, a sheen to seek help. it was a privilege to work with her to bring addiction and mental health problems into the light. historians have said that our husbands, and jimmy and jerry, developed a close relationship than any other president after leaving the white house. i think danny and i had a similar relationship. in closing, i just want to add that bad and i shared another passion, our husbands and our families. her partnership with jerry, both public and private, helped heal the nation and strengthen the family unit, in its many varied forms. her love of her children, michael, jack, steven and susan, was unbounded. and her grandchildren were a

source of constant pleasure. when we get together later in life, we talked about our hopes and dreams, for our children and grandchildren, and also our great grandchildren. to you here who mourned the loss of your mother, your grandmother, and great-grandmother today, jenny and i extend our most sincere sympathies, and want you to note of the deep love and respect we have for this extraordinary woman. it was my privilege to know where. -- to know her. [background sounds] [background sounds]

[background sounds] [background sounds] >> good afternoon, i'm jeff, i'm an alcoholic. well, betty, we're all here now. some of us, some of us here have been working towards this day for quite some time, as you know. that's what happens when you're the first family. people have to be ready.

ready to honor you in just the right way. ready to remember you in just the right way. ready to describe our memories of you in just the right way. ready to pray for you and your family, in just the right way. but many of us here today, i dare say perhaps most of us here today, have no recollection at all of you, betty, as first family, or, perish the thought, of you as first lady. i never knew you that way. and i think i can speak for thousands of us who reclaimed our lives just a few short miles from here, we never knew you

that way. we need you as mrs. ford -- we knew you as mrs. ford. founder, board chair, lecturer. our omnipresent face of recovery here in the desert, in grand rapids, in vail, on larry king, good morning america, so many other tv shows. and then on campus we got to know you as betty. we saw you in the rooms. we listened to you tell stories about your own feelings, your

own guilds, your own ups, your own downs, your own memories of loneliness and fear and shame. and we could relate to that, betty. we felt close to you for that. all of a sudden, it was okay for us to have those feelings. because you made us understand, it didn't have to be that way anymore. and so we were embarking on this journey together, with you. but it was very scary.

we have no clue how to operate, or do anything, me, without vodka. i had no clue that it was possible to get any other way than scared to death, hysteric hysterical. i had no clue that there was a way out of my desperate loneliness, and my overwhelming guilt. but i remembered when you told us the first week we were here back in september of 1983. i remember you said, it didn't have to be that way. anymore. that it had been that way for you. and that by listening to your counselors down at long beach, and by opening up to other

patients who were there with you, and by speaking openly and honestly with your loving family and friends, each day began to get better. as you slowly learned how to peel a way those horrifying feelings of sadness, of bangor, and a skilled -- of anger and of guilt. and you said something that i have never forgotten. you said that you had discovered that you were allergic to alcohol. that rang the bell for me. that, betty, made it understandable. i could grasp allergic. and so we began to understand

that, what the heck, if you could do it, with all the pressures on you every day, living in the white house, for goodness sake, living with a leader of the free world, maybe, just maybe, if we worked at it, like you told us to, maybe we could also get some relief. from the darkness that we have become almost comfortable with. from the of this that we had fallen into. from, yes, hell. so day by day, one by one, and in the loving care and protection of your amazing staff and volunteers, we begin to understand maybe, just maybe, if i do what they tell me, if i do as you told us you did, betty,

maybe there's hope. maybe there is relief. today. tonight. when i finally go to sleep. if i can go just one more day without a drink, just one day, like you said, excuse me. strange time to pick that up, wasn't it? [laughter] just one day like you said, then maybe i'll be able to feel just a tiny bit better. and so off we went, on this journey into the wilderness called treatment. off we went. scared, angry, scared, lonely,

scared, terrified. but the warm and loving embrace for us, and of us, that you and leonard had envisioned so many years ago at this incredible place a feeling, began to take hold. lectures, group, meetings, group, jobs, group, journal, group, pool aerobics, group, feed the ducks, and group. my goodness gracious, we were beginning to learn that it was

actually okay to trust each other. that it was actually okay to be ourselves. that the process of purging ourselves of those decades of poison, that it was actually possible to walk away from our toxic behavior. and that the more confidence we are able to build within ourselves, and the more we watched and listened to your regular talks, to us, of reassurance and support, the more we began to understand what this thing, recovery, was all about. and as the years have changed, and as the world has changed, more than any of us would have ever believed, the wisdom and support we take, every day, from the rooms, has guided us in the right way.

and you were the one who introduced us to this, betty. you were the one who helped us understand, we can walk with god, we can walk together, each and every day, and our lives will be better. what a gift, to us, to several generations of those like us who need help. and who just need to learn how to generate a little pride and self-respect. what a gift. what a profound legacy. i remember you saying so often, don't thank me, thank yourself. you're the one who's doing it, with god's help. okay, then. thank you. thank you, god.

for bringing us this extraordinary lady, this brave and inspirational plan your, into our lives. all of our lives. even those who haven't experienced the gift of treatment or recovery. all of us are supremely better for having known you, betty. for having been inspired by you, and for having shared love with you. may god now grant you the peace and reward that you helped so many of us learned about and experience. yes, god's grace, upon you, dear

betty. the world isn't so much a better place for your having been here with us. you'll never know how much we miss you. and oh, yes, before i finish, please give your boyfriend a hug, from us. lord knows, we miss him, too. godspeed, betty. godspeed. [background sounds] [background sounds]

[background sounds] [background sounds] >> how honored i am to be in this beautiful church with this magnificent choir. before so many distinguished people, who have served and continue to serve our country, especially the ford family. and to talk about this wonderful woman. when mrs. ford assigned me the daunting honor of speaking at her funeral, it will come as a surprise to none of you that the assignment came with instructions. [laughter] mrs. ford wanted me to remind everyone of the way things used

to be in washington. and i wouldn't be at all surprised if she timed her death to make sure that she could convey the message of comedy during this week when it seemed so badly needed. [laughter] a couple of months ago when the statue of president ford was unveiled in the regal, republican with a small car, rotund of the united states capital, the four children recalled happily their days playing hide and seek under the watchful gaze of george washington and heaven above. times runs a secret spaces of the capital, sometimes coming up on something truly spooky, form some of the most vivid memories and many of us, congressional brats, ours we are not so kind a culprit but there are many others that we share. we all, for instance, have strom thurmond story. talk about spooky. [laughter] after all, he was there most of

our lives. al gore tells about senator thurmond stepping on his truck when he first met him. we girls have different stories. [laughter] century came up in the '60s rather than the '50s, susan, i don't know if you had to parade down runways at the fashion shows, congressional stage for good causes. at one of them, thank you, at one time one of the women actually scored a coup by snagging robert goulet singing, much to everyone's delight. but susan's mother escaped none of those 1950s rituals. my mother remembers that the reason she and betty ford performed in every fashion show was that they were the same size, the models were. that is, small. and i must say that in the richest active over the weekend, it brought back some of my earliest memories of how

incredibly beautiful betty ford was. since our mothers were all involved in the congressional club, many of us put in time as a dancing school school, tricia nixon cox, even some of the boys had to do that. and we all got copies of congressional club could book as wedding presents. mrs. ford vichyssoise doesn't sound that. more wedding presents we always see. last items with the mayors of congress edged into them. it's nice in a way, i think of tommy giggled every time i served cake. [laughter] even though it looks like i stole the play from his office. but the worst present the department of agriculture yearbook. [laughter] true story. we all had fathers who are a way of odd, and others who ran everything. and we all growth and giggled together about it because we

were all friends, and that's what betty ford wanted me to talk about here today. a couple of years before he died, i came here to the desert to interview president ford on a series of former presidents and the constitution. when we turned the cameras off, the president turned to me and he said, i don't know what's going on today in washington, cokie. i just don't understand it. when your father was majority leader and i was minority leader, we would get in the camp together on the hill and will we'll go downtown someplace like the press club and we would say okay, what am going to argue about? now, it was a real debate. we have different views about means to an end. we genuinely disagreed with each other, we were certainly partisans. but after we went at it, we'll get back in the cab together and be best friends. actually by that time they had drivers come and i think the cat

part was partly exaggerated. and we all remember douglas fraser and roger brooks, the wonderful drivers, and they would be horrified. but the point is this thing. that friendship, that friendship made governing possible. they were not questioning each other's motives, much less their commitment to the country. underlying many of those across the aisle, and even more remarkable, across the dome, congressional friendships was the relationship among the wives. over the last few days we have a probally celebrated betty ford for an incredible courage in the face of her own challenges, and impact that coach has had upon millions of lives. but in her wisdom, she knew that the part of her life that would be given little notice would be heard many years as a partner of a member of the house of representatives. so that's why she asked me to talk about it. it was a tough job, more often political we don't than

political life. the duties range from showing visiting constituents around the capital. it was a big deal in those days when somebody traveled from michigan or from louisiana to washington, to helping run the social service programs in the district of columbia. in the days before home rule in washington, it was the political wives working with the african-american women who live there who stitched together a safety net for the citizens of the nation's capital. there was always the challenge to the political wife a figure out how to entertain on no money at all. and, of course, she was expected to be the perfect wife and mother. mrs. ford played all those roles, and i tell you, cub scout den mother sounds innocuous sweet and to you tried it. [laughter] and sunday school teacher, later in the congressional wives prayer screw. and yet her official title, as was the most political wives was housewife but it was a title she

shared with many american women, and it gave her a great understanding of what women's lives were like. she said once, being a good housewife seems to me and much tougher job than going to the office and getting paid for it, she was getting worse to the dirty little secret that men always knew. over the years, as she spoke out more forcefully for women's rights, mrs. ford strongly defended the housewife's role. downgrading this work has been part of the pattern in a society that downgrades individual women's talents in all areas. no wonder women all over the country have spent this past weekend loving her a new. one talent the political wives were expected to cultivate that they didn't share with most women was that the first great campaigner, of whom we have a few here. but it was especially the wives

of how spammers, the house wives if you will, who faced an election every two years, who had to really learn how to campaign. of course, by the time he ran for president, ford supporters sported those elect betty's husband buttons, but people in michigan have been expressing the sentiments for decades, and it was another activity, that constant campaigning, that brought political wives together, even if they're on different sides, they have the same complaints. and that meant they forged tightly joined connections that extended to the men as well. they would bring them in together, serve them some drinks and a good meal, listen to their stories and make them behave. and some of that good behavior carried over to the corridors of congress. it was a role political wives had actually played since the beginning of this republic, and it has worked.

now, former members, former presidents, former members all get together nicely, and it's very nice, very nice to see you getting together after the fact. we wish some of you would come together beforehand. .. and they were getting frustrated at their inability to communicate and finally mrs. ford turned to mama and said, what difference does it make? mama laughed at the memory saying, of course she was right as she was about everything.

only a few months later that my father's plane was lost over alaska and the fords were devastated. they were so attentive to our family but mrs. ford was really undone and yet, she spent so much time shoring up my mother through that period and my mother said to me softly yesterday, she was such a great help to me. that is what these women did. they helped each other, they help to their husbands, they helped and hounded us children and they helped the nation. they regularly conspire to convince their lawmaker mates to pass legislation that would help educate and care for children, house old and poor people, improve health outcomes for all and yes, give equal rights to women. betty ford supports for the equal rights amendment did not arise full-blown issue became first lady. she had been pushing it for

years and making sure her husband got the message. president ford tells me years later, i had a lot of pressure not only politically on the outside but inside my own family. mrs. ford was a very ardent supporter of equal rights for women and i used to get a lecture quite frequently. and i got pushed to act on the floor of the house in favor of it and i did. i voted for it and i think it's a good approach but it was a very controversial provision. there is your midwestern understatement. as susan said in an interview being first lady didn't change her mother. rather, it gave her a podium to stand on to express the views she had formed in her years as a congressional wife. but betty ford also always knew when to step off the podium, how to avoid that worst of labels for any woman of the era, especially the political wife. she was never strident. she could use her candid good

humor to defuse any discussion about whether she was overstepping her bounds as first lady, something none of you have ever heard anything about. [laughter] at the national press club, she told the men assembled, the women in the press were still confined to the balcony, but she told the man that they had often heard her say, whatever makes jerry happy makes me happy. if you all believe that, you are indeed unworthy of your profession. [laughter] she had them and she made it look easy. of course it wasn't easy. for betty ford's courage we learned just how hard those years were. but mrs. ford did something very important. she knew who she was. before her sudden ascension to first lady she said, i will move to the white house, do the best i can and if they don't like kids, they can kick me out but they can't make me be somebody i'm not. and she knew, like her friends

the other congressional women, she knew that her husband could not be who he was if she were not who she was. president ford gave me a glimpse of the importance of that strength when he told me the night before i took the oath of office, i held betty's handedly repeated together our proverbs. i made the unforgivable reporters mistake of failing to ask which proverbs. but i know which one and all of us say today, it is of course the good wife. she opens her mouth with wisdom and in hertog is the law of kindness. she looks to the ways of her household and eats not the bread of idleness. her children rise up and call her blessed. her husband also, and he praises her. many daughters have done virtuously that you excel them

all. favor is deceitful and beauty is vain, but a woman that fears the lord, she shall be praised. give her the fruit of her hand and led her own works praise her in the gates. your works, all of them over many years, praise you, betty ford and this congressional brat, along with the rest of the country, especially the women who have been keeping this republic, thank you. >> in the name of the holy and undivided trinity, amen. it has been a lifelong dream of mine to be the fifth of five speakers in a warm room

immediately following cokie roberts. [laughter] today is the day. agnostic folksinger susan werner may have had it right in her 2007 song, probably not. she sings, think of that easter day when they rolled the stone away and the apostle said they had seen jesus by the city while. well, st. thomas' heart was pure and he said oh right, yet, sure. and that is why saint tom was the apostle of all. thomas you will recall is famous for his doubting. it is not certain, but if he is as werner says, the, it is not because he lacks trust.

visashe says, unless i see the mark of mark of the nails in his hands, and i put my finger in the marks of the nails and my hand in his side, i will not to leave it. this is not about faithlessness. thomas needs to touch the wounds hearing the story secondhand isn't good enough. even seeing isn't enough. less i put my finger in the wounds and my hand in his side i will never believe. at thomas is on to something. he is not suggesting that he doesn't want to believe. he is not suggesting that there are no weapons, no side there to put his hand on. he understand something that is lost to all the others.

resurrection life involves touching the wounds. resurrection doesn't make those wounds go away. resurrection gives the wounds power to change others when they touch people. like the ones leper in 10 who turned around to thank jesus for healing him, thomas understands that his own healing is somehow connected to turning back to giving thanks, to putting his own hand on jesus's wound. it makes a difference because, as had a wound or two himself. it may have been physical or they may have been wounds of the soul and the kind that call out to us at at that night and tell us that we are ugly. that we are stupid.

that we have no willpower. that we are sick. that we have been bad. that we are unlovable. that the love we do feel is secret or shameful, that we deserve the pain that we feel. these are the wounds of the great lie, the wounds that obscure our ability to see ourselves the way god sees us, as beloved children, as made in god's own likeness. these are the ones that leave us groping in a spiritual darkness, free to open our eyes to wide and at once afraid that we might never see or that we might get a good look at ourselves and be unable to bear the sight. this is not a hypothetical type of wound.

this is the lostness bats describes the wounded souls of millions of people. and strength doesn't help. those who look strong on the outside don't in fact liked the way. more often the strong are, noisy gongs and clanging cymbals who only serve to heighten the sense that our own weakness is all that we deserved. enter into that darkness betty ford, whose own wounds by now are well-documented in public, together with her courage and her clarity of thought, her imagination, her capacity to put others at ease by risking connections to great joy and two

deep loans. yesterday, as i watched in here as a friend of mrs. ford briefed the honor guard about what they should expect when they encounter the ford family, he said that the fords will not only speak to them, but willing choir with sincere interest about how they are doing, about how their work is going, about how they came to be a sign here today. they will ask these things he said, because that is who they are. that is how they were brought up. in short, betty ford taught her own family to be christlike. she changed lives not only by the example of her joys and her struggles, but by allowing those of us who had no business doing so to touch her wounds and find the healing in them.

god's little secret about weakness and strength is that we are perfected in our weakness, not in our strength. because our strength gets in the way. and our weakness in that weakness, god allows us by grace to touch the wounds that are all too familiar to us and by those wounds can be healed. when others encountered her and thanked her thank her for what she had done for him -- for them, betty ford characteristically would return the gratitude with good wishes but would point out that each person who had found her way to health and wholeness through recovery did the heavy lifting on her own. thank you shea would say. and there is of course some truth and wisdom in that. betty ford did not heal millions

of people by her own strength but by turning around, by turning around and allowing others not only to observe her example but to touch her once. many people in this room are alive for that very reason. lives changed, even saved, are hard to measure, hard to count. pause and affect never is as neat as one would like. we never know how many people experience the novelty of hope because they have watched betty ford bear her own wounds with an exacting combination of candor and grace. where shame and fear were stared down at the embrace of an uncertain future. we will never know how many people learned first from betty ford to use the language of truth telling and recovery and

not moral failure. women of a certain era were taught that there were places where a lady does not go unescorted. we will never know how many women moved unescorted, only by betty ford's example. to the new and profound gospel truth that we now hold to be self-evident. obvious that women are created equal to men, that their dignity is god-given and that there were new and better ways first to be a lady. a first lady like betty ford.

so to mike, jack, steve and susan, today we commend your mothers dear soul to our lord. who knows her wounds and her wholeness well because she dared to touch god's own life and pour it out for others. to commend her means opening the gates of heaven long and wide to aid -- amec countless throngs of angels she carried intel. living, waiting, who found their way through cold darkness by the light of christ's christ she took to herself and shared so generously. so think of that easter day when they rolled the stone away and the apostles said they had seen jesus by the city wall. while her giving heart was pure, and she said oh right, yeah matt, sure. that is why betty was the

grooviest first lady of all. and the assurance of eternal life given in baptism, let us stand and proclaim our own faith and say together, i believe in one god, the father almighty, baker of heaven and earth and in jesus christ, his only son, our lord. who was conceived by the holy ghost, born of the virgin mary, suffered under pontius pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. he descended into hell. the third day he rose again on the dead. he ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of god the father almighty. from then he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. i believe in the holy ghost, the

holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of scents, the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting, amen. >> the lord be with you. let us pray. our father, who art in heaven, hallowed eve thy name. thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, the kingdom and the power and the glory forever and ever. amen.

[background sounds] [background sounds] >> grant to all who share a confidence in your fatherly care

that casting all of their grief on you. they may know the consolation of your love, amen. >> give courage and faith to those who are bereaved, that they may have strength to meet the days ahead and comfort of a reasonable and holy heaven and a the joyful expectation of eternal life with those they love. amen. >> oh god the king of saints, we praise and glorify your holy name for all your servants who have finished their course in your faith and fear. for the blessed virgin mary, for the holy patriarchs, prophets of parcels and martyrs and for all your other righteous servants, known to us and unknown.

amen. >> and we pray that, encouraged by their examples, and strengthened by their fellowship. we may also be partners in the inheritance and the saints of light. though their merits of your son, jesus christ, amen. >> grant lord to all who are believe the spirit of faith and courage that they may have strength to meet the days to come with steadfastness and patience, not sorry and as those without hope but in thankful remembrance of your great goodness and in a joyful expectation of eternal life with those they love. and this we ask in the name of jesus christ, our savior. amen.

>> almighty god, father of mercy and giver of comfort, graciously we pray with all who mourn that testing ave karen you they may know the competition of your love through jesus christ our lord, amen. >> grant us grace to entrust grandma to a never failing love, receiver into the arms of mercy and remember her according to the favor which thou heir unto your people. >> god, grant me the serenity to accept the things i cannot change, the courage to change the things i can and the wisdom to know the difference.

living one day at a time, enjoying one moment at a time, accepting the hardships as the pathway to peace, taking as he did this sinful world as it is, not as i would have it. trusting that he will make all things right if i surrender to his will. that i may be reasonably happy in this life and supremely happy with him forever in the next. amen.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> give rest oh christ to your servants with thy saints. thou only art immortal, the creator and maker of mankind and we are mortal, formed of the earth and unto earth shall we return. for so thou did ordain went out

created me saying, dost thou art and unto dust shalt by returned. all we go down to the dusty yet even at the grave we make our songs hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah. into thy hands oh merciful savior we commend thy servant. wave knowledge the sheep of thine old folk, a lamb of thine own flock a sinner in redeeming. receive her into the arms of thy mercy, into the blessed rest of everlasting peace and into the glorious company of the saints and light, amen. the god of peace our lord jesus christ, the great shepard of the sheep through the blood of the

everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work to do his will. working in you that which is well in his sights and the blessing of god almighty the father, the sun and the holy spirit, be among you and remain with you always. amen. >> let us go forth in the name of christ. >> thanks be to god. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> here's a look at what's ahead here on c-span2. next we will see the dedication of the statue of gerald ford in the u.s. capital.

we do want to get first to some news from capitol hill at this hour. democratic senator ben nelson of nebraska will announce he is retiring after two terms and as political reports both the gop and democrats have spent millions in their campaign efforts there and senator nelson stepping down makes the democrats hold in the senate that much more difficult to hold onto in november. back to the road to the white house. we are going to look at des moines over the first in the nation caucuses just a week

away. a lot of action here this week where presidential candidate newt gingrich is on a 20 to stop tour of this day. the "wall street journal" reporting on a memo the surface joined a former house speaker offering glowing praise for his rival, mitt romney's handling of health care in massachusetts when he was governor. mr. romney talks in iowa along with the former speaker of the house and texas congressman ron paul. our coverage from iowa continues later today with an occupied des moines meeting and later in our primetime program, and a reminder that for all things campaign related there is a clearinghouse available on line with events from the campaign trail, speeches and town hall meetings and also links to the candidates and related editorials and endorsements. you can find that all at at that c-span.org/campaign 2012. this year former president gerald ford was honored at a ceremony dedicating a new statue in his honor in the capitol rotunda. members of congress were joined

by the former president's son and daughter at this event that was held in april of this year. president ford served in the u.s. house from 1949 until taking the office of vice president in 1973. and he was the republican minority leader his last eight years in the house. ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen please welcome our honored guest, the honorable henry kissinger. members of the united states house of representatives, the governor of michigan, members of the united states senate, and the speaker of the united states house of representatives. ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, the speaker of the united states house of representatives, the honorable john boehner. >> distinguished guests and fellow citizens, today we

formerly accept the statue of gerald all -- gerald r. ford for placement in the national statuary hall collection in the rotunda, here in the united states capital. this presentation ceremony is held in accordance with with the house concurrent resolution 27, which was approved by the congress on may 16 of this year. the resolution also expresses congress's strategy to the people of michigan or providing this commemoration of one of its most eminent citizens. we are joined today by the governor of michigan and the members of the congressional delegation. we are also joined by members of president ford's cabinet and his senior staff as well. we are also pleased to have with us members of president ford's family including three of his four children, susan, mike, and

steven and finally those who could not be with us here today. i know we are all thinking of the former first lady, betty ford, without whom none of this would have been possible. >> ladies and gentlemen please stand for the presentation of the colors by the united states armed forces color guard, the singing of our national anthem and the retiring of the colors. [background sounds] ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ oh say can you see ♪ by the dawn's early light ♪ ♪ what so proudly we hailed ♪ at the twilight's ♪ ♪ last gleaming ♪ whose broad stripes ♪ and bright stars ♪ thro' the perilous fight ♪ ♪ o'er the ramparts we watched ♪ ♪ were so gallantly streaming ♪ and the rocket's red glare ♪ ♪ the bombs bursting in air ♪ gave proof thro' the night ♪ ♪ that our flag ♪ was still there ♪ o say does that star-spangled ♪ banner yet wave

♪ o'er the land of the free ♪ and the home of the brave ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen please remain standing as the chaplain of the united states senate dr. barry black gives the invocation. >> let us pray. eternal lord god, the giver of every good and blessed gift, we are grateful for this opportunity to remember our 38th president, gerald ford, by dedicating a statue in his honor. lord, when this land, desperately needed strong, moral

leadership, you gave it president gerald ford's astuteness, honor, commitment, and courage. when we needed a model of unswerving integrity, you provided us with someone who was committed to stand for right. accept our gratitude for president ford's courage to decide based upon principles, for his pragmatic leadership during cynical times and for his efforts to bind the nation's rules after watergate and vietnam. lord, thank you also for permitting him to remind us that

family and faith still matter, and that bright living is a language which is clear to everyone. me this statue continue to remind us of president ford's dignity, decency, diligence and decisiveness, thereby challenging us to use our lives for your glory. we pray in your sovereign name, amen. >> please be seated. >> ladies and gentlemen the democratic leader of the united states house of representatives, the honorable nancy pelosi.

>> good morning. i am pleased to join our speaker, speaker boehner, leader reid and leader mcconnell and while coming our distinguished guests here today, especially to welcome the members of the ford family. in 2003, when president ford was observing his 90th birthday, he came to the floor of the house of representatives. he was like a rock star. everyone surrounded him and as he moved through the chamber it was just -- he was engulfed by members, some who had served with him from michigan like chairman dingell and chairman conyers, others who have never served with him but wanted to greet him and welcome him to the congress. when i went up to pay my respects, i said mr. president, i have your job as minority leader. he said, i knew your father. he was my friend.

isn't that just like gerald ford? he has president himself, ford said himself, the length of one's days matters less than the love of one's family and friends. in his long life of great accomplishments, president ford was most proud of his family. today we pay special tribute to his family, michael, jack, susan and steven, three of whom are with us and we also send our love and respect to first lady, betty ford. our nation owes her a great debt of gratitude for her role as first lady, but well beyond that, the lives of millions of americans. please extend our spec to your mom. when we unveil the statute it is always a special location for us in the capital but when it happens to be one, for one who has served in the congress, that is a rarity and president who has served in the congress it

gets pretty personal as well. because, mr. president become together here to honor the character and courage, the civility of a former proud member of the house of representatives, indeed again a former minority leader, president ford. president ford's leadership in the house is marked by fair and reliable leadership. he was respected by both parties parties -- those sides of the aisle, office bipartisan in his approach. as he himself said, i have had a lot of adversaries in my political life, but no enemies that i can remember. in 2001, president ford was awarded the john f. kennedy profiles in courage award. as senator ted kennedy said that they come at a time of national turmoil, america was fortunate that it was gerald ford who took the helm of storm tossed ship's.

his courage and dedication to our country made it possible for us to begin the process of healing and put the tragedy of watergate a hind us. you see, the love, respect and admiration for president ford was truly bipartisan. president ford as you know spend a lifetime of service to his country in uniform, in the congress, and as our 38th president. today, we welcome, proudly welcome him back to the capital. charlie the gentleman from michigan state, which he loved. me this statue long stand in the united states s. a testament of his leadership, values and integrity. me it also stand as a sign of respect for all visitors who come to this capitol of respect that the american people had for president gerald ford. thank you.

[applause] >> ladies and gentlemen the governor of the state of michigan, the honorable rick snyder. >> speaker boehner, congressional leaders, charlie and honor to be here. today is a proud day to be an american. it's an especially proud day for someone to be a michigander. gerald ford represented the best of our state and i believe he would support me and appreciate the phrase i was going to use. he represented, he was the personification of the leaders best from the state of michigan, not just the university of michigan. [laughter] he served our state in so many ways. he was a role model from his college days at the university

of michigan winning those national championships. i'm sure he would be rooting for the next one to come soon. but he also served our state and congress for nearly 25 years in the grand rapids area and was a role model for many. i had the opportunity to meet him briefly and actually work on one of his and pains and he was a role model to me personally. but he answered a higher calling in addition to a service his service just to our state. he served our nation during one of the most difficult times possible. and he made a real difference. president ford was the personification of courage, of integrity, of civility, a role model for us to all follow, so it's with great pride today and on behalf of the citizens of the state of michigan that we can present this statue to the u.s. capitol and the united states government. thank you. [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen the republican leader of the united states united states senate, the honorable mitch mcconnell. >> speaker boehner, leader reid, leader pelosi and governor, officers and trustees of the gerald ford presidential foundation, members of the ford family, it is a pleasure to join in this tribute with a good man for whom we honor today. this statue that we have dedicated will stand as a permanent reminder of the long and distinguished career of a proud son of michigan, and it will solidify history's judgment that gerald ford held our nation

together. many here today may be too young to remember how thoroughly watergate shook america's confidence in its institutions and in its leaders. but over the years, that internet has yielded to a sense of pride that america in her resilience bounced back. and to a sense of gratitude for them and who steadied the ship of state when scandal came. when things went terribly wrong, gerald ford stepped into a role. he had been preparing for his entire life without even knowing it. and today few would disagree that he was just the man we needed for the job. like many of his generation gerald ford was guided above all by a love of country and a commitment to service. that is why he signed up for the

navy after pearl harbor. that is why he ran for congress. that is why he settled here. and that is why he would shine in a role he never sought. you see unlike many of those who preceded him or followed are followed him in the halls of power, gerald ford never dreamed of what his destiny would be. he lived by a simple rule and said, the harder you work, the luckier you are. and whether it was the boy scouts or foot wall or academics, he worked as he would what was the same philosophy that would later lead him to say that the president and the vice presidents were not prices to be one but the duty to be done, and it's because he will fulfill that duty so well that the people of michigan and the nation honor him today.

he restored our nation's confidence in itself, and that is no small thing. and today are nation acknowledges once again is gratitude for the simple decency, the steady leadership and the generous service of gerald rudolph ford. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the majority leader of the united states senate, the honorable harry reid. >> anyone who lives as long and accomplishes as much as gerald ford is likely to collect a long list of titles but the adjectives that best describe them are far more meaningful than the offices he held. he was very compassionate, forthright and reliable.

he was true to his word. he was a patriot who answered every call to serve. he was honest, was not afraid to believe that truth is the glue that holds our society together. he was very unpretentious. he took the oath of office as vice president of the united states in the house chamber just down the hall from where we are today. when he then addressed the nation for the first time in that role and in that room, the man for michigan started with a humble warning. i look forward he said not only only -- so we also had a sense of humor. he was fair. president ford wisely asked congress to remember our responsibility to communicate, cooperate and to compromise. indeed, he he once likened compromise to the oil that makes government-run. his metaphors just as true today as it was then. in fact, he it was oil in and the liberals instead brought gerald ford and me together for

the first time. i was a young lieutenant governor during the oil crisis of the early 70s. i came to washington one day to represent my governor, michael callahan and my state and meet with president nixon's energy czar, bill simon. and i went to the white house to meet the vice president of the united states, gerald ford. i was so excited. here i was just a little over 30 years old and meeting with the vice president in the white house. i felt a connection to ford. like governor o'callaghan was to meet years earlier ford had been a boxing coach in like me he had opened a small town law practice. during our meeting, an official picture was taken. i was very proud of that picture and i knew it was going to look great. it was the first photo i had ever have ever taken with a big shot. i flew home and a week or so, that picture arrived. i was so proud of that picture.

a big one of me and the vice president in the white house. i laid it on my dresser and came home that night, not realizing that my kids were using it like one of those things you get in a restaurant to draw on. so my picture with vice president ford was all with crayons, every color you could imagine. [laughter] i did everything i could to save the picture. i still have that picture, crayons and all. [laughter] ford's career was as colorful as the photo that my children's hands change. he was a party leader and house representative from us a decade, member of the warren commission and of course the vice president, president of our country. but there was a distinct sense more than any of these titles as leader pelosi said, gerald ford was most proud to simply assist in the united states. he was more than just an

american. he was an all-american. an eagle scout and decorated lieutenant commander in the navy, captain of his football team and a member of the national championship university of michigan football team. in fact he was such a proud wolverine that when he entered the official events, and in this rotunda for the last time he did so not to be "hail to the chief" music but to the michigan fight song that explains among other things hail to the victors. president ford was not impressed with labels or livelihood or longevity. the value he valued most had nothing to do with what a person accomplished for himself and everything to do with how he treated others. six weeks before he passed away he became our nation's longest-serving president. in his last public statement he told the nation ', the length of one's day matters less than the love of family and friends.

president ford knew what he was talking about. he enjoyed tremendous love for those who knew him and admired him and he was easy to love. he believe people are fundamentally good and he saw the best in his neighbors and in his country. brats grow a sculptor from president ford's hometown of grand rapids michigan did an impressive job capturing present a force like this in a statue that we will unveil in just a few minutes. he did such an expert job that i'm confident i will be able to recognize president ford even without those crayon scribbles on his face. [laughter] [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen of the speaker united states house of representatives, the honorable john boehner. >> you i thank all of you for being here today. as you can imagine there's a lot of hard work that goes into an

event of this magnitude, so i want to thank all the folks here in the capital, back in michigan and from the ford foundation, all of you for your significant efforts in making this day happen. as my colleagues have noted, president ford always put the best interest of the republic first. but you have to wonder whether his principles would hold if he were to learn that the statue was going to be unveiled by a speaker of the house from ohio. [laughter] yes, jerry ford was a michigan man if there ever was one. not a phony bone in his body, all heart, all class. and of course to hold an office of which president ford aspired,

and it's an honor to place him in this hallowed rotunda among the greats, just a stone's throw from where he labored for so many years. you can almost see him right now. just leave it to me mr. speaker. but throughout his life every time the roll was called, he answered the call. the young man during two he served as an officer on the uss monterey, naval combat in the pacific. and he answered the call again in 1973 when he left his beloved house of representatives where he has served for 25 years to become vice president of our country. and later, he returned as president, or when he returned as president he lamented, it was not a real homecoming for now he belonged to the executive

branch. in reality, gerald ford belonged to all of us. he was not just -- what we wanted or needed him to be one of us. he was one of us. he looks down on no one and trusted in the good sense of the american people. he did not set out to fix america, but only to return it to being the great beacon of freedom and liberty that it always was. and he also had the good sense to marry up. as first lady, betty ford's second example of courage and compassion that continues to endure. and we can still remember watching her hold the bible is the new president was sworn into office and the story goes that at that moment dozens of democrats in the house were gathered around the television and there are cloak room just off the floor of the house.

when president ford as the people to confirm him, with our prayers, the room fell to silence. and a voice in the back of that cloakroom said, we will jerry, god bless you. so we began again, americans one and all. now the gentleman from michigan has come home. it will be an open book that tells of the most uncommon of common men, one who kept the faith for his countrymen when they needed it the most. may god continue to shed his grace on gerald ford, the woman he adored, and the country that he loved. [applause] [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen the united states army chorus. ♪ ♪ ♪ ..

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ [applause] [applause] [inaudible question] cahuenga. >> liz in silliman, the daughter of president and mrs. gerald ford, mrs. susan ford bales. >> mr. speaker, leaders reid, a common policy. members of the senate and house of representatives, governors

under, dr. kissinger, japanese ambassador for the sake, ladies and gentlemen. on behalf of mother i extend congratulations. your statue is wonderful. mother and i are so grateful to you and special gratitude also goes to governor snyder and the people of michigan. and to the u.s. house of representatives in the senate for making this remarkable tribute to dad the true reality. -- the rotunda has been a part of the ford family for decades. as a young girl i accompanied my dad to the capital on weekends and happily played hide and seek in this room and its territorial for hours and in 2008 to jump to a dozen 60 returned, but under

very different circumstances for dads state funeral. when our last of our family gathered in the rotunda it was a time to remember and a time to say goodbye. those were very difficult days. we jus strength and comfort from many kindnesses of both the house and senate members and from both sides of the aisle. we do we reject and by the president's tribute. our my feeling of all and private we arrived at the capitol the very first evening. and instead of using the traditional center steps to the rotunda of the house representatives we had dads casket carried out the house steps to be it was then placed in reposed outside the lead house chamber. in honor of that being the president's who served the

longest in the house of representatives. several days later this than a place that's casket and oppose outside the senate chamber. in the casket was carried out this in the steps to begin dads final journey home to michigan. in the twilight of his life dad was invited back to speak to the capital. on that special evening he reflected fondly on his time here. while i may have lived at the other end of pennsylvania avenue for two and a half years, the capitol has always been my home. always. and i am very, very proud of that breeden today the house and senate and the people of michigan symbolically and permanently welcome bad back to

the capitol, back to the home in his heart. he never left. and as i have thought about the statute i have wondered what the school children at this in the rotunda in 100 years will learn about that. perhaps there will speak at speaker o'neill's moving words. perhaps there will recall vice-president cheney's description of dad's first day as president. the 602nd hears of gerald ford's life was a better season in the life of our country. it was a time of false words and ill will, and there was great malice and great hurt and a taste for more. and it all began to pass away on a friday in august when gerald ford laid his hands on the bible

perhaps the schoolchildren will consider tom-as gratitude. president ford did more than america's, national nightmare. he made it possible for us to dream again. maybe they will reflect on david burris conclusions, and an odd and inexplicable way the church has begun to dawn on the american people. the kind of president americans always wanted and did not know that they have. certainly dad was proud and always humble by such tribute, but he would be prouder of schoolchildren 100 years from now will look upon this statute and consider whether data kept the promise he made immediately after taking the presidential of . i am acutely aware you have not

elected me as your president by your ballot, and so i ask you to confirm me as their president with your purse. i have not sought this enormous is a possibility, but i will not shirk it. i solemnly promised to uphold the constitution, to do what is right as god gives me to see the right and to do the very best that i can for america. got helping me i will not let you down. today the people of michigan and dads beloved house of representatives and senate have spoken to the future generations , and that solemn promise that made in 1974, a dad, your message tells the stunned the. you did not let america down.

he kept her promise. yield our nation and you allowed us to dream again as it has shown in this wonderful statute. the american people are and will be forever grateful. mr. speaker, senate and house members, governor smattered. on behalf of mother, thank you where the bottom of my heart. the honor that you have bestowed on my dad. may god bless you and once or the united states capital and all who serve the inner walls. may god bless america. thank you very much. [applause] [applause] [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, the 56 the secretary of state of the united states, dr. henry kissinger. >> distinguished leaders of the congress, ladies and gentleman, when gerald ford was sworn in as the 38 president the vietnam war had divided the country. demoralized the executive branch . the cold war was still raging. providence smiles on america when gerald ford took his oath

of office. i am not one of those oratorical geniuses. ford said to me early in his presidency, have to be myself. and that happens to be just what america needed. in no other country are personal relations so effortless and generous as in small-town america with gerald ford. he had never aspired to the presidency. he was free of the temptation. his highest ambition had been to become speaker of the house of representatives. a position dependent and

received by the respect of his colleagues. by the indomitable betty, gerald ford is ready in a tumultuous time and restored confidence to a better society. come and unassuming, gerald ford overcame a vast array of international challenges. i will mention just a few. in his presidency the first political agreement was negotiated between israel and egypt that led to the peace agreement years later. the european security conference was the establishment of

internationally recognized human standards hastened the collapse of the soviet satellite. the initiative to bring majority rule. the creation of the international energy agency that still foster's corporation among the nation's. the annual economic summit of corporation among the industrial democracies which remains a core element of the international dialogue. you will dispute that the cold war could not have been one have not gerald ford emerged. the time in our history to restore our faith. paula 29 months in office,

gerald ford left with no regrets in, and the second-guessing of his successes, no obsessive of this place in history. all of us in this room who served under gerald ford consider it as a high point in our life. for 35 years we have been meeting once a year, together with the four family with an amazingly complete attendance to recall what he did a and to recapture the generosity, intelligence, decency, and it will with which he interfused his administration. let me thank the of the

congress. enabling gerald ford had to return to the sauls which she loved so much in this manner. his schedule remind future generations that society, not by the innovations but by their reconciliations. [applause] [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, please remain seated for the unveiling of the statute. >> ladies and gentlemen, the statue of president gerald r. ford. [applause]

[applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the son of president and mrs. gerald ford and the chairman of the gerald r. ford of -- foundation, mr. stephen m. ford. >> while. have a lump in my throat. we are so proud. i echo susan's sentiment in taking the. in dallas district for years. so much help to get this-she put in here today. i look out in the audience and there are a lot of people in this audience that have a lot to do with this back in 1974.

help heal this nation. i see secretary bill coleman. frank tart, paul o'neill, vice president chaney and rumsfeld, so many people that went into debt administration to heal this nation back in 1974. susan is exactly right. our family has numerous moments in this rotunda of this capital. i remember recently california half years ago, we stood here for dads to be. susan and my brother jack and a brother mike down here, i can't tell you the honor that each one of us felt as we came in here and watched thousands of people come through to pay their respects to dead. i know mike, susan, jack and

myself, we all stood here shaking hands with those people. the gray citizens of this country that came to paris specs for debt. he would have done it. that is what that would have done that was a great moment. susan is exactly right. 1965, 1966, nine engineers will. on saturday that is to bring us into his congressional office because he would answer correspondence mailed to his constituents in grand rapids, western michigan. dad was -- he would sell 65 tell susan, before you can go play you need to type a letter to your mother and tell her how much you love for and have read a mother she was. so we get that done and then that would let us come out and play hide and seek in statuary hall in the rotunda. pro in not doing that anymore. as we know, much more dangerous world today.

but surely, it was not many years after 1965 that about eight years later in 1973, the fall of that is 73 when my dad was nominated by president nixon to be the next vice-president. you have to understand the story begins my dad has been in congress 13 times in 25 years. he was going to retire because he never got to become speaker of the house. my mother had been convinced. they flew back to grand rapids and have a nice quiet life. he was start to practice law again. also president nixon nominated to the vice-president, and my mother's plans were pushed aside she was not happy. i remember my dad put his arm around my mother. don't worry. the vice-president doesn't do anything. we all know our history, and

that did not quite work out. ten months later as we know secretary kissinger described very well, our families of on the south of the white house as president nixon left and a helicopter. great shadow over the white house. we walked into the east room of the way house. we saw mom hold the bible. is that put his hand on the bible to take the oath of office think about it. this was a crisis in america. he had the vietnam war. soldiers still coming home in body bags. cold war with the russians. inflation that was double digit unemployment. six months before dad became president the stock market lost 45 percent of its value. twelve months before dad became

president the price of oil was three to $4 a barrel. next call months of one of three to four and a percent. this was the presidency that he inherited. here you had a man who was going to put his hand on the bible to take the oath of office. it had not gone to a general election. it was a crisis in america. we walked in there. that took the oath of office. took over the reins of this country at a very tough time, but never forget the lesson that he came to washington to serve. be a servant. serve the people. you can look back at the fabric of his life. there is a thread that runs through it that is so apparent. this thread of character and integrity.

when dad talked about that he worked well on both sides of the aisle. he knew the importance of finding the right decision. he wanted to hear. deborah johnson to make sure he had both sides an argument and a meeting. he won the right answer want to be bound by ideology. i know you will remember how many that he sat around the empire. a government big enough to give you everything is a government enough to take everything away. he believed those words. so as we stand here today and that the description that former democratic speaker of the house had a my dad said it would says

basically got is very good to america in this country. he is right. asea man. when he grew up in grand rapids michigan. major replace the right people around him. the rest of father. the right football coach. the right was a leader. to plant the seeds in them of character and integrity he would need years later to fill the separation. selfishly as a sign a close by saying what i miss the most is how that led up panel.

he shows up to be great floor. he showed us how to be a great has been. thank you, dad. the blessed. [applause] [applause] [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please stand as a regional chaplain of the naval district of washington gives the benediction. >> let us pray. gracious guy who has given us this good land for our heritage, we humbly ask that you work with

us in us and through all our endeavors that we may always prove ourselves up people mindful of your favor and glad to do your equally well. bless our land with hon. industry, learning, and poor manners. save us from violence, discord, and confusion. from pride and arrogance and for every way. defender liberties and the sanction us in to one united people. the multitudes brought to us for many kindreds. we may also strengthen our common bond in unity of effort. indeed with the spirit of wisdom , those to whom and by name we entrust the authority of governments that there may be justice and peace at home. through the discipline of law

and the opportunities of liberty , may we show for it praise among the nation. in the time of prosperity the law still our hearts with thankfulness. in the day of trouble strengthen our resolve and resilience that we shall always bound in hope, move forward to goodness of character and the strength of spirit. we asked you're rich blessings upon the ford family that he may grant them your peace and solace as they honor us with their presence sharing of a person we all hold deal in our hearts and minds. go now and love. as those called to do the work of god who has given as energy and life that in the end we may all reap the blessings of our

lives. may god's peace in favor and mercy bless you always. >> ladies and gentlemen, please remain at your seats for the departure of the official party. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> here is some up to let's prime-time programming. join us at 2:00 eastern when c-span will have more from our series on presidential contenders. the focus is at least even sen. here on c-span2 at eastern it is book tv with numerous the years

in the george w. bush of restoration. end on c-span three tonight its american history, where the white house photographers. the iowa caucuses, canted to returning to the hawkeye state. tomorrow our cameras will fallen it gingrich as he attends a town hall meeting in mason city. that starts live at 11:30 a.m. eastern. and at 120 is mitt romney as he attends a be in recession and clinton, and tomorrow night at:00 eastern texas congressman ron paul speaks at a salute to veterans rally in the morning. our coverage for my work continues later today as we send our cameras to and occupy it the morning meeting. a reminder, we have a campaign clearing house available on-line. evince from the trail, speeches, and town hall meetings. also, leaks to the candid it's and related editorials and endorsements. again, that is all at c-span.org

/ politics. now, the senate judiciary subcommittee on the courts to examine seven television cameras in the supreme court. the panel held a hearing earlier this month on bipartisan legislation introduced by senators durbin and grassley mandating that the supreme court televise open proceedings. witnesses included a former senator and a longtime advocate of cameras in the court of inspector. supreme court judge. subcommittee chairman cavils with the two-hour hearing to order. >> good morning. i am pleased to call this sharing of the senate judiciary subcommittee on the a minister of oversight and the courts to order. we have an extremely distinguished panel of witnesses your today. we especially want to welcome back senators hector to this committee where he has spent many, many hours.

i will introduce the panel after the members make their opening statements. today we will be discussing the proceedings of the united states supreme court in a bipartisan bill that will televise the proceedings. there have been hearings and proposals in the past on televising all levels of the federal court. although i have supported those proposals i do recognize as a former prosecutor that there are more complicated factors when you're dealing with charles and the lower courts and that there should be discretion in those matters. my focus today, our focus today will be on the supreme court, and i would like to begin with a quote from the court itself. in the richmond is the provision, which upheld the public right of access to the courts under the first amendment , availability of a trial transcript is no substitute for a public presence at the trial itself. as any experienced appellate

judge kenneth test the call record is very imperfect reproduction of a chance that transpired in the courtroom. i could not agree more. while the justice was talking about actual attendance in the court room, i think his argument is just as persuasive with respect to allowing cameras in the courtroom. although the supreme court is open to all americans in theory the reality is that public access is significantly restricted. there are only a few hundred seats available, some of which are reserved for specific individuals. that means visitors often get just three minutes of observation time before they have to give up their speech to the next person in line. those friends of mine that have attended when they're spouses or colleagues are arguing before the supreme court say it is an amazing experience, and we do not in any way want to lessen the experience. you like to expand that experience to other people. more importantly, over 99 percent of americans do not live in washington d.c.

thus their opportunity to a visit the court is limited, not only by the number of chairs the room, by geography, and it should not be a once-in-a-lifetime experience to be able to see the court in action. the impact of the court's ruling has significant and often immediate consequences for real people, for proof we don't need to look much further than landmark cases light brown v. board of education, virginia, or in the beat arizona. the supreme court has made some strides toward increasing transparency. chief justice roberts enacted a new policy making audio recordings of oral arguments available on the course website. the not usually on the same day. before coming to the senate you should know in my time as the county attorney and i speak from personal experience, i say the transcripts and audio recordings to start the same as actually watching judge's questions and

lawyers live and seen the stage of ideas and the expression of the participants. that is why i find it to be a compelling need for regular televised coverage of the supreme court's oral arguments and decisions. the public has a right to see how the core functions and have it reaches its ruling. it is the same argument for televising speeches on the senate floor, press conferences by the president or put that matter hearings like this one. democracy must be open. members of the public, especially those who do not have the time or means to travel to washington d.c. should be able to see and hear the debate and analysis on the great legal issues of the day or freckly on any issue that comes before the end states supreme court. and, of course, even if you live across the street from the court is not a reasonable proposition to attend on any sort of a regular basis. in reality public access to the court is very limited, and i believe that greater access would be an important tool to

increase public understanding of our system of law and demonstrate the judge's integrity and impartiality in engaging with lawyers from both sides. i have always felt it was a shame the a former majority of americans only get to see the justices during their confirmation hearing. i recognize that there are legitimate and deeply held concerns about televising court proceedings are making them available on the internet. i would note that in reality those two mechanisms are becoming more and more intertwined in in distinguishable. we thought it was important to have several witnesses here today that would take the opposite side of the spill. we are very glad that we have such a distinguished panel of people with differing viewpoints . as a message earlier, the more difficult concerns to address of the trial court level, in part due to the presence of witnesses, jurors, and a criminal defendant's. those issues are not present in the united states supreme court. as we will hear from one of our

witnesses, the supreme court in iowa has successfully adopted cameras in the courtroom and other state courts. through the experiences of the state courts to federal circuit courts and that the program, we have had a chance to examine both in real life that questions that opponents have raised such as potential issues a due process. we have seen that in some cases the concerns have not materialized and in other cases there have been ways to address the concern. in terms of due process it was important that the said legislation championed by senators durbin and grassley, i co-sponsored as well as senator koran and several others, this legislation specifically provides that if a majority of justices believe that any party due process rights would be violated the case would not be felt. i think that is important. for all the reasons i have stated appellee the course should no longer remain isolated from the average american's

where real-world consequences of its decisions. i am confident that the justices of our supreme court are capable of ensuring the dignity and decorum of the court room and that the presence of cameras will not interfere with the bear and orderly administration of justice but rather it will make it stronger. i will turn to a ranking member for his opening remarks. >> thank you. i think the chair, and as always , a good job at these hearings. allowed a fair and open discussion. i look forward to the day hearing. it is good to see senator sector back. riding the fourth book and practicing some law. still active in the great issues of our time. the senators that i most admire. >> this is what i'm thinking i

don't claim to have it all correct. the power of the court, its role, its legitimacy, its moral authority rises from the fact that it is removed from the half to hustle and bustle of everyday life, its passions, ideologies, politics, it is a place justice is done under the constitution of the estates. the accord seeks to discover the legal issue in the case. it then endeavor to decide the legal issue based on objective and long-established rules of interpretation and adjudication. it's a complicated process of times. it is most certainly not a form of policy debate, and that is why judges wear robes to make clear that of the activity in natality. the moral authority of a court i believe arises from its

production of an objective judgment. the only thing that is important is the judgments, the order. that decision speaks. it is what is important. it speaks for itself and those who rendered it and their personality, for lack of a, it's not what the court is about. the court is about this decision . they say we want to see that process in action. i'm not sure how you see a judgment being formed. to the extent that cameras in the courtroom undermine the sense of logic to the, the cause of the courts to be perceived more as a policy or political entity. the court's moral authority has slowly been reduced to the

extent that our justice is worry about that, i think we should give them death as to whether or not is constitutionally -- whether or not congress can constitutionally direct the court to have cameras are not, it seems to me that we should take very seriously their views about it and respected. it is their domain. they don't tell us how to run our opposite here. there are real concerns about the issues. senator specter have strong views and have advocated this for years. i remember when i became the united states attorney judge thomas did me some advice about the good of this i was about to

enter. he said if it ain't broke don't fix it. so i am pretty pleased really with the effectiveness of the great court system in america, and i think we should be cautious about making significant changes. >> six you very much. >> thank you for all this very important hearing. >> the witnesses that i am going to abcaten 45. the nominee it is up. over ten years ago the senator and i introduced the sunshine court room act to grant federal judges the authority to allow cameras. since that time this bill has been brought before the committee many times, and each time it has been scrutinized and improved upon and reported out of committee in broad bipartisan support. today's hearing focuses upon a companion issue, whether or not

the supreme court to permit cameras in his court room. just yesterday senator durbin and i introduced what we call the cameras in the court room act of 2011, a bill which would require supreme court to broadcast and televised. like the sunshine and the quarterback, this bill has also been brought before the committee on several occasions. it too was reported out favorably with bipartisan support, and was championed by one of our witnesses the day my friends, who as i told him privately, i am glad to see him back in action again. my interest in expanding the people's access to the supreme court increased 11 years ago when the supreme court decided to hear arguments in the floor recap case in the 2000 presidential election. senator shimmer and i urge the supreme court to open the arguments to live broadcast in response the supreme court took the then the unprecedented step

of releasing an audio recording of their argument shortly after it occurred. it was a sign of progress that gave the entire country the opportunity to experience what so few get to, and that is the supreme court to work. just last year the supreme court began releasing audio recordings of its proceedings at the end of each week. this is another step in the right direction, and i applaud the court for transparency and greater access. it is not enough. i believe that the nature of our government and the fundamental principles upon which it was built require even more. abraham lincoln said ours is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. our constitution divides power through checks and balances, but most and partly it makes the government accountable to its people. the best way that we can assure the federal government is accountable to the people is to create transparency, openness, and access. the vast majority of people do not believe that they have adequate access to the supreme

court. we had a poll last year. 60 percent of the americans believe that they here to little about the workings of the supreme court. two-thirds of the americans want to know more. what could be better sourced for the workings of the supreme court and the supreme court itself? in 1947 the supreme court stated what transpires in the courtroom is public property. well, if it is public property then it belongs to all public and not just the 200 people who can fit inside the public gallery. with today's technology there is no reason why arguments could not be broadcast in an easy and unobtrusive and respectful manner that would preserve the dignity of the supreme court's work and grant access to americans wishing to no more. my state of iowa knows something about this. for over 30 years it has permitted the broadcast of the trial and appellate courts. in fact, i am pleased to

welcome, as you all know, or supreme court chief justice, mark t. today. he has come to share with this committee, his unique perspective a presiding over a court that broadcasts. he is a strong proponent of transparency and continues to pioneer new ways to give the public greater access of court systems. before we began i would ask for three things to be included in the record. first, a letter that i wrote to chief justice roberts asking for the health care law to be televised. i would like to put that in the record. the second and third thing to put in the record with the editorial opinion written by the second largest newspaper in iowa . in editorial board stating its support of legislation, and the other the editorial board of the "washington post," both express

believes that the supreme court must rent its proceeds to be broadcast. it is not often that america's heartland, washington establishment agrees on too much color so i bring that unique perspective to this. thank you very much. >> thank you in this will be included in the record. i know senator durbin is going to join us at some point here and have a few words to say about his legislation, but i think we will start with our witnesses first. we will ask that you stand so that you can take the oath. the u.s. firm that the testimony you're about to give before the committee will be the truth of all truth, nothing but the troops out you got? think you very much. i am going to mention and go through and introduce each of them, and that we will have each give your remarks for five minutes. it has been well a gaullist, senator specter is here with us.

he served in this chamber for 30 years, the longest serving senator in his state's history. as chairman of the judiciary committee he was a tireless advocate for televising the supreme court proceedings. he did not have to come back. he has a lot of things going on, but we were just honored that he would join us today and make, i think, your first official return to the senate. thank you so much for being here we will also hear from tom goldstein. a founding partner. an appellate pros specializing in supreme court litigation. he has argued before the supreme court 24 times. who's counting? he also teaches supreme court litigation at harvard and stanford law schools and is the publisher of the popular scotus block, all is the place to look for insight and rumors and true rumors and things like that, but you can't put that on your block.

the iowa supreme court. the district court judge and as chief judge of the iowa court of appeals before his appointment to the state supreme court in 1998. next is judge anthony sirica of the third circuit court of appeals who has previously served as chief judge of that sarah -- circuit and as a district court judge. prior to his appointment to the federal bench he served as an assistant district attorney in a state representative in pennsylvania. finally of a marine, a graduate of the university of chicago law school, the supreme court and appellate process and the washington d.c. office of laden and what is where she works today. from 1991 to 1993 served as the united states deputy solicitor general. we thank you all for joining us, and we will begin at testimony with senator specter.

>> hearing all of this very important. i am pleased to be back. and i have spent many interesting hours on the other side of the aisles. i believe that it is vital for the public to really understand what the supreme court does. in our electronic age the information comes from -- the supreme court decided in 1980 the richmond newspapers in virginia, the public had a right to know what goes on in court. it applied not only to the print media, but to the electronic media. the supreme court decides all of the importance of the cutting

issues of the day. the court decided who would be president and bush verses corporation by one vote. the court decided to lives and dies by the death penalty. every subject in between. not only does the court affect the daily lives of all americans , it has a tremendous impact on the separation of powers. i believe that the congressional authority has been very seriously eroded by but the court is done the decisions as they have decided and on the decisions on the cases which they have not decided. the authority of the congress under the commerce clause was unchallenged for 60 years. the cutbacks. the chief justice.

the case was, the legislation was unconstitutional because of the congressional method of reason. i have often wondered what transformation occurs as the nominees leave this room. they are sworn in to the supreme court. the court is very ideologically driven at the moment, and i think the public needs to understand that the case of the affordable care act is coming up . the supreme court review, and that is a case which touches every american, and it ought to be a sensible to the public. the chamber holds only 250 people, and when the american people were polled on this

subject, 62 percent said they felt the supreme court ought to be televised. when the other 37 percent found out the people could stay only for three minutes and the chamber was limited the number rose to 80%. the highest court of great britain was televised. the highest court of canada was televised. most of the state supreme courts are televised. when the nominees appear before the committee on confirmation they speak about a favorable opinion of television or at least an open mind. somehow that position as well as many others, the rehearsal when they get to the court. the issues which were coming up

in the obamacare act really ought to be subject to a really close public scrutiny. i believe that the legitimacy of the court itself as a stake. the people to understand what the court does. there have been no good reasons why not to televise the supreme court. in an article which appeared in the national law journal by tomorrow he attributes, as he puts it, the defiant stance of the supreme court as they're view of the characterization of under exceptional as. justice kennedy said we operate on a different timeline, differ chronology. we speak a different grammar. that is untrue and a democracy. fighting senator sessions has a

right when he says they consider it their domain. well, it's not. it is the public domain, and it ought to be accessible to the public. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> they keep the momentum share. other members of the com

we are of visual culture. people watch television. that is how they get a lot of their news. and so it would make a big difference to have television there. you have my written testimony, and abel repeated. i would just make three points. televising proceedings will be good for the court. second, i think you can pass a law constitutional law that requires the justices to do this. i think that televising would be good for the supreme court because experience shows that sunshine increases public

confidence. it does not decrease it. the justices are tremendously serious people doing the public's work. the oral arguments are not since let it. there are sometimes not very interesting as someone who argues in front of the court i can say that, but they are incredibly important. the power to strike down a law passed by the people's representatives is the most serious power that exists under the constitution in my opinion. for the public to understand what's going on and see the serious questions and serious answers i think would make the public believe in the justices and the good work but they are doing even more than it does now . we are at a time when there is space flight in confidence in our democracy, and doing things to increase the confidence will be a good thing. second, can you force them to do it? nobody knows. there has never been a case like this, and it is always quite a challenge to pass a law that would require the supreme court to do something and then invite

the supreme court to decide whether aren't you can do it. in the justice there would end up deciding that case. in my opinion the answer is probably yes. these are public proceedings. you're not talking about publicizing the private deliberations. they decided to let the public in. there is a significant first amendment interest in the public deal to see what's going on. it is an important part of our governmental structure. the very fact that it is part of the deliberations, the questions, answers suggest to me that there is a significant interest in having the proceedings be seen. i would, however, if you were going to do it, attached findings to the legislation that explain why it is that few have found that it does not disrupt the court proceedings, would not prevent a security risk, and the like. the legislation standing alone invite the court, a district that would to the court -- --

case in the first instance to reach its own judgment. in hearings like this you would need to find facts to forgo legislation. third, i just would not do this. i happen to agree with senator sessions. we should begin by recognizing that it is really easy to criticize the court. it does not have a pr operation. and the justices deserve praise. they're practically the only people in washington trying not to get on television. they're just trying to do their jobs. they have taken significant strides. they don't just say that they care about public access. they're doing things that not only publish their opinions, create a website to read accessible in real time, they publish the transcripts the same day. in a published the audio in the same week. they are headed in this direction on their own. the senator has pointed out that they have asked for some difference in the process of reaching this conclusion. like other courts before them this is always done, i think, pretty much by the judiciary

voluntarily. .. the iowa judicial branch has been a leader in video and audio media coverage for courts for more than 30 years. the iowa courts have allowed audio, photographic and video coverage of our court proceedings. in 1979 following a thorough study, the iowa supreme court

adopted rules to allow for expanded media coverage of court proceedings in both trial and appellate courts. these rules are carefully designed to prevent disruption of the court hearings, to safeguard the rights of litigants to a fair and impartial trial and appeal and in summary iowa rules provide for the media to file for its request to cover a media court coverage trial. that request is filed with a media coordinator who then submits it to the court. litigants are then given a right to object to the coverage. the media must cool -- pool is was equipment and the rules subjects and segments of the hearing. our rules have worked very well. they limit the number of cameras in the courtroom, require the cameras to be stationary so as not to distract from the

proceedings, and they ensure that the judge always has control of the process. our judges rarely have trouble in us with this expanded media coverage and journalists who cover our courts respect the rules and the rights of litigants. the process has worked so well it has become expected. expanded media coverage of trials, especially high-profile trials, is a matter of routine. expanded media coverage of appellate hearings is less common. i asked to make that we might have expanded media coverage and perhaps one or two arguments a year. but in addition to our procedure for expanded media coverage in the courts, the iowa supreme court streams all of its oral arguments on line. we also then archive the videos for later viewing. our court began recording its oral arguments and making them

on line in 2006, and we have continued that practice today. as you know, the strength of our democracy, indeed any democracy, requires a well-informed citizen. this principle holds true for each branch of government. the strength and the effectiveness of our court system depends on the confidence in the courts. as a former supreme -- supreme court justice thurgood marshall said, we can never forget that the only real source of power that we have judges have is the respect of the people. that respect obviously depends on how well we do our job in administering justice, but it also depends on the public's understanding of our job and the information the public has about how we are doing our job. our experience in iowa has shown that media coverage of our courts tend to oil down at times

to just a few seconds, the high video pro-fight trial -- my profile trial with scenes by a reporter. at the public gets is a snippet of the process. although we would like to allow more coverage of our court arguments, we believe the media in iowa provides a great service. their effort to increase the visibility for our courts and the court procedures and at the same time it has become easier for courts to direct them to our proceedings through the modern information technology, and with our on line video court proceedings, more people watch our courts and our experience bears this out. i think i want to leave you with simply one antidote, perhaps best described. there has been a strong interest

in our on line arguments and our court proceedings in this has been a tremendous surprise and has revealed an opportunity, an opportunity for greater public understanding. my observation and conclusion is this, cameras expose courts to what they do and what they are, a proud institution of justice. the more the public sees our courts operate, the more they will like and the more they will respect our court system. and this was vividly shown to me a few months ago when the iowa supreme court heard arguments in a community outside our seat of government in des moines. the case involved a criminal violation of an ordinance prohibiting local mennonite farmers from driving their steel wheel tractors on hard surface roads. the issue in the case was whether the ordinance violated

the first amendment. our arguments in this community drew about 350 people from the area, and afterwards at a reception, the father of the young mennonite lloyd who was the subject of the prosecution patiently waited to shake my hand and when he did, he looked me in the eye and he said this. having seen your court work, it seems like a pretty honest thing. our courts are an honest thing and cameras can help show it to the public. i would now like to refer you possibly can watch a short excerpt from one of our court hearings. thank you. >> certainly since this is about cameras in the courtroom we will allow the showing. thank you.

>> let's assume there isn't. >> i think that there isn't -- [inaudible] >> is that necessary? >> that is true. >> the issue is it includes the alternative, he pled guilty to the officer. >> i guess what i'm trying to say is the theory is. >> let me go to the media. articulate for me how you think orlando rodriguez -- just give me your consent summary on how you think he did that. [inaudible]

and so i'm going to talk a little bit about it. >> let's assume he was reckless, because he drives right out there and the security camera and casey says, he just drives right out, right in the middle of traffic. he was going at a slow rate of speed so assume he is reckless. >> thank you. >> we want to know what happened in that case. >> distinguished members of this committee, good morning and thank you for inviting me here. to discuss these proposals for televising the oral arguments of the supreme court. i do not speak for the court but i am pleased to offer my own perspective which is shaped by my service in the judiciary.

at issue is whether televising an oral argument will affect the integrity of the judicial process. in ways we may not fully comprehend or cannot always anticipate, communication through different media can affect how an institution functions. you will hear a broad range of views with arguments on both sides. reasonable people disagree about the best course. but let me make three general points that i believe merit consideration, transparency, accessibility, and respect among the branches that allows each to govern its own deliberations. first, transparency. the most important work of the supreme court, deciding the difficult cases, is transparent. the court explains its decisions in detail. traditionally, this was done

through the printed word and now it is done through the electronic word as well. as you know only the courts opinions are binding precedent on questions of federal law. this process of reasons deliberation confers legitimacy and permits litigants and the public to evaluate for themselves the soundness of the court's judgment. second, over time, the supreme court has become more accessible it has embraced the internet to enhance access to its work. lawyers briefs, courts opinions, transcripts of the oral argument, audio recordings of oral argument are all available on the courts web site free of charge. it's opinions are on line as soon as the decision is announced.

third, each of our three branches of government is responsible for its own deliberations and self-governance. the separation of powers underscores the considerable latitude that should be afforded each branch in determining its own internal procedures. deciding whether to televise arguments of the supreme court goes to the heart of how the court deliberates and conducts its proceedings. those of us outside the court all have individual and institutional interests in the decision, but we do not have the responsibility to decide these difficult cases of national importance. the justices do. they are the ones most familiar with the operation of the court and they understand the dynamics and nuances of supreme court oral argument, and how that exchange affects their deliberations.

they can best evaluate whether the introduction of cameras might affect the quality and integrity of the dialogue with the attorneys and just as important a dialogue among the justices. there is a common bond between members of the supreme court and members of congress. each serves as a trustee of the long-term interests of an essential institution in our country. the court has proceeded cautiously in evaluating whether to televise oral argument. this should give pause when seeking to impose a decision on a coordinate branch of government. a congressional mandate at the supreme court televised its proceedings is likely to raise a significant constitutional issue. lawyers and members of commerce have expressed this possibility, but there should be no need to test the constitutional separation of powers.

there is a compelling reason for caution, apart from avoiding a possible constitutional question. the coequal branches of the federal government have long respected each branch is authority and responsibility to govern its own internal affairs and deliberations. this history is deeply rooted in the american political and constitutional tradition. congress has honored this legacy by guarding judicial independence and self-governance. these long-standing principles among the the coordinates branches of government that is mutual respect for each branch is essential options, counsel moderation and deference. it is not unreasonable to defer to the court on how it conducts its deliberations and speaks to the american people.

the court should be afforded the measure of comedy and its own governance to decide for itself whether, when and how camera should the present during its oral arguments. thank you very much mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. ms. mahoney. >> good morning about to thank the china members of the committee for giving me the opportunity to testify today and operate -- oppositional legislation that is now been proposed. i come to this committee having served 30 years as a supreme court advocate. i've argued 21 cases before the court and i've had the privilege of working with the court and the judicial conference on the rulemaking process. so i have come to know them and respect them. a few years ago but justice kennedy testified before congress and he expressed the hope that congress would accept the court's judgment on the

issue of televised arguments. i would like to highlight four reasons why congress should respect justice justice kennedy's request. and the first is that there is a serious reason to believe that legislation overturning the supreme court's policy on this issue would be unconstitutional. i agree with tom goldstein that the issue is debatable. it certainly hasn't been settled, but i think the text of the constitution, the doctrine of separation of powers and congress congresses as oracle practices all point in the direction that this legislation would be unconstitutional. it would after all be an effort to strip the court of its historic authority to decide how to control, proceedings and its own chamber. when you look at the text, article iii of best visual power of the united states in the supreme court, not in congress. congress didn't create the supreme court, the constitution did. from the earliest days of the republic, the supreme court is made clear that the judicial

power does include the authority to adopt rules necessary to conduct its proceedings and to protect the integrity of its decision-making processes. although congress surely has some power to adopt laws that affect the court, it cannot as the court says, impermissibly intrude on the province of the judiciary or disregard a postulate of article iii that is deeply rooted in the law. those concerned are directly implicated here. it would be difficult to describe a statute that strips the court of his deeply rooted power as a mere administrative regulation, especially when it is done in the context of a disagreement with the court about how it has come down on this issue. history also lend support to this conclusion from 1789 to the present. congress has always left the supreme court free to adopt its only role of governing and its proceedings without any oversight or legislative approval.

second, any benefit to televise proceedings is not great enough to warrant the constitutional confrontation and i think tom goldstein agrees with me on this issue. i would just say on the benefit side, this is not a one-sided debate. as justice stevens has put it, this is a difficult issue. these are his words. it is easy to posit some of dictational benefits but it's all about what are the incremental benefits once the public already has full access to the audio and the transcripts? and justice o'connor was very devoted to public education on the judicial branch and in the supreme court. in her few televise in supreme court or seedings quote wouldn't enhance the knowledge of the public that much. due to the availability of other information and she notes that arguments are technical and complicated. third, i think television poses genuine risks to the court's

decision-making processes and we just need to look at what a few of the justices have said and have told congress. first, let's look at what justice souter said. in 1996 he told congress that the case against cameras is so strong, so strong that quote the day you see a camera coming into our courtroom it is going to roll over my dead otte. and it bears emphasis that justice justice souter based in this view on his own personal experience when he was sitting as a justice of the new hampshire supreme court. he said that his experience was definitely affecting his behavior and lawyers were acting up for the camera by being more dramatic and he was censoring his own questions. similar concerns have been shared by a large number of appellate judges to lead participated in a pilot project of televising oral arguments a number of years ago and let me just run through what the other justices said on this topic about how it would affect their decision-making process because i think it is essential that the

committee be aware of this. chief justice roberts has said grandstanding may be expected to increase. justice kennedy has said television would alter the way in which we hear our cases, the way in which we talk to counsel, the way in which we talk to each other, the way in which we use that precious hour. justice thomas says television would have an effect on the way the cases are argued and undermined the manner in which we consider the cases. justice alito, television would change the nature of the argument because the participants behavior is changed when proceedings are televised. justice breyer, he sees good reasons for television but he counsels caution because there are also good reasons against it. and justice stevens, he recognize potential benefits but said he ultimately came down against it because it might negatively affect the argument in the behavior of the justices and lawyers. and finally, i would just like to say that i would like to echo the sentiment that the court is in the best position to assess

the impact of electronic media on its proceedings and it can be trusted to continue to give the issues careful consideration. as justice kennedy has explained it is the justices, not congress, who have intimate knowledge of the dynamics and the needs of the court and when the shoe is on the other foot, the supreme court refused to second-guess the senate's procedures for conducting impeachment trials, federal judge who was being impeached came to the court and challenge those procedures and the supreme court said that the senate had authority to determine for itself what procedures would govern and the same should be true here. the matter hasn't been finally decided. the court has one of the witnesses explained, has actually altered its policies and cases of high public interest as it did in bush v. gore and it now has request pending before it and there is health care cases, ample time to consider those.

so in summary i would just urge the subcommittee to stay its hand. justice kennedy informed congress that we feel strongly that the matter should be left to the courts and that view is entitled to respect under our constitutional system of governance. thank you. >> thank you very much miss mahoney. i did want to before i turn it over to questions quote our newest and youngest member of the court, justice kagan who recently said in fact asatir supreme court hearing if she favored televise proceedings she said she did but she risley said in august if everybody could see this it would make people feel so good about this government and how it is operating and i actually got that out of an article recently in "the new york times" by ken starr. the judge kent starr the former solicitor general. i'm going to put that in the record as well and i also want to add the diced spoke with justice souter for half an hour about his views and i think you express them well but i also

talked to ken starr who obviously had a different view and i'm going to to turn it over to two of my republican colleagues who have time commitment so i'm going to have them go first here but i did want to know two things from ken starr's editorial in "the new york times" where he talks about the people that would like to be able to see this, whether they understand every procedural question or not, miss mahoney i'm not sure is relevant because i think they understand a lot of what is going on. he points out a older americans are affected by health care decisions who would like to see an argument. he talks about women or other groups affected by important class-action cases like the walmart discrimination case last term. so i think we have to remember that while they may not understand every single detail, they understand the bulk of what this is about and i turn this over to my cochair, senator session and then over to senator lee who i know has a time commitment. >> thank you very much. i do think there is a matter of

respect miss mahoney. i remember perhaps senator specter was part of a little committee that went to chief justice rehnquist during the impeachment proceedings to ask them how the senate should proceed, and i so remember that he said, you are the senate, you decide how to proceed and he wouldn't give any advice. judge scirica oral argument in the court of appeals is optional. to what extent is a traditionally it traditionally optional and the supreme court and what would changing the rules might alter the amount of oral arguments that occurs? >> in most of the courts of appeals around the country, senator, the oral argument is

not held in all of the cases. in the cases where it is held, eight out of the circuits will put their proceedings in oral argument on audio usually within the same day. fife did not but some of those are presently considering doing that. if the supreme court were to change its view on that, obviously it's something i think the courts of appeals would take into account, but it is worth noting that since the experiment with -- in 19921994 in and the lower federal courts, only two of the federal courts of appeals have allowed video wing the oral argument. the ninth circuit does a great deal. they do it in all of their bank cases and on a case-by-case basis when other cases. the second circuit, the other,

does a quite infrequently. they have only done it four times in four years between 2006 and 2010. >> one of the things that bothers me a little bit -- i know it's not a defining thing but in the letter that was written there was a quote that older people might want to be watching this. you have of course a complete record of what happens. it is audio transcribed, and it is typed and produced, but i guess my thought is that we don't want to be in a position in which the courts feel they are pressured by one group or another group to render a decision. senator specter, justice kennedy satisfied a few years ago here

in 2007 quote the majority of my court feels very strongly however that televising our proceedings would change our collegiate dynamic and we hope that respect and separation of powers on talent sing checks and balances implied would persuade you to accept their judgment in this regard. we are judged by what we write. we think it would change our dynamic. we feel it would be unhelpful to us. we have come to the conclusion it would alter the way in which we here are cases, the way in which we talk to each other. i thought that put forth a pretty good statement of the feeling of the court. i think it's a legitimate feeling produced with integrity. how do you feel the senate

should consider overturning that and imposing our view of how the courtroom and the judicial branch should be conducted? >> i think the public's right to know and the benefit of an informed citizenry vastly outweighed what you quote justice kennedy is talking about, collegial dynamics. justice white boiled it down in the article that i referred to by tony morrow, which i would like to have made a part of the record, saying that the courts view of not televising his quote, is very selfish. i believe that if the court were televised, there would be an understanding and an accountability. let me be very specific. it is hard to get into sufficient detail in the brief

time allow. the court came down with an decision and citizens united which allows unlimited anonymous corporate expenditures, get a book recently published by professor larry lessig of the harvard law school called it a republic loss. he goes into a critical part of justice kennedy's fifth vote boat which decided the case in a 5-4 decision and points out that when justice kennedy made a conclusion that unlimited anonymous corporate expenditures would not affect the citizens participation in the electoral process, that he had absolutely no factual foundation. the congress under separation of powers has the authority to find the facts and then there is the rational relationship between what congress finds factually

and the legislation, which congress enacts. the court in citizens united, disregarded as justice stevens pointed out, a 100,000 page record, and literally yanked the rug out from under congress, where congress had relied upon the austin case in enacting mccain-feingold. nobody really understands what is happening in these cases. and it is hard to have it conveyed even if there is television but at least that is a -- . so i would consider the collegial dynamics that justice kennedy refers to, and i believe it is vastly outweighed either i the public interested in transparencies. brandeis said, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

well. >> well, i would just say that you expressed your policy view well and the court has a different policy view in whether or not we should overturn that is the question before us i suppose. >> senator session i've been battling this issue for decades. three times as full committee has reported a bill out. one of the real sad part about leaving the senate was not being able to carry the flag forward but now the senator durbin has joined the panel, if i may have his attention, he promised to carry on the battle in my absence. i am precluded under the ethics rules from asking senator durbin what he has done, except when i testified before the committee. [laughter] >> and before the camera and

holding to the promise he gave you, is that right? >> you bet. madam chairman i would just add that i have a commitment to make it 12:00 appointment so i have to excuse myself before it's all over. >> very good. we'll make sure that senator durbin has that opportunity so you can ask him questions senator specter but we are going over to senator lee first. >> thank you at them chair. i really appreciate you accommodating my time constraints and i want to thanked chipra panels for being here today. i combat this issue with a certain internal conflict that i'm hoping you can help the result today ended many respects you have helped me resolve that. the conflict of which i speak stems from the fact that i am an unapologetic, open log geek. i started attending the the washington supreme court arguments of the aged 10. i listen to ojeda.com sound recordings of oral arguments from the supreme court's background music when i'm going about my work and on one level

there's absolutely there is absolutely nothing that i would love more than to watch supreme court arguments on television. that would be the greatest christmas gift that i can imagine receiving. and on the other hand, at the same time, i feel that as it courtney branch of government, the supreme court is entitled to very significant degree to determine how it operates. and this does lead us to some conflict but i appreciate the testimony that has been given today, and the insight that you have provided for us. we have here assembled a very distinguished panel. i have seen maureen mahoney argued before the supreme court and i have seen calm goldstein, goldstein argued before the supreme court. i've not seen senator specter argued before the supreme court but i understand it happen. as a law clerk i saw jed scirica preside over many appellate arguments and so it is great to

have each of you here but i would like to direct my first question towards ms. mahoney. i would imagine that in the following scenario, some heartburn would be felt. imagine that come at some future point, congress decided that although today the most of our proceedings are televised, including most of our committee proceedings, at least they can be if anyone wants to televise them at some future.congress decided some committee hearings would not be open to television cameras. that is sometimes the case to be made. some of our committee hearings are in fact closed to the public. those are rare but it may be the case that some of them while not close to the public would no longer be televise. in best circumstance -- in that circumstance suppose further that the courts look at it and we ended up with the decision from the supreme court of the united united states saying in effect we have examined the

constitution and we have found emanations flowing out of freestanding constitutional provisions and concluded that from those emanations and per numbers we can include only that it is unconstitutional for the senate not to allow all of its proceedings to be televise whether committee or floor or voting or otherwise. how would that be distinguishable from us telling the supreme court that it must open up its oral arguments to television? >> well, it is settled under the constitution and it is the supreme court's responsibility to say what the law is. just a quote federalist paper number 78, whenever a particular statute contravenes the constitution it would depicted beauty -- duty to adhere to the latter and disregard the former. so it is, it is just settled that the supreme court gets the last word which is really one of the reasons why i think it would be a mistake for congress to go

down this path, because it would create the potential for a constitutional confrontation between the branches. >> and regardless of who gets last the last word as a practical matter, as far as -- >> why is it different is a matter of the first amendment. well, for one thing i mean you are doing and a lack of responsibility. you are elected by the people. the constitution was designed to set the judiciary of part and independent. they are not elected as the whole notion of life tenure to preserve their independence and in fact, to insulate them from popular opinion. that is not true with the way that the legislative ranch is structured but again going back to the knicks in case, impeachment proceedings are public but nonetheless, the nixon judge nixon case, they are public but nonetheless the board said it is up to congress to

decide, the senate to decide what procedures it would use for those proceedings and the court would not second-guess that. they would only second-guess that if in fact the constitution required a different conclusion. >> part of what i understand you to be saying is that regardless of what we can do as a matter of raw political power the question of what we should do. >> that is certainly the case but i also think there is a serious question about whether you can do it. a very serious question. senator specter how do you respond to this point of matter, the appropriateness of our telling an authority branch of government how to operate? >> the congress has the authority to handle it ministry that matters legislatively. for example, the congress decides what a quorum is. the congress decides how many justices there will be on the court. recall the famous court-packing client. the congress has the authority to tell the court when it begins

its arguments on the first monday in october. congress has the authority to tell a court what cases it should hear. and i believe that the congress has the authority to tell them what cases that they ought to be televising. but it is true that the court has the last word on that. i believe that is the way it should be. the finality of the court is wide-open and wide open and the independence of the judiciary is vital as the backbone of the rule of law in our republic, so the court court can come back and say it is a violation of separation of powers. i frankly do not think they would because you have very strong public opinion in favor of having the core televise and in the final analysis the court does listen to the public.

after very strong arguments i think for example in the 1980 decision that i referred to, there is not equal protection of law when newspaper people can come in. the court complains about the news clips, which were taken out of context. well that is what you have in quotations. i think you may have been victimized by that sometime in the past. but that is a free press, and i believe that it would really benefit this country to have that kind of accountability, and i'm not kind of understanding. if i may add just one additional thought. the court has been expanding its authority in a far ideal for ways. since maryland versus mccullough, the rational basis for legislation was -- in the case captured the city in 1997. they came up with a new test of what is congruent and proportionate and nobody knows

what that means. for the americans with disabilities act in the first decade to cases were decided entirely differently. one involving employment and one on accessibility. and justice scalia said that test was a flabby tests, as he put it, to enable the court to engage in policy decisions. and i think the court does engage in policy decisions and i think the ideological jolts of the court both ways, a warren court or the rehnquist court, and i think the public needs to know what i think it's a restraining influence of the public new. we know that the court reflects the changing values of a society. well the public has to know what the courts are doing in order to be able to express those values. >> thank you and i see my time is expired. >> thank you very much and

surely. i'm going to ask one quick follow-up here before turning it over to my colleagues and then i will leave my question should be in. ms. mahoney made the argument that it is not constitutional, this bill, to require the supreme court with many exceptions for due process, to televise and i wondered mr. goldstein while you're not a fan of having commerce to this, you would rather have the court do it themselves, and i think how long have you been working on this senator specter, trying to get the proceedings televised? how many years? >> how many years? 25. >> 25 years. >> give or take five. >> give or take five. you can see mr. goldstein why i i'm hoping that this will -- so could you give the argument for why it is constitutional before i turn it over to my colleagues in the building on what senator specter spoke about? >> as my pleasure and thank you for the opportunity. as maureen mahoney said, article iii of the constitution has judicial power in the

supreme court which is the only court the constitution requires but as senator specter points out, there are lots of pieces in the supreme court from things as simple as budgeting to more detailed points like what is a quorum and the courts of jurisdiction is and the like that this body has a lot to say about under the constitution, and there is no clear line here. i do think one thing that would be on the other side of the line that would clearly be unconstitutional is congress cannot pass a law this this thas the justices are having their private collaborations but we are going to put a camera in there because we think sunshine is the best disinfectant. that would really be what is classically a private part of what the justices are doing. to me the critical point is that these are public proceedings and it seems to me that once the justices make the threshold decision that these are going to be open to the public, that absent some compelling reason to believe that it really would be

distorted, how oral argument works. that is not, would end up being characterized the weather is an an undue interference in operation of the court and given the extraordinary deference of the justices about their view, about how this would affect the proceedings, given the experience of other courts, seems to me hard to conclude that this would really undermine how the court is operating. i wouldn't go there. as you indicated i don't think it's a step that is necessary. i think one compelling thing this body could do would be to pass a unanimous resolution urging the court to do it, to give them a sense of what the senator has pointed to as the great public interest in televise proceedings. but with no promises, think that it ultimately, the legislation would be of help. >> very good so what you're saying is if suddenly the legislation ordered that the

private receding. >> made public, that would be a different matter? but when you are dealing with something that is our republic and what you are really trying to do is expand the room to iowa and other places. very good. thank you. senator blumenthal. and very good. senator durbin. >> thank you. it is great to see you again and he came and i think it's unprecedented that it the first time a witness has asked a senator a question and i believe because of your many years of great servers in the senate you are entitled to that. the question is what are we doing to pass a bill that we both like so much? we are holding a hearing and he came and that is an important development and i thank you for being here senator specter. ms. mahoney i guess one of the things that troubles me is part of your testimony that suggests that the public just can't understand the complexity of the

arguments, the technical aspects that are often brought before the court, and because we can't quote solve the problem of educating young people quote we really shouldn't confiscate their lives by exposing them to these complex arguments. i don't think that kind of conclusion is in the spirit of what we call democracy. i think in the spirit of democracy, educating the people and giving them exposure to even the most technical arguments is considered appropriate. when we leave a monarchy, you really get down to a level where people who are chosen for public office are held to some standard of accountability. so tell me, if we allow the public to sit in the supreme court and listen, without any proof that they have college degrees or law degrees and if we allow the press to cover the proceedings, without any

guarantee the supreme court justice may make certain that the answer or the question is posed would look good into borrows newspaper, what is the difference here? >> if i could first a senator that i didn't say that there was no benefit to the public. this is a more propagated, more difficult issue. is what are the incremental benefits? and it was justice o'connor who said that arguments wouldn't enhance the knowledge of the public that much. >> you quoted it in your statement. >> yes, i was quoting justice o'connor and i think that's important because i think we all know she cares deeply about these educational issues and hear the question is what is the incremental benefit? you have to weigh the incremental benefit against the cost. there was no rest of the course delivered a process i would agree with you, we should go at in televise all the proceedings. hardly anyone would probably watch but so what? and the other thing is that the audio is available as senator lee is saying.

he could listen to the entire audio and does so. >> has released by the court. >> you can your free word to every argument senator. >> the point i'm getting to is this and we lived a little different life than you do. as i travel around illinois, i continue to be amazed and even amused by the number of people who watch c-span night and day. i don't know if these are insomniacs or people who -- i won't go any further but whatever their motive may be they not only know who we are and what we are saying and what we have just argued on the floor of the united states senate, it will friends at home, i have one in particular, joe kelly, world war ii veteran, who says bernie sanders with reddy said this week. is something wrong? honestly, they will watch closely and carefully and draw their own conclusions about the government that they have elected. i think it's a healthy thing. >> can be. c-span i think sometimes plays the obvious and they can run

pictures if they want. >> why isn't it healthy that we take this to the next logical step? why are we drawing these boundaries and saying when same when it comes to televising or putting these matters on the inch that is somehow a leap too far? >> because we have just what is the impact on the collaborative process and the supreme court and the people who know the answer to that best are the justices to ask the questions and listen to the answers and observe the behavior of lawyers and decide how it is when their own decision-making process. if they believe as a collegial body that these benefits are substantial and that the risks to their process are not significant, they will allow television in the courtroom. that day may come. >> ms. mahoney let me correct the record. it was joe flynn and not joe kelly had raised the question about senator sanders -- why are we intruding. i'm giving you a softball here. why are we intruding into the proceedings of the court and

their own decorum and establishing a standard that there will be television cameras in the courtroom? >> because it is so important for the public to know how its government functions. and because the supreme court affects the lives of americans in such great detail, you can't do much more than elected president via a single vote. and you can't have a more important decision than health care and the citizens united case when it is exposed to sunlight, just does not make any sense that it is based upon an assumption without any facts to back it up. when you come right down to it, it's illustrated by professor lessig's book and illustrated by justice stevens dissent and the supreme court does reflect the changing values of the society. >> let me ask you the senator.

i believe that you served in the united states senate before the proceedings on the senate floor were televise, did you not? >> that is correct. >> how would you react now to critics who say that we are now more theatrical and our performances on the floor than before? >> i would cite the tremendous number of quorum calls. a senator can get the national camera any time he or she wants it virtually but the people don't do it, and there are no theatrics there. and to the extent that there could need theatrics, and there might be some, that is vastly outweighed by the benefit, by the benefit of public understanding and having the public see how its government functions. and the supreme court is the most powerful part. when they refuse refused to decide a case like the terrorist

surveillance program, warrantless wiretaps, contrasted with congressional authority of the foreign intelligence surveillance act, they take tremendous power a way from congress and give it to the executive branch. people ought to know that. and when they decide that congress can't legislate to protect women against violence, because there's chief justice rehnquist had said it's our method of reasoning, it really does verge on -- it is. i don't think we are being too assertive if we say to the supreme court, televise, and if you wanted a violation of separation of power we acknowledge your authority. >> thank you senator specter and madam chair i asked that my opening statement be placed in the appropriate place in the record. >> it will be placed in the record. i did want to reiterate what

senator durbin just said. you think no one is really watching you sometimes and i was in a small town in southern minnesota a few years ago and for older women called me aside after he gave a little talk and they said you know we tuned in every day to see you preside at 4:00 in the senate. there watching me sitting in the chair and we notice you are not doing it anymore. they change the time and they said are you in some kind of trouble and the senate? and it just struck me again how regular citizens are tuning in and while i know right now the refuge nation of congress has some issues for good reason, i don't think that means we shut them out and in fact i see it as part of the democracy that people are able to watch this and come to their own conclusions about issues. so with that i turn i turn it over to senator blumenthal. >> thank you senator klobuchar. i tune in every time you preside as well so i just wanted to know. you have a lot of fans out there. i have been argued as many cases

as you have ms. mahoney and mr. goldstein. i have done several and i record nice the dangers that the justices of the supreme court seed in the possibility of grandstanding and theatrics. but i have to tell you, there is no more intimidating and challenging experience than to argue before the united states supreme court and bar none, i think there are constraints built into the forum and the pace and the difficulty of questioning that would really preclude and i have been there, and i have had in mind sort of a applause lines that i might use but it is impossible, given that for him, to responsibly do it and i would suggest that the great fear in the back of every advocates mind is the possibility of a rebuke from the court.

which is very close to happening to any lawyer, especially one in the position of trying to use it as a public grandstand so to speak. from one of the nine justices, and a nine of them can offer that rebuke. so why think that the fear of that happening is greatly overstated in the minds of justices, perhaps because they have not reasonably been an advocate before the court, if they have been at all. and, i come down on the side of permitting televised proceedings obviously depending on how it is done, the example we saw here, i can to what is done in many states courts, i think would be a plausible and prudent way to do it.

and obviously the state courts have gone through this debate. we did in connecticut at the trial level where the potential for grandstanding is much greater and an evidentiary proceeding where waving a piece of evidence before a jury is always a real possibility. but, all of that said, i want to come to the constitutional question which i agree is serious. i believe as you do mr. goldstein without promises that it would be upheld, because i think that it is in the nature of a rule of procedure for a rule of infrastructure so to speak and with that in mind, let me ask all of you but beginning with ms. mahoney, couldn't the congress if it wished, move the

supreme court into a building five times the size of the present one, admitting an audience many times larger than what we have now, in fact maybe even the civic center. i don't know what the civic center in washington d.c. is called, but we have one in connecticut with thousands of people. couldn't it to expand the size of the physical audience and isn't that very much in the same nature as this rule would do? >> i suspect certainly the supreme court can't build its own building, although maybe it could. it could probably get the is. society to raise money for building for the certainly congress has the power of the person for that reason does have control over some things like where the supreme court will sit

and yes, i assume this congress could in fact build a new building with a bigger chamber. i don't think that means they can put the cord in a coliseum though the court felt that it adversely impacted the integrity of this decision-making and that is really what we are talking about here is how do these justices assess the impact on television on their deliberative process and if i could just speak to this issue of the nature of the power that congress has, certainly they have some appropriations as one. the power to determine the number of justices. that is because while the supreme court creates the court, i meanwhile the constitution creates the court, the court is itself appointing that power, the power of appointment is given to the president with the consent of the senate so it is an ancillary anemic sense to say they can come up with the numbers but, when the president tried to enlarge the number of supreme court justices back in

the court-packing days when president roosevelt did that, what the senate did was they refuse to go along. they defeated the legislation and this committee issued a report that said it was essential for the judiciary be completely independent of both executive and legislative branches so even the powers congress does have, it has to use in a way that doesn't interfere with independence and it has never used exercise oversight responsibility over the supremes court rules from 1789. the court is so we have that authority on its own. so i think in the textual case for you know, for the congresses authority in this area, it's not really there. i am not saying that i am sure this is unconstitutional but this is a very very serious question. >> i disagree. i don't know why it is so serious if the courts, the court can be moved to a forum much much larger, if the congress can

control in effect the kind of record that is made. can't it also can affect open the proceedings to the public in a different for him? >> if it is doing that in a manner which impacts direct on the court's ability to control its own proceedings, then there is a very serious question. that is part of the judicial power, senator. >> if the congress passed a law that said in the course of these proceedings, every justice has to be televised individually, close up, and the litigant, of course the lawyer for the litigant, should be given permission to move around the courtroom and show whatever physical evidence was presented

at trial, that would change the nature of the proceeding but simply to leave the proceeding as it is now but open it to larger viewership i don't think changes that. >> at. >> that just begs the question of who is supposed to decide whether changes the nature of the proceeding because so far, the justices of the supreme court have concluded that they think it would. and that is why, they are not eating arbitrary. they are not just say no television for no reason. they have a different assessment than you do, senator, and the whole nature of the independence of the judiciary -- >> i also believe that the judiciary is underfunded. it's inadequately performing its present functions and i think that is a much more fundamental -- >> is a very fundamental issue. >> and whether not we put cameras in the courtroom. for the united states judiciary united states judiciary to be inadequately funded seems to me and much a much more serious and profound -- >> is a very serious and profound issue and it's one that

i think congress should address and correct. >> why is that not also a constitutional -- >> congress has the delegated authority to establish a budget. and to fund appropriations, so it's authority there is textual in basis. cpi apologize for taking too much time madam chairman but will one last question. why could the congress as a matter of its appropriations power, fund cameras in the united states supreme court with a mandate that they be installing them? ..

>> do you know what concerns were raised back then? >> i do, and i think there is a tendency to want to brush the issue aside by addressing it on a constitutional frame work, but i really think that this distracts from the real conversation because this issue does involve public policy, and it seems to be -- the

disagreement seems to be based upon certain assumptions. you think it's going to cause some bad reaction and others think that cameras in the courtroom is a healthy response, but our experience in iowa has been that it has dispelled the speers that we had -- the fears that we had when we addressed this issue. we talked about the very same things that we talk about in this chamber this morning. we talked about the same fears and concerns about how cameras would change the fundmental nature of the decision making, but what we have found out is that we don't even -- we don't even see the cameras. we don't even remember they are in the courtroom. we go about doing our business as we have always done our

business, and any fear of any problems have always been minimized or eliminated by the fact that the judge or the justices still maintain control of the courtroom. allowing cameras into the courtroom does not give up control over the proceedings. >> how about the relationships with the colleagues because oftentimes that's important and making decisions and getting things done, has that affected it at all? the cameras? >> well, it hasn't. we have had proceedings in the court since tuition, and i served on the court throughout that period of time, and i can cite no instance, no example where in any way the decision making of the court has been altered by the presence of cameras during an oral

argument. there may be times when i have thought twice about asking a question in a sensitive case, in a case that's followed closely by the public, but there were times before we had cameras in the courtroom that i thought twice -- >> because it would have been reported in some way? >> yeah. you know the work you're doing is being examined more carefully by more people. >> uh-huh. i think that's the thing here when we're doing audio every friday or few days after the hearing, it's one step away, yet it would be more accessible for so many people. how about some restrictions? do you have limitations like we have in the durbin-grassley bill saying a majority of the justices can decide because of due process reasons that it would not be filmed? >> well, we do have restrictions. we were very concerned about the

restrictions when we first implemented cameras in our courtroom. it is as if the restrictions are no longer there because we just don't run into any problems anymore. >> do you remember if there's instances that you didn't film something because of some reason that the justices felt it shouldn't be filmed? >> no. the only time that we have, in our supreme court proceedings, the only time we have not filmed something is because we had to shut down our cameras for a period of time for budget cuts, but at no time have we thought this is not a case that's not appropriate. >> okay, very good. just hearing all of this, i know there's some pilot projects going on across the country in the federal district courts. i think there's one in the ninth circuit and other places or the district courts. are you aware of the pilots, and do you know what the outcomes

are? >> yes, very much. the pilot projects are only in 14 district courts around the country, and they involve civil trials, not criminal trials, and projects started last summer. it will go for three years. there already have been ten trials that have been televised, transmitted, and we'll have some good experience in three year period as to how they are functioning. you know, going back to the earlier trials in 1990, there were -- it was a very significant number of appellate, federal appellate judges, one-third, who thought that television of the oral arguments actually affected the way they asked questions, and they trimmed their sails on matters that were quite sensitive, very high publicity cases, and they didn't engage in the kind of

rigor that they ordinarily would have had the cameras not been present. in the trial courts, there was a lot more problems with assessing the impact on witnesses and jurors, and for that reason, the judicial conference declined to adopt a principle that allowed the trial courts to televise the proceedings, and, of course, the court of appeals was given the authority to do it, but i think there's an important point that has not been mentioned yet, and that is with respect to the state supreme courts that adopted either televising or putting on audio their proceedings, practically all of these have been done through court rule. they have not been imposed by the state legislatures. a few have, but most have been done by the courts themselves. right now, there's 22 state courts that televise their

proceedings, another 15 that do audio, and there's pilot projects even in some of the other states, and that's what we're saying here. this is something that is so essential to the court's function, particularly the supreme court that is in a different arena than state supreme courts and the federal courts of appeals. they are much more visible. the possible uses to which video clips could be used, we don't know, but it's something i think that the court, that the congress ought to consider before deciding whether or not to mandate this kind of coverage. >> so given we're talking about cameras in the supreme court, not having trials go on, and people have the knowledge that your district court judge should have the ability to decide whether or not things should be filmed and the effect it could have on witnesses, but are there any pilot projects going on

where they are filming appellate courts -- >> not right now. >> which would be the best example, i think, for the supreme court situation. >> there are none right now. it's only in the district courts. >> and then i'll go back and end with you, justice kady, this notion it changes what people do, and i open -- and i keep coming back these things are tapedny -- taped anyway, and they can broadcast things anyway, and by filming them, you make them more available to more people, and then i would also go to the fact so what would cause a lifetime appointed judge to not want to ask that question. you can make the argument a judge with a term limit and will be reelected again and somehow that changes, but i'm trying to get to the mentality of someone

with a lifetime appointment unless they don't want protesters, but they have them, but could you just discuss that, that motivation from your perspective, and obviously judge and ms. mohoney mentioned it does have an impact. >> well, the perceived impact of any change certainly must be considered, but so, too, must the benefits that are available from change, and as i said earlier, we've gone through this transformation, and what we have found out is that all that's left in the end is the benefits to the public, and we do not encounter problems. we, as i said, don't even remember that our cameras are in operation. they are set up in our courtroom

in a way that's unintrusive, barely noticeable, and as you saw from this small clip i brought with me this morning, you could see the questioning was tough, vigorous, to the point of the issue, and it illustrated what our courts are really all about, and that is digging into the bottom of the issue, and entering a result and a decision that we call justice, and what the cameras do is expose that to the public, and it's critical in this day and age that the public be exposed to the way our courts truly operate, not how they are perceived to operate. >> thank you very much. senator sessions. >> well, it's been an excellent panel, and i just -- justice

cady, the iowa court decided on to have the cameras; is that correct? >> correct. >> you know, mr. goldstein and ms. mahoney, if someone just saw the oral arguments and didn't see the briefing get a misinterpreted impression of the case because they could be just focus on a small part of it? have you been surprised at the tact that the arguments have taken when you prepared diligently for the issues you thought were going to be most important? >> well, there's no question that for the members of the public in the audience who are admitted as well as anyone listening to the audiotape and anyone watching on television, you can get dropped into the middle of the complicated story so it's not the easiest thing to

comprehend just like this hearing, but the question is the overall effect and the benefit to the public understanding and also the effect on the court's proceedings. >> certainly, and especially if you just listened to a short video clip, you might get a very wrong impression about, you know, what was transpiring there. i know justice suter said his opposition was based on the fact that he felt television could run a short clip of him that would maybe make it seem he was not impartial, for instance, because the questioning can be aggressive and devil's advocate, that sort of thing, and that because of the nature of the tv news, they can only pick out a very small excerpt, and justice scalia said he thinks it would contribute to the miseducation of the public. >> well, it seems to me there's a lot of truth to that. in other words, if you're on

television, and you're used to bringing a lawyer here like ms. mahoney, and you asked them about a 40-year-old complex case, but they know precisely what the question is about, wouldn't the judge feel obligated to maybe have a prolonged part of the preamble to explain, make sure those people out there understood what he was saying so they wouldn't misunderstand what he was saying, when the lawyers would know immediately what the judge was asking? >> quite possible, quite possible. i think the other thing that i find troubling, senator, is the possible uses to which film clips might be put in subsequent cases. that is, after the entire oral argument is shown, let's say, on c-span. there may be excerpts or snipits that could be used for other

excerpts, and i don't know how we would anticipate how that would happen or what form it would take, but i think it's something the supreme court has thought about, primarily, and we've heard from ms. mahoney of some of their statements, and i think they are quite concerned whether it might effect the way they conduct oral argument, the kinds of questions they ask. a death penalty case, for example, where there's serious constitutional issues, and finally the victim has has beens to be in the room, judges, i think, will think very carefully about how they probe those difficult constitutional issues, and there are other sensitive cases as well, so i think it's not quite right to say that there would be no impact on the conduct of the argument before the supreme court. >> i have a memory when i first

started prosecuting cases, the judge, when the jury returned the verdict, would tell them not to discuss their verdict, and then supreme court, i think, said, well, free speech, you can't tell them not to discuss their verdict. well, i don't know -- to me, some majesty of the authority of that decision is a little bit eroded when one juror said i thought it was a -- and another says this and that, and it becomes a -- so i think to some extent that you should judge a court -- not to some extent -- but virtually totally judge a court on the merit of the opinion, isn't that what we should judge a court on and evaluate on that basically the power and the authority of the

decision as rendered? >> of course. >> open oral arguments often give little insight as to how that opinion comes out, and sometimes judges change their mind from the oral argument date to the time they write an opinion. >> of course. each of us who has served on an appellate court has had oral argument effect the way we think, and once we get into the meat of the case and start writing the opinion, find out you may come out the other way. the real work is done in preparing for oral argument, reading the brief, opinions, and studying the law. oral argument is helpful. it's a slice. sometimes you play devil's advocate, and other times you ask very provocative questions, but it's the written opinion that counts, and the public will judge the court, particularly the supreme court, on the

soundness of its opinions whether it's persuasive, and that is fully transparent. >> but it may be that -- that principle may be less, though, if they like the vision of one judge and not that of another one or the penalty of one judge -- personality of one judge. i would just say, madam chairman, that the court seeks an ideal world always to determine the law, based on the facts and determine what the law as applied to the facts should be, to the extent to which it welcomes even a little more political, ideological, moral based or the call of emotions out there in the world around that courthouse when it makes its decision, to the extent it's in anyway moved from that ideal,

i think, is not healthy, so it seems to me the court's a little uneasy -- a more than a little, that the court is uneasy this moves them away from law, and to that extent, i would be prepared to show deference to their conclusion on it, and i would note that the legislation has now drafted wouldn't mandate the cameras and operating the cameras in the courtroom unless on every case the court votes t'

>> so i wonder where the accessibility, that i think you said correctly, for anyone who wants to hear what's going on, if it's available, whether that's changed the nature of argument. i sense not, but you've been doing it more than i have. >> i can't really -- i don't think it's changed the way i argue cases, but i can't really speak to what the justices might think. >> yeah, i certainly don't -- i have never heard anyone articulate the idea that because it's taped and now the tape is available at the end of the week, that the oral arguments happen differently. television is a different kettle of fish, of course, for all the reasons that it invites more people to witness the proceedings, so it conceivably could have an effect. i don't see it happening for the reasons that you gave as someone who you did have considerable oral argument experience and the great fear of being slapped down for grand standing is a serious

one, and no one wants to lose their case or em bares them -- embarrass themselves, and to the extent it changes the way the justices comport themselves, well, they are comporting themselves in front of the american public, and that, i think, is a acceptable cost -- it is a cost. one point, and we talked about this as if it were just about oral arguments, and that's not quite right. the court has other public proceedings. it announces decisions, and nobody would, i think, say that there's an interaction between lawyers that would change, yet those are not televised, and the court also has proceedings where, for example, a justice will be invested into the court, and those are not televised either, and, again, not something you said ordinarily could be affected by televising it, and yet it's a part of the democratic process that would be effected by the legislation as

well. >> in your view, any of the panelists can respond, could the court decide that it felt that the intrusive nature of the writing press given that the transmission of those writings now is virtually instantaneous was so intrusive it would just bar all reporting? >> the answer to that question is clearly no. the court owns decisions about public access, make fairly clear that there is a form of access, but as ms. mahoney indicated, there's a different form of tradition there, and the court has certain restrictions with respect to the press and who can

be a member of the press and how it is that the press functions inside the building. trying, i think, as with the website and the release of the audio, to get as much access as they can, but there's an first amendment prohibition to what they are doing here. nobody made the serious argument there's a first amendment right to have a television camera in the court. >> because it's in the nature of a time, place and manner? >> yeah, that it's more -- because of its greater relative intrusion on the proceedings that it requires some physical installation, it's just -- it's -- as has been said, it's a line drawing difficulty, and the fact there are other avenues of receiving the information through the written press that satisfies the first amendment. the question whether you have the legislative power in to nonetheless enact such a law,

and there's a real first amendment value here, and not everything has to be a constitutional violation, but we can say, gosh, it's good for the american people to see how their government operates, and that's what the first amendment is about, and that motivates us to pass legislation, and then that would be a different question. >> thank you. thank you, madam chairman. senator sessions? >> thank you for the good panel. i enjoyed this. it this is an important issue, not the most crucial issue in the world, but it's a tough issue to know precisely what the right thing is, and we thank you for participating. >> well, very good. i think you saw from all of the senators that attended today, with senator bloomen thal, senator lee, senator grass lee, senator sessions, and myself, that there's big interest in this, and i'm one to believe as mr. goldstein pointed out this would be best for the supreme court to decide for themselves,

and hopefully they are watching this and see us here and make the arguments rather than have it done legislatively, but we are focused because as pointed out, it's been 5 years in -- 25 years and waiting. my colleague, senator sessions, talked about the importance of the dignity and majesty of the court, which i think we all can understand. on the other hand, we want other people to be able to see that besides the 250 people that are crammed into a room to watch, that the people in justice cady's home state should be able to tune in and watch this and watch spornt issues of the day that i believe while senator sessions pointed out, we have a lot of things going on, a lot of those things end up in the supreme court one way or another, and i think that's what this is about, understanding that we want to respect the decision making process, not give into the private decision

making process and the debates going back and forth and how harmful that would be, but just the public portion of it and the pronouncement of the decisions as well as mr. goldstein pointed out. i wanted to thank you all of you, it's been a highly interesting hearing, and i hope people watch it as it is recorded. they will be able to see the arguments, and i wanted to thank senator spector who went back to his home state as well as mr. goldstein, thank you, especially judge cady for talking about your own personal experience and get beyond the comfort level of where you get to ask the questions, and we get to ask the questions instead. we like that. also, thank you, ms. mahoney for your vast experience, and for being a clerk; is that right? the experience you bring to this as well. thank you, everyone, and we'll keep the record open.

>> [inaudible] >> yes? >> a letter in opposition to the legislation. thank you. >> okay, very good. i'll also offer -- not to be one upped, the statement of chairman lee who is supporting the cameras in the courtroom. i wanted to thank all of you for being here, and we'll keep the record open for one week for people to submit further statements, so, thank you very much, and we look forward to debating these issues in the months to come. the hearing's adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] notion [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> they with very focused on

helping with work and what's going on. i thought that was interesting as well as the constitutional debate about the actual legislation, but i think it would be a mistake just to focus on that because the general hearings is about should we have the cameras or not, and from that stand point, i think, it came out positive. >> do you have anticipation this bill will be passed in time? >> oh, you know, one can always try. i would think it would be a difficult -- i don't know where the house is on it, but it's surprising sometimes how things can happen. you know, one idea was the resolution as well, not mandating it, but sending a clear indication to the court that congress was serious about it and could step away from doing things more mandatory. i think it's something to consider, but right now, our focus is on getting the twawm bill through. i would guess we could get it

through this committee. i don't know the historic votes on it, but i would think we can, send it to the floor, and then anything can happen. >> [inaudible] is that something you think is realistic. >> that would be great for an experiment, but we're very much interested in doing this for the long haul and not just for one case. >> and do you know, it was mentioned, came up in the committee so many times, has it got a floor vote? >> i'll have to go back and check. i don't know that answer. >> did it come up for a floor vote, do you know? >> yes, it's been -- i'm asking you to go back to 25 years -- anyway, we'll get your names and let you know. >> thanks. >> health care arguments televised? what do you think? >> you know, which is the way it

might turn out -- >> well, then, obviously there will be great use made of the audiotape, and one of those things we can hopefully get less than three days later, but they'll have the audiotape, and it seems very contrived to me when you could actually videotape it. people on both sides of the issue would like to see it. >> do you think people will feel that the decision has less legitimacy? >> i don't really want to get into that. i don't necessarily think that's true, but what i do think is true is people have a right to see when major decisions in public forums are being made, and how that affects them, and that's come a long way in accessing public meetings and that's why i believe the court needs to be transformed as well. we're not talking going into private negotiations where you want the justices to have the right to go back and forth, form

consensus, and people change opinions after they learn something new. you don't want the strain on that, but this is different. it's something we decided is public, but we just allow 250 people who will be able to have the resources and ability to get themselves into that room and travel from somewhere around, have the money to do it, whereas the rest of the public has to wait three days to see an audiotape, that just doesn't seem right. >> thank you. >> all right. thank you. do you want to get their names? [inaudible conversations]

>> president obama paid tribute to this year's kennedy centers honorees, and they are given to individuals with lifelong contribution to the performing arts. this year's included singer song writer neil diamond, sonny rollins, and singer, barbara

cooke. from the east room of the white house, this is about 20 # minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, barbara cooke. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause]

[applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, neil diamond. [applause] [applause] [applause] ladies and gentlemen, yoyoma. [applause] [applause]

ladies and gentlemen,sonny rollins. [applause] [applause] ladies and gentlemen, meryl

merylstreep. [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [laughter] ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states

and mrs. michelle obama. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] ♪ >> well, good evening, everybody. welcome to the white house. what a spectacular looking crowd here. [laughter] i want to start by thanking david rubenstein, michael kyeser, the trustees, and

everybody who made the kennedy center a wonderful place for so many people for so many years. i also want to acknowledge my good friend, caroline kennedy, for continuing her family's legacy of supporting the arts, and finally, i want to create the creator of the kennedy center honors, and the co-chair, the president's committee on the arts and humanities, george stevens. [applause] george and his son, michael, are still bringing this show to life after 34 years, and we are grateful to both of them, so -- [applause] tonight, we honor five giants from the world of the arts. not just for a single role for a certain performance, but for a lifetime of greatness, and just to be clear, this doesn't mean they are over the hill. [laughter] it just means they have come a

long way. now, at first glance, the men and women on this stage could not be more different. they come from different generations, different walks of life. they have different talents, and they traveled different paths. yet, they belong here together because each of tonight's honorees felt the need to express themselves and share that expression with the world. it's a feeling that all of us have at some point in our lives. that's why we sing, even it it's just in the shower. it's why we act, even if we never get past the school auditorium. that's why we dance, even if, as michelle says, i look silly doing -- [laughter] it's one of the down downsides of being president, your dance moves end up on youtube. [laughter]

tonight's honorees take it a step further by expressing themselves, they help us learn something about ourselves,. they make us laugh. they move us to tears. they bring us together. they push the boundaries of what we think is possible, and each of them has been blessed with an extraordinary gift. tonight, we thank them for sharing that gift with us. barbara cooke has been said to have thee most magnificent voice in popular music, but she was born into a family that didn't know the first thing about singing. growing up while the other kids in the neighborhood were playing hide and seek, barbara would be inside listening to opera on the radio, and by the time she was 23, she was starring in her first broadway show, and won a tony as the original marion, the librarian in the music man. success don't come without pain, and she faced more than her share of challenges before a show stopping concert at

carnegie hall in 1975 that catapulted her back into the spotlight. her greatest strength is her ability to put her own feelings and experiences into her songs. she says, if i sing about emotion, and you say, yes, i've felt that too, then it brings us together, even if it's just for a little while. she's been through enough to sing just about anything, and now she teaches up and coming singers to do the same. the lesson always starts with be yourself, a piece of advice she's always taken the hard way. maybe that's what has kept her so young, and barbara says sometimes she feels 30, and tonight you look like you're 30. sometimes she feels like she's 12, although her knee apparently does not agree. all we know is that we never heard a voice like hers, so tonight, we honor barbara cook.

[applause] now, neil diamond's song writing career began like so many others. he was trying to impress a girl. [laughter] the difference was that it worked, and he went on to marry the girl. as neil said, he should have realized then the potential power of songs and been a little more weary. [laughter] even after such a promising start, music was not neil's first choice. he wanted to go to medical school and find a cure for cancer, but then he met reality, which, for him, came in the form of organic keep vie. [laughter] he ended up dropping out of college to take a $50 a week

song writing job, and the solitary man was born with a voice he describes as being full of gravel, potholes, and left turns and right turns. [laughter] he went on to sell more than 125 million records. elvis and frank sinatra asked to record versions of his song, and he's the rare musician whose work is heard in kids' movies and baseball games. when asked sweet caroline is so popular, he said anybody can sing no matter how many drinks you've had. [laughter] now, his shirts are not as flashy as they used to be. i notice you're buttoned all the way up to the top there. [laughter] neil can still -- [laughter]

neil can still put a jen race of fans in their seats, and tonight, we honor one of the great american song writers for making us all want to sing along. thank you, neil diamond. [applause] when sonny rollins was growing up, they snuck into jazz clubs by drawing mustaches on themselves be eyebrow pencils to make themselves look older. [laughter] did that work, sonny? [laughter] we don't know, but hair -- harlem in the 1930s was a hot bed of jazz, and for a teenager, it was heaven. they lived around the corn e and sonny learned melody and harmony

from me melodious monk, and miles davis was there, and he was one the greatest improvicers in the history of jazz. today, he plays hour long sew lores without repetition leaving audiences speechless, an they wonder how he plays for so long, but for him, it just means there's something out there, and i know i have to find it. he also loves to roam the crowd in a performance. one story goes he was halfway through a solo one night, jumped off the stage, and disappeared, and when the band was going to go look for him, the solo started back up. he broke his foot. he was lying on the floor, but he finished the set with so much energy and passion, the audience didn't notice. [laughter] to hear sonny tell it, he's just keeping things pure. the worst thing in the world to me is to play by wrote, he says.

you have to play from the inside. that's real jazz. tonight, we honor a real jazz master, mr. sonny rollins. [applause] meryl streep was described as a class mother and a cut up. i don't know who that was, but -- [laughter] when asked why he asked her to star in bridges of madison county, he replied, she's the greatest actor in the world. at 15, she won the role of marion the librarian, and there's a theme here, in her high school production of the musicman, following in her idol, barbara cook, that led to yale drama school and hollywood where

she won two oscars in four years, and then she turned 38. [laughter] which in washington, at least, according to her, is the sell by date for hollywood actresses. [laughter] she remembers turning to her husband, don, saying, well, it's over. luckily, it was not over. since then, she's tackled incredibly complex roles ranging from julia child to margaret thatcher, and she's the most nominated actress in the history of the academy awards, tossing aside more than a few stereotypes along the way, and each of her roles is different, and different from what we expect here to be. as she said, i picked the weirdest little group of personalities, but i think they all deserved to have a life. for giving life and joy to the

characters for so many of us, let's give meryl streep a round of applause. [applause] one final honoree, is a regular here at the white house, and i said we need to give him a room, the blue room, red room, and the yo-yo ma room. we keep inviting him, but he keeps oncoming back. [laughter] when he took his first cello lesson, there was not a chair short enough for him, so he sat on three phone books instead. at age 7, he was performing for president kennedy in this room. today, he has 16 grammies, considered one of the greatest

classical musicians alive, but the most famous thing about him is that everybody likes him. [laughter] you have to give me some tips. [laughter] [applause] in a profession known for, let's face it, some temperament among his stars, yo yo's a little different. he named one of his 300-year-old cellos petunia. he's a big hugger. for every question you ask him, he asks you two back. he's been named "time" magazine's sexiest man alive. [laughter] he's appeared on "sesame street," and i've thought about asking him to go talk to congress. [laughter] [applause]

and yet somehow he's found the time to become one the most innovative and versatile musicians in the world. he likes to say his goal is to take listeners on a trip with him and make a lasting connection. his sense of curiosity driven him to experiment from the tango to chinese fobbing music, and he -- folk music, and he brings people together. if you know what music you love, and i know what music i love, we start having a better conversation. it was described as a human being first, musician second, and a cellist third. he's a great musician and cellist, but tonight, we honor him for being a great human being. thank you, yoyo ma.

[applause] barbara cooke, neil diamond, sonny rollins, meryl streep, yoyo ma, in a time 6 year where everybody counts their blesses, we want to give thanks to your extraordinary contributions. they have been blessings to all of us, and we are grateful they have chosen to share their gifts, enrich our lives, and inspire us to new heights, and i think for all of us, each of us can probably remember some personal moment. michelle, in the rope line talked about how her dad loved jazz and could hear sonny rollins blasting through their little house on the southside, and it's true. everybody sings neil diamond songs no matter how many drinks they've had. [laughter] yoyo ma, but association with him is studying at law school

listening to bach, and it soothed my mind. meryl streep, anybody who saw "french lee lieutenant's woman," can remember her. i'm sure everybody remembers that. [laughter] i'm ab libbing here a little bit. [laughter] each made extraordinary contribution, and it's worthwhile then for us to commit ourselves to making this a place where the arts continue to thrive because right now somewhere in america, there's a future kennedy center honoree, practicing on some phone books or writing songs to impress a girl or wondering if she can cut it on the big stage. let's make sure our young people can dream big dreams and follow them as far as they can go. let's make sure the arts continue to be an important, no,

a critical part of who we are in the kind of world we want to live in. tonight, we congratulate all of our extraordinary honorees. thank you very much. [applause] [applause] [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please remain in your seats until the president and mrs. obama, and the honorees departed the east room. thank you. [applause] ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [inaudible conversations] ♪ ♪