Transcripts For CSPAN American Perspectives 20100613

people will. thank you for listening.. >> you are watching c-span, created as a public service by america's cable companies. coming up next, supreme court justices ruth bader ginsburg and samuel alito take place in a mock triall then remarks from actress ashley judd. then weekly addresses from president obama and john boehner. . >> up next, supreme court justices ruth bader ginsburg and samuel alito take part in a mock trial looking at whether henry v was justified in killing french prisoners of war after the battle of kagen court. they are joined by other federal -- battle of age in couagincour. they are joined by other federal judges. this was held in march. it is about two hours. >> oyez, oyez. the supreme court of the amalgamated kingdom of england and france is now in session. you may be seated. >> the court has convened to hear the case of the french civil liberties union against henry v. the arguments will open by the petitioners, and i will call upon mr. garre. [laughter] >> merci, madame chief justice. [laughter] may it please the court, 10,000 -- the tally that king henry announces at the battle of agincourt. that figure alone underscores the gravity of the offense that he committed when he waged his unjustified military campaign against france. no use of military forces lawful without just cause. an unprovoked invasion of another country warrants the most searching inquiry into whether just cause exists, because it is the most aggressive form of the use military force. henry's unprovoked invasion of france was unjustified for least two reasons. first, he lacked a valid claim to the french crown, which was the justification that he gave for the nvasion. second, that justification was just a pretext, anyway. the invasion was, in fact, motivated by king henry's desire to quell doubts about his claim to the english crown, given the illegitimacy of his father's reign and doubts about his own service, given his wild exploits as a youth. justified as a means for diverting attention from domestic troubles at home. [laughter] an ill-conceived means to do just that. let me begin with henry's claim to the french crown. the fundamental problem with henry's claim is it undeniably runs through a female, isabella, the mother of his great- grandfather edward iii. under french law and custom, the line of succession simply cannot run through the female. if the french did not follow that rule, then the throne would have prospered --pass to the -- passed to isabella's three brothers. each of those kings had a daughter when they died. if the crown had passed to any of those daughters, henry would never have had a claim to get via isabella. that fact defeats henry's claim. the crown past six other females because the the operation of the french role of succession before it even -- because of the operation of the french role of succession before it even went to isabella. the reason blinded get isabella and then skipped over isabella -- that the line did get isabella and then skipped over isabel is because the french to follow the rules -- over isabella is because the french do follow the rules. henry did not have the right too invade. the french did have the right to invade england based upon the english rule of succession. henry did not invade france to liberate their women. he did it to seize the french crown and take the king's he can hardly claim an altruistic objective. >> we have a special question here. this seems not to be a proper defendant or plaintiff. are you representing the french civil liberties union, there is an alien tort statute, under which only an alien can sue. the king is a moon -- is immune. let's straighten out the threshold problem beffre we go any further. whinnied a proper plaintiff and a proper -- we need a proper plaintiff and the proper defendant. >> i can assure you that the french civil liberties union feels like an alien in the amalgamated kingdom. [laughter] your answer as to the plaintiff goes, we think that question ought to be addressed in terms of whether the plaintiffs and those injured were aliens at the time of the offenses in question. we're talking -- we're on behalf of the estate of the french pows who were slaughtered during the battle of agincourt. there is no question that those p.o.w.'s are aliens in this kingdom. we think there proper plaintiffs to pursue under the alien tort statute. as to king henry and hhm being a defendant, it is no surprise they would seek to hide behind a shield of sovereign immunity. the question of henry's legitimacy to the throne in the first place -- we think that sovereign immunity cannot be a shield to this court hearing thht claim. if this court agrees with the plaintiff that henry is not the proper sovereign in his kingdom, then this court should have no devotee reaching the question and pronounces its decision. -- should have no difficulty reaching the question and announcing its decision. the archbishop says that the french do not in fact follow the role about boat line of succession going through the female. -- the rule about the line of succession going through the female. we think that is destructive. there is one example wicking pepin -- with king pepin. this was before the french occupied those lands and took the rule of succession. second is more fundamental. as the archbishop recognized, king pepin usurped the rule. >> do you have a political question? you are asking us to decide who is backithe king. [laughter] if you are wrong and henry is the king, he has sovereign immunity. also might immede us or do other things like that -- he also might impede us or do other [laughter]e that. is this something the judges should get into? >> i can well understand your concerns. >> considering what he did in agincourt, yes. >> we can all hope we will not be treated as p.o.w.'s, asking him retreated the french bid we judicial dispute -- repaias king henry treated the french. we think is a straightforward judicial disputee >> this seems quite beside the point in the end. did the archbishop not invoke a higher law? he recited in the book of numbers, it is written, that a man dies without sons and then the inheritance descends to his daughters. surely that law comes down to our ordinary law. plaughter] >> your honor, it is indeed a high law. the archbishop did not cite that as the governing rule in france. the archbishop merely cited that as a demonstration of other sovereign's, indeed high sovereigns, that have accepted that role as their own -- that rule as their own. the french to adopt the rule to prohibit the line of succession going through a woman. the archbishop's examples were instructed in showed faulty reasoning. -- instrutive and showed faulty reasoning. >> cannot interpret him as saying that -- can we not interpret him as saying that a woman cannot inherit the throne, but a man could through a woman? >> no, i do not agree with that. >> let me read what he says. no woman shall succeed the phallic line. >> we have two points on that. if a woman can take the inheritance, she cannot pass the inheritance. >> we know from the archbishop that the law was designed to discriminate against women, right? [laughter] it was designed by men. perfect solution here is women cannot inherit the throne, but men can inherit the throne through women. that is exactly the way men think. [laughter] [applause] >> yes. [laughter] >> youu honnr, we do think it cannot pass through. let me give you a more concrete example. the rule of succession -- i am referring to the family tree in our brief here. when the king died, he had a daughter. we think that because of the fabric rule, -- the phallic rule, would not have gone to the daughter. >> you are playing with my case. that is not a question i asked you. >> i want to get your case. follow me down the line and we will get to it. king philip dies. he has four daughters. one of those daughters has for grandson -- four grandsons. if the crown could pass through the daughter to a male, a male heir was goiig and was there -- born and was there. instead, it bounces to isabella and then to king philip virgin islani. the french did follow the phallic rule. it prevented the succession going to or through a woman. it defeats the archbishop's claim that they did not follow the phallic law. the only reason that isabella is in the equation at all is because the crown skipped along her brothers because of the public rule -- phallic rule. >> what was king henry supposed to do? he has an expert opinion from the archbishop of canterbury. it makes your head spin. you have all of these characters. is he supposed to research all of this himself? can he not rely on his counsel? [laughter] >> your honor, it is shocking to learn that sometimes advisers are just wrong. [laughter] a king should know that. there were several flags that should have led to king henry to know he was wrong. the archbishop had an obvious political interest in the kingdom going to war. as we know from the beginning of the record, the archbishop is concerned about a bill that has passed that would have taken much of the churches possessions. henry should have known that the church had an absolute interest in urging him to go to war to distract attention from home. >> act 1, 1 -- what if that was not in the original play? what would you argue?3 act i, scene i did not appear after the years plate. an entire generation of english people s saw it english peoplecene. -- saw it without that scene. >> if your honor does not accept that, what we know from the rest of the play is that king henry based his claim for justified invasion on his claim to the french crown. we know that, legally, he had no claim to the french crown. in fact, if you look at the other parts of the play, we know that it is not surprising that king henry followed the shoddy advice of the archbishop and >> there can be only one record in this case. i think we will take it that the record is the script that was used in the recent production -- the current production of henry v, which does include the archbishop's advice. we have passed that question. >> thank you. [laughter] >> mr. garre -- >> i do not know why you agree with that, but i will ask your opponents. >> mr. garre, you said about trusting advisers that people should be suspicious. here you had an adviser to was experienced, who knew the subject, who said it was a slam dunk. [laughter] in those circumstances, what is henry to do? >> first of all, they invaded based on the english interpretation of the french rules of succession. we think henry should have known that was an illegitimate basis for going to war. the english -- what the english think about the french rules of succession. henry had a duty to look beyond the advice he was getting to see if there was any foundation for this. a ruler cannot always turn to his advisers. >> who should he ask? henry is not a lawyer. >> henry was blessed with good >> he got rid of falstaff. who should be asked?%+ >> surely, he came across other lawyers in the taverns that he frequented. [laughter] >> you are also suing the archbishop, right? >> we are suing the archbishop. >> you want to hold him accountable for the advice he gave his king, right? >> absolutely. but if we do that, what sulfurs and -- >> if we do that, what self-respecting archbishop would want to be bishop? suppose it is the french king getting advice from the french archbishop, do you want that french archbishop held accountable for the legal advice he gave his king? >> there is no argument that there is a broad degree of discretion here that all counselors have. what they do not have the discretion to do is act with their own self-interest in mind, to provide legal interest that they must know is wrong is, and to encourage the king to wage war on a peaceful country. >> is this a malpractice case? [laughter] phose issues are properly addressed in the damages stage, your honor. to get to the uestion of wheeher the force was justified. i want to highlight a couple of other examples that the archbishop does give. we're talking about three examples over the course of three centuries. phat should tell you that does not call into question the rule. two of these examples involve situations where, by the record itself, it establishes that these were people that usurp the crown -- they took by force, not inheritance. french rule of succession was not followed in those circumstances. in the third example, king louis x had a direct line to king louis viii. there was no reason to evoke -- those were three examples of the archbishop gave and they are demonstrably false. your honors, history may prove that france is right for invasion. [laughter] that does not make the invasion of france right. king henry acted through unjustified means, under the false legal pretense that he had a claim to the french crown. he had no claim to the crown. king henry's own claim to the english crown was in serious doubt because of the legitimacy of his father's reign. king henry iv to crown by force from richard ii and killed him. we know that king henry was haunted by that. it is in act four -- it is in act iv. this was a been a tortured king henry. invading france, to take the crown, to restore political legitimacy at home, was obviously a motivation here. he looked past whether there was legal justification for his war. there was no legal justification. i asked for your decision. >> thank you, mr. garre. [applause] mr. shanmugam. >> thank you, madam chief justice. may it please the court, there are many weighty and difficult cases pending before this court, but this is not one of them. [laughter] without dissent, the lower courts have uniformly rejected petitioners' claims under the alien tort statute against his majesty henry v and the other respondents. in so doing, they have correctly held that the campaign against france was justified under settled principles of law. it is no merit to the arguments advanced here tonight by mr. garre. the judgment of the court of appeals should therefore be affirmed. it is a preliminary matter and it is clear that this court lacks the vision of the claims. -- lack. s jurisdiction -- lacks jurisdiction over these claims. i hope you received a gift basket from the archbishop of canterbury. i trust for your question that you did. [laughter] that alien tort stttute does not refer to jurisdiction over claims brought by this an automated kingdom of england and france. to be sure, there is something a bit alien about the french. it does not follow that the french are aliens for purposes of this law. second, his modesty does possessed absolute immunity under the principle that the king an do no wrong, which is recognized even under french law, and i use that phrase advisedly. [laughter] as one king said, the rough translation is -- my french is not very good -- sue me and i will have you be headed --%+ beheaded. [laughter] justice garland, i would respectfully submit that impeachment is the least of your worries if you role for the petitioner -- rule for the petitioner. [laughter] >> i got that from reading the cliffs notes. -- theprisoners' claims petitioners' claims put forth questions that should not be decided by this court. i understand that this court sister ccurt in america dealt with a similar question a few years ago -- this court's sister court in america dealt with a similar question a few years ago and i understand that was not entirely happy experience. we would submit that the petition for certiorari should be improvident.+ which should adjourn together to the bar -- we should adjourn together to the bar. i understand my client, the archbishop, has gratefully agreed to pick up the tab. if the majesties campaign against france was justified in the matter of law and provided to this investigation -- a sufficient justification for his campaign there. his majesty was the rightful king of france, notwithstanding the position of the french that he could not inherit through his great-grandmother, isabella simply because she was a woman. >> counsel, before you proceed with that argument, you had a gift from the global war crimes tribunal. they acquitted henry on all counts. and the lower court said, well, that has already been decided. it is precluded. yet, you seee to abandon the preclusion argument. we go to the bar a lot faster if you just said -- just followed the decision of the war crimes tribunal. [laughter] >> that is correct. we certainly embrace the reliance of the lower court on principles of collateral. i did not want that to betray a lack of confidence in the our underlying argument. >> are you not embarrassed as the representative of the english king to cite a foreign judgment in your favor? [laughter] it might be too embarrassing. >> we were very submit -- a very reluctant to submit to the jurisdiction of an international we thought long and hard about that. ultimately, the archbishop was a faiily strong advocate for that. we did submit to his jurisdiction -- its jurisdiction. we're perfectly happy to proceed because we think the force of our argument is irresistible. >> that ask you a preliminary question? i want to show you and the audience the brief of the petitioner, which is very nicely bound. here is yourrbrief. [laughter] i assume you are moving [unintelligible] this is because your client is a rash young man who has been corrected his country. -- bankrupted his country. had no money left over after the gift basket. >> let me ask you about the merits. let me go to the critical question. can you but me -- give me one example of a french king who inherited through a woman who was not a usurper? >> whether acting as a usurper is in the eye of the beholder -- a king is a usurper is in the eye of the beholder. >> the beholder s the archbishop, who would rise your client about these alleged inheritors of the throne. all three are usurpers of defendants -- or defendants of usurpers. i ask again, can you give me one example of a french king who inherited through a woman? if you cannot, do you not lose? >> i would refer to them not as usurpers, but rather as founders of new lines in the french dynasty. [laughter] [crosstalk] >> that is very creative, but we're bound by the facts as told by william shakespeare. pepin and ugh capet or both usurpers. those are the facts. >> with regard to the former two kings, they laid claim to the throne through female ancestors. they made much of those claims to justify -- >> that was an ad hoc rationalization, designed to justify the usurpation, was it not? but it is easy to say with the benefit of hindsight -- >> it is easy to say with the benefit of hindsight. >> ad hoc is always with the benefit of hindsight. >> touche as my french colleagues might say. [laughter] the french never saw to apply that alex law in a succession until ttey saw -- the phallic law until they saw to get rid of henry's ancestor. there's a foundational body of law for the french. it is a fairly random body of six century law which the french took from above to barbarians who were living in the petherlands. >> i guess you could say that about the common law for us, could you not? >> the phallic law had never before been cited until the french saw to the dispossessed edward iii --. the battle agincourt was a small, but important part, to be sure. the hundred years' war was started by the french. one of the ways in which they started that was by dispossessing edward, notwithstanding his stronger claim. >> rejected my suggestion that you have a good preclusion -- you have rejected my suggestion that you have a ggod preclusion claim. you we should just argue the merits. -- should we just argue the merits? now, you are arguing -- what was your latest argument? [laughter] >> we believe that the french inducted the phallic law -- >> why not the bible?? i would think that you would say the bible is it. it is not just some extra thing that the archbishop added on purity ended is all presentation with the book of numbers -- he added on. -- it is not just something that the archbishop added on a. he ended his presentation with the book of numbers. >> there is a universal principle of equal protection as most famously stated by justice ginsburg, i do not know if she is any relation. with regard to law, it is simply a high law -- it is the highest law. indeed, it is positively blasphemous to suggest otherwise. i suspect that mr. garre will be called before an ecclesiastical court sooner or later to answer for that. [laughter] it is certainly true that in numbers, god commanded moses to treat women with somewhat a greattr degree of respect and the french evidently do. it does appear, for purposes of equal protection, that the french treat women as nothing more than sex objects. if this court were to apply the phallic law, it would validate that sad history. >> you are aaking us to take justice ginsburg's 1996 decision and hold it attractive to the 15th century? -- retroactive to the 15th century? [laughter] >> this court has been very foresight fful in the past and has been willing to look to respected sources, such as the american supreme court, and not to bodies of french or utch law. those principlls of equal protection are universal. we would respectfully submit that a system like the english system, the system of mail preference primogenitor is more appropriate to questions of succession. it is much more nuanced than the blunt tool of phallic law. we do believe that henry had a better claim to the french throne and that was sufficient justification for the invasion. i want to turn, in the brief+ time i have remaining, to two other potential justifications that would provide grounds for a ferment -- affirment. >> but the raise one other -- let e raise one otherr irrelevant point. how old was catherine? >> she was relatively young, but not perhaps by the standard of today. [laughter] >> this marriage was arranged by her father. >> consent is not really a defense. [laughter] >> i believe the age of consent was raised only recently. it was certainly after justice ginsburg's opinion in the bmi case. let me say a ccuple of other things about the archbishop. his name has been unfairly maligned tonight. it is important to remember that the archbishop really was the foremost legal and spiritual counselor of the kingdom. he was a combination of ted olson and oprah winfrey. [laughter] indeed, much like chief justice ginsburg, he was a leading member of the bar before he assumed his current position. unlike the chief justice, he was nominated not by president clinton, but by god himself. >> is that in the record? >> i would have to look. i'm not sure. one could take judicial notice that the archbishop of canterbury was selected by god. >> does not violate the doctrine? >> that doctrine was applied somewhat more loosely, as was the separation of power in the 15th century. it was reasonable for his majesty to rely on the archbishop's opinion, given his preeminent status in the legal community. as was poiited out earlier in the colloquy with mr. garre, henry was not someone educated in law. he was not a lawyer. he spent most of his youth in bars, rather than at our review. -- at bar review. his majesty is immune from suit under principles of qualified immunity, even if this court were to conclude that he is not entitled to absolute immunity, a conclusion that could throw the future of this court into serious doubt. >> counselor, i thought you're going to take as to the merits of slaughter. >> the merits of slaughter -- i think my friend mr. estrada will address those. let me talk about the alternative justifications. first of all, we believe that the king's campaign was justified under principles of self-defense. in his majesty's visit to france came some 80 years into the hundred years' war. years' war?ted the hundred%- >> it was started by the french by virtue of their dissossession -- >> who started the war? the english started the war, correct? is there evidence in the record that the french were threatening an attack on the english at the time? >> there is plenty of evidence of provocation, or at least later provocation in the form of the sending of tennis balls to his majesty. it constituted a serious breach of diplomatic stannards even by the low standards applied. >> what about his program of targeted killing? did he not send three of henry's friends to kill him in england? >> he did do that. that was not a very nice thing to do. [laughter] henry probably dealt with that. one might argue that executing the traders was sufficient, -- traitors was sufficient. >> are you suggesting that tennis balls turn this into a war of necessity -- turned this into a war of necessity? >> wars have been started for much less. [laughter] let me put it into context. there is a well-developed a reputation on the part of the french f rudeness to foreigners. this and people tennis balls. they refuse, as it katherine in back row and five, to speak english, even when they are -- as did catherine in act v, to speak english, even when they are perfectly capable. given the conduct of the french, it is perhaps not surprising country as invaded france at some time or another -- has invaded france at some time or anooher. [laughter] one might say that henry to the device of the cranberries -- took the advice of the cranberries when he concluded that everybody else was doing it, so that he should as well. there were profound faults on the french side in the 80 years leading up to the battle of agincourt. not only did they provoke a war by dispossessing edward of the crown and seizing the territories, but throughout the war they launched attacks on english territories, even the coast of england itself. >> as to those provinces that were seized. from day one, henry could have achieved what he tells us at the -- of the play -0is possible his possible objective. he wanted to mary catherine. he could have gotten that parody could have gotten back -- to marry cathhrine. the could have got in that back. he could've gotten back those provinces. there was no justification by his own mouth. he wanted the princess. he got it for free. >> that was one of his principal goals. if his only goal were to woo catherine, he could have simply tried to run into her in the paris bars. she may have been under age. there were many other justifications. obviously, henry felt deeply that he had a valid claim to the french throne, particularly after receiving unimpeachable advice of the archbishop of canterbury. even leaving aside his claim difference as a whole, it is claim to france as a whole, it-- is crystal clear that the french -phave violated some portions of the treaty, particularly the one that which provided large chunks of french territory to the english crown. they reclaimed that territory almost immediately after entering into the treaty. that would provide independent justification for the decision to go to war. i think that is true, notwithstanding the longstanding reputation of the french for cowardice in battle, are a tradition that is pointed out in various points in the -- a in various parts of the play. mr. garre points to the alleged bias in akron and one, scene roman one. i, scene i.ce >> historians say those early quartos are bad and to be disregarded. >> it is certainly true that the lower courts had act i, scene i in front of them, even though they evidently did not credit anything in them in a ruin our favor -- in ruling in our favor. when the archbishop offered that sum to the king, he was not incentivizing the king to go to war appeared he was offering that money by way of a settlement, in order to -- to go to war. he was offering that money by way of a settlement. a bill had been introduced by certain members of parliament to reallocate states from the church to the crown. it was not really in the archbishop's interest for the king to go to war. wars are expensive. if the king did go ahead aad go to wwr, he might very well have come back to the archbishop for more money or saw the support for the bill that was currently pending in the parliament. we do not think the partnership can fairly be charged with bias. >> is it not possible that henry threatened to seize the church property in ordee to bias the archbishop and his advice? >> there is no reasoo to believe that is true, not least because the bill in question was actually introduced in the time of an iv -- henry ii. to the contrary, the current monarch warned the archbishop of canterbury that he would have blood on his hands it to give advice that turned out to be false. there is no reason to doubt that the archbishop of that very much to heart when he gave the advice that he did in the subsequent scenes of the play. we believe that this charge is scurrilous and unfounded. with regard to the arts budget, and i know this court has questions about the archbishop -- with regard to the archbishop, and i know the court has questions about the archbishop, we would suggest that he has immunity as well. we have a motion pending to substitute god as the appropriate defendant. dot is immune from suit and judgment -- god is immune rom suit and judgment. thank you very much. [applause] >> mr. garre, you have two >> thank you, madam chief justice. your honors, let me remind you that my good friend, the council for the crown of england, has just argued before you that self-defense was a justification for invading france. i think that this court can take judicial notice that the french are not good at waging war. the reeord in this case underscores that in the battle of agincourt. p also think the court can and should brush aside the political objections that have been raised to prosecuting this suit. it is understandable why the crown would not want to get into the legal issues before this court. as much as we would like to have this case be about deppsing the illegitimate king of the amalgamated kingdom, henry rowen 5, it is -- henry v, it is only a suit for damages. the archbishop is perfectly capable oo funding the crown's damages liabilities. let me get to the legal issues. i think it was very telling that my friend had no answer -- >> is there a question of attorneys' fees? >> we will waive those, your honor, under the proper circumstances. it is very telling that, when asked whether they could so a single example of where phallic law was not followed, my friend could not come up with an example. that establishes, more than anything else, that the french did follow that law. your honors are quite right at the art commission of canterbury pointed out illegitimate -- that the archbishop of canterbury pointed out a legitimate -- illegitimate claims. we have had much discussion about the role of the archbishop of canterbury. we can debate his legal training, his access to god, and his higher duties. the one thing that we do not need to quarrel about is that this is irrelevant. alternately, king henry's decision to nvade france has to stand and fall on the legal justification that he proffered, which was the claim to the crown of france. we know he does not have that claim. with respect to the book of numbers, what i would say in response to that is, they do no+ recognize the role that the archbishop mentioned -- rule that the earth is to mention because the english rule is not -- that the archbishop mentioned, because the english rule is primogenitor. we do not think the archbishop was invoking that as40 authority -- as authority to invade france. we ask you to find that this was an unjustified military act. thank you. >> thank you, mr. garre. [applause] we will now hear from mr. dihn. >> thank you, your honor. may it please the court, my name is mr. dihn, as my colonial masters would have it. [laughter] the first thing we do -- let's kill all the prisoners. response to a v's mistaken fear that the french forces had reinforced their ranks. that was also his angry response to the news that servants and pages had been killed and his luggage had been stolen. [laughter] neither is legally sufficient to justify henry's slaughter of the prisoners. thank you, just michel. henry's order must be seen for what is -- a criminal act of laws of war and offends any notion of chivalry of humanity -- or humanity. william shakespeare offers two reasons. one is reprisal. legal actder was a in response to the killing of the pages. this fails as a matter of fact. as you recall, the order to kill was given a in scene -- given in scene 6 and henry did not know about those killings until scene 7. it is legally unjustified and a logical. -- and illogical. the court beeow held that no noncombatants were killed unlawfully by any forces. -pit is an unlimited, unqualifid finding of law. of necessity, the court below held that the pages or write the combatants -- were righly combatants, even though they played only a support role. they are no less legitimate a target than officers or generals. their letter carriers for the king himself -- they are letter carriers for the king himself. the primary reason that king henry gave the order to slaughter the prisoners was his fear that the french forces were reinforcing their ranks, not neccssarily that they were forming an attack. master shakespeare was very clear that they were reinforcing their ranks. based on that and on that alone, he gave the order to kill the prisoners. >> mr. dihn, the french, at the beginning of the battle, outnumbered the english five to one. on the battlefield were strewn all of these weapons of destruction, and here was this brave, english band. the commander made a decision. how is this court competent to second-guess that determination of military exigency? >> you are competent not only to second-guess the commanders' decision on the field, but to evaluate the legal justification leading him to be there. the odds of five to one or known to the english prior to the battle -- were known to the english part to the bottle. henry said, "would not seek a battle as we are -- we would not seek a bottle as we are, nor -- a battleeas we are, nor would we shun it." if it is relevant at all, it may well be relevant to the decision whether or not to give quarter to the prisoners. that had also already been taken. henry knnw how not to give quarter. we know that from the vicious speech he gave just one day before. if i may begin the battery again, i will not leave the half achieved. she lie buried. the gates of mercy shall all be shut up. >> are you suggesting because of that speech he cannot complain about the french killing the prisoners? >> no, your honor, i am making a different point. he knows how to give quarter and when not to give quarter. once given quarter, you cannot continue the barbaric treatment of your prisoners. there is a difference between killing on the battlefield and killing an unarred, innocent, and non-belligereet prisoner. >> does that not change when the french reenforce -- reinforced their scattered men -- reinforce their scattered men? was henry's obligation to his prisoners greater than his obligation to his own forces? what if i told you henry was unable to free his men from protecting the prisoners that he would lose the battle? >> there are two points. i would like my -- >> i would like an answer to my hypothetical. would your answer be the same that henry could not order the executions? >> there is an alternative that is less than the slaughter of the prisoners that is recognized in the lot at the present time and -- in the law at the present time and certainly at the time of the bottle. -- battle. he could have rolled the prisoners. -- paroled the prisoners. the one thing we know as the french is how to surrender. [laughter] we know that law of chivalry demands military commanders who are gentlemen to not slaughter those who do not pose a threat. >> and reallyy henry previously had a detention facility on the channel islands. if that were to close down, what would he do? [applause] >> that question goes to the central point of the argument. it is not the actions of the men still on the field that is operative. it is rather, any threat from the men in the barracks that should govern whether or not they are killed. >> let's say we either take the facts tha henry saw them or -- the fact that henry saw them or that we should defer to the military judgment of henry. if he is correct or we defer to his view, must he lose? is that your position? is it a war crime or him to kill the prisoners in the face of defeat? >> there is deference and then there is a willful blindness. >> oui or no? [laughter] >> we do not can see to surrender before its time -- ccncede to surrenderrbeforr its time, so no. >> you agree that he could not control the prisoners and he might be then allowed to kill the prisoners? >> he has an obligation to paroled prisoners and only kill them as a last resort. >> the french were interested in winning. >> parole is not exchange. >> henry should have walked up and offer a twoparole the a-- offered to parole the prisoners? >> all they have to do is keep the prisoners where they are, engage the men in the field -- >> his judgment was that e could not do that. he needs sufficient forces to defend himself without the help of the men guarding the prisoners. >> his judgment was mistaken. >> perhaps it would help us if you clarify what you mean by "parole." we know we cannot just let the prisoners oose to go back to the french troops. what does it mean? >> by the act of surrender, the french troops have given their word to the captors that they will no longer be belligerent. if they somehow exhibit an action that is bellicose, then they are again considered to be men of war and they can be killed. >> wednesday exhibit their bellicose -- once they exhibit their bellicose-ness, it is too late. >> the kaptur will not kill that person -- captor will not kill that person. >> it sounds like you think the magnetic card it is a suicide pact. -- the magna carta is a suicide pact. mechanism in the treatment of prisoners and their -- self- enforcing mechanism in the treatment of prisoners and their captors. it cannot be that the action of other men on the battlefield is cause for the killing of the prisoners who have done nothing. if that is the case, the only rule of war that this court would pronounced would that it has to be an all-out war and there can be no quarter given. even if order is given, waurter is not -- quarter is not met. >> that is not true. that is overstatement. there is a ticking time bomb scenario facing henry. the threat emerged. he had to act quickly. he had to act on the battlefield -- the unknown unknowns on the battlefield. say anything like that. >> your honor, henry recognized but did not know that he won the battle. he did not note that qd had asked someone else. henry has -- he did not know that. he had to ask someone else. >> how should he take time to ascertain the facts of his men are getting slaughtered? >> it is necessity, not wanting violenne. -- wanton violence. of course it would be nice to be about to kill -- thee to kill, but not french prisoners. the more fundamental answer is that is not an excuse. henry himself recognize this. you at change -- you will recall the exchange where he was challenged to a duel. the challenger was kicking themselves. william said that was a mistake. theas that ande kin -- challenger was the king himself. williams said that was a mistake. williams said, pardon me. henry pardoned him. "keep it, fellow, keep your glove and wear it with honor in they camp till i do challenge it." henry granted a conditional pardon. he granted a conditional pardon until he chooses to challenge it. that is the same condition that he gave to the prisoners. it is an imperfect contract between the kaptur and the captive -- captor and the captive. >> how can we know it was a mistake of fact? we know the field was strewn with weapons. there were prisoners. it seems to me we cannot make any finding on what might have happened. there is no mistake of fact. . more importantly, we are not asking for and on the battlefield intervention. we are asking to do that which criminally responsible for the acts which were unjustified. >> it is true is too late for henry.. if we make this decision, everything will hesitate on the field of battle unless he consults with his lawyer. >> i should hope that other kings would hesitate. i think that is the whole point of the law of necessity and the law of nations. >> why are we talking about criminal responsibility? this is a civil case. >> this is a civil case to find damages -- >> as far as the criminal case, that is over and done with. henry was acquitted of all he war crimes. now we have a civil case. >> i think there is a point here -- i take your point. my fundamental point is this. henry was not justified in war. if he does not abide by the laws of war, he has to answer to this court and answer to the llws of war and the laws of the kingdom. we must hold him responsible for criminal charges and also civilly responsible. >> what kind of criminal liability? >> that decision is not for this court. [applause] thank you. i will leave my remaining time for my rebuttal. [applause] >> mr. estrada? >> may it please the court, as a boy said when he was murdered by the french, "the empty vessel make the greatest sound." and so it is. all of these influences are contrived. they are nowhere in the record. henry was clearly justified in retaliation. moderate means of war might be applied is quaint. [laughter] to imply those 600 years after the fact woull be to ascribe animal welfare laws to the roman circus. it does not happen. there was a reference made. it is telling that you have not heard of any illegality against civilians. >> narrow, caligula. -- nero, caligula. beating prisoners to the lions would be ok as well. this was not the majority view. there was a duke -- there was a view in support of the french which did urge the courts to consider the more humane customs of the american indians, the eskimos, and the japanese some nine -- japanese samurai. even looking at the international landscape without context, it is clear that no nation then held let it was sensible that a leader should sacrifice and in danger his own people for the sake of treating humanely a murderous adversary. indeed, no one thought that was the case until 600 years later, when the american court first came to that conclusion. given that we are assessing the concept of the king in the year of our lord 1416, it is quite clear that under rules that then existed there was no need to give quarter to begin with. even among the most humane rules, the sole question was whether the king was well justified in believing that another french attack was a foot and weather in that circumstance it was within his duty to his own troops to allow for the creation oo another front that could easily vanquished and kill the english forces. let us not forget that at the time there were nearly 10,000 men dead oo the field. if you paroled any of these french prisoners, that merely meant asking them to give their word and be nice. the moment they turned around, they could turn to the nearest course for weapons. it was quite impossible for the kiig to make any adjustment to the circumstances of the field in the face of yet another -- >> i am not sure the record -- is it true that no quarter was given? how can they can argue reprisals for the death of the baggage boy? >> no quarter need be given to the fighting forces, but it was universally understood at the time that the baggage boys, who were merely children, although they played a supporting role in the guarding of the luggage and the kings underweaa, were not themselves combatants. fulellen and gower point out, was thaa the killing of noncombatants was contrary to the laws of parlay. >> that was done by a rascal band that fled from them. >> it was a rascal band of french soldiers. that is the key poiit. i think gower makes that clear. it was the cowardly french who were with the main force and fled from the battle and found childrrn to kill and loot. thaa gets me to the second aspect of my argument. >> i am intrigued by your description of what was said by the mayor of harleur. if the mayor had said he was not going to surrender, what would your client have said? was he just kidding? >> the law was clearly established that in the case of having to take a city by assault, because the city refused to surrender, and the tactic was completely -- any tactic was completely license. you could have a filibuster. you ould simply been a lot into being. you could do anything. apart from that, i think it is quite important not to lose track of the fact that when all is said and done all we have in the record are colorful threats. each of those things is no worse than calling for a sword so that you may cut a baby into. -- cut a baby in two. all of those things are clearly horrifying. >> my problem with this is how quickly henry acted. he did not pause even a second to say, "what are the facts? what is going on?" he immediately heard the sounds of battle and issued the order to slaughter the pows. should he not have at least taken a fee seconds to find out what was going on? >> i do not think the imperatives of the moment really allowed for a greater in decision -- a greater indecision. as he said to montjoy, e said, "i do not know if you have one, because many of your horses gallop over the field." the confused circumstances of the battle do not allow much accounting of the produued english force to take the risk they would take with their own livvs that this attack was finally, by the french, for real. you have to take into account, as was said earlier, that it is an impossible task to ask a group of federal amalgamated judges, some of whom -- not this court, but in the lower courts. some get their jobs by being -- by serving someone in the house of lords. frankly, you are asking that the great decisions of state be confined to our judges, including what is right and what is wrong in the field of battle. the only point that goes with that -- >> that sounds like an argument that the american king richard when the king does it, that means it is not illegal. [laughter] [applause] >> there are many practices we wish not to borrow from our american cousins. that may well be one of them, turning the control of wars and attention and military situatiins in the isle of wight. we have had the benefit of seeing these rulings and how they have worked. i think the better wisdom is to realize that as long as there is a case for the kings apprehension, it is not the province of the courts to second-guess. >> what if we were to suppose the claim to the throne was illegitimate? isn't henry, having launched an unjust war, responsible for all acts of both parties? >> i think no. >> and no? >> i think he might be responsible for orders he himself made, but as we know -- >> what would we say? we would say the war was illegitimate, yet he did not commit a war crime by slaughtering the french. can you explain how we would say that? >> this question does very practically illustrate everything that is questionable about this lawsuit. you are going to have the court sitting judgmenn on the validity of the king's pedigree entitles to the crown. that is not something that is a meet subject for the court. >> the war crimes tribunal said it was a justified war. >> actually, we have not given up on that argument. i think what the lord said was we do not needed to win in this case. i think that is -- i mean -- i took his questions in the nature -pof a hypothetical. i did not think he was -- >> i did think the war was unjustified. how could i possibly conclude these were not war crimes? >> i think it is in my interests for him not to write a good descent. -- a good dissent. >> you assume what the majority is. >> that is absolutely right. the point, seriously, is that even if you thought the question itself was despicable you have to then examine what the levels of inquiry are. one possible way of concluding that the question is justifiable is to say that the court's inquiry is limited solely to asking whether there was any factual basis whatsoever from which either the king in pressing his title or the king as the commander in the field could have rationally come to the conclusion that he did. certainly, it is meet for you to accord as much difference as you would to the king of the amalgamated kingdom as you would for a run of the mill administrative agency. [laughter] >> as long as he is not arbitrary and capricious, it is ok. >> if you find this is incredibly deferential standard is the only approach. >> i thought the amount of evidence the king needed to launch a war was overwhelming evidence to justify a war, and not what you said. >> i actually think that as long as he had any basis whatsoever it is not the role of the courts to second-guess that. i understand thaa may be the archbishop's gift basket did not get to you. [laughter] i promise we can make it right. [laughter] about the appropriateness of reprisal. i think my earlier answer as to why the baggage boys were not combatants -- they were mere children -- belleek answers the claim that the judgment of the global crimes court has anything to do with it. >> i am surprised to hear you say that. i thought you would have said that the baggage boys phyla your material support statute. -- baggage boys violates your material support statute. >> that are not terrorists. we thought about whether wee should have this sort of statute. you have to acttvery carefully with these things. ultimately, the record is very clear. we know this from gower. the king was aware of the killing of the luggage boys when he orddred the killing of the pows, in addition to the -- >> how can that be? in act 6 he ordered the killing of the prisoners. in act 7, for the first time he learns of the baggage boys. he says in act seven, after he has ordered the prisoners killed, "i was not angry since i came to france until this instance." that comes in act 4, scene 7. >> g look greater than what'sower said. -- look at what gower said. he was a percipient witness. his testimony would mean something. >> tower was not an eyewitness. gower did not see the baggage boys killed. he did not know why henry had killed the prisoners. >> i did not say he was a percipient witness to the killing of the luggage boy. he was a percipient witness to the rage of the king. if you read what he says, he says, "they kill, the scours. they burn and carry away, up where for the king urges that every prisoners throat because." gower had reasons to know that the order was based on the rage of the king because of the outrageous violation of the loss of war. >> you said earlier f saidulellen -- you said earlier that fulellen believed there was a violation of the laws of war. was it not his dutyyto uphold the commissioners of the crime accountable? i guess you have given that vote up. [laughter] >> the medieval law of reprisal was the rule of collective responsibility. the army is one enemy that is indivisible. when one part acts in violation of the laws of war, the law of reprisal in the middle ages allow you to go after any part of the enemy body, even if the individuals involved were not the peepetrators. i understand that this is contrary to what 600 years later we have collectively decided in the geneva convention, but i do not think that is relevant here retroactively. >> this sounds like you're fallback argument. your primary argument was the king was justified because of the conditions on the ground. >> absolutely. my time has expired. i asked the court to get rid of this frivolous plaintiff-driven no-client lawsuit. gently here and kindly judge our were the king and speedily a firm him. dly judge our worthy king and speedily affirm him. >> my colleague faults us for not siding the laws of war as it existed at the time of the middle ages. here is what gentilli said -- the laws of war or the spring of those who surrender. the same justice bids that those who despaired become supplicants. my colleague slightly sites victoria for the proposition that in war there need not be, at the time of the middle ages, quarter given. but our argument is quite different. once given, quarter cannot be withdrawn without just cause, and innocent nonbelligerent cannot be murdered while in captivity. it is as simple as that. and another middle ages writer said that unless the grant of quarter gives reason for fearing a disturbance of the peace, he must not supper. the focus is on the captive, not on what other men are doing on the field of war. with respect to the captive, we know there is no evidence in the record to suggest that they are all belligerents who had any intention of returning to the battlefield. ww know the french prisoners ad decided to cooperate rather than go back to the field of battle. my colleague also talks about the young age of the pages, young boys who are put in harm's way and who ultimately paid the ultimate price. i ask you who put them in harm's way. these innocent young boys, if they are boys, should not be planning uch a dangerous role in a combating invading army. at fault lies with henry, now with the french. therefore, the lower courts' conclusion was justified that no unlawful combatants were unlawfully killed during the course of the campaign. no unlawful non-combatants, i meant to say. >> this makes no issue about the conduct of the french. the war crimes tribunal was passing on the responsibility of the english king. >> it was passing on the responsibility of the king, but the responsibility of the king for an act he claims was impossible depends upon the responsibility of the french forces who were attacking these combatants in that case, unless there is a prior illegal act. there cannot be a legitimate claim of reprisal. justice kato was right to ask. there has to be victimhood or some notion of proportionality. no such thing was ascertained by henry. the only thing we heard was that he gave the order in anger, and i would argue in pretext. as justice sullivan pointed out, the order to kill proceeded finding out -- the order to kill preceeded finding out the boys had been killed. the hanging of barcroft -- justice needed to be done. we ask that this court would make the same obligation so as to keep the council in henry -pbeyond his wild ways. we to have to live under the laws that he himself had said were the true law when he said during the hanging of bardolph. the gentler gamester is the soonest winner. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted and the court will take a brief recess. >> all rise. >> my question to the french -- and i would extend this question to the english as well -- a recall nothing from the record that suggested that these were prisoners of war in the sense that they had made themselves subservient captives, other than by the fact that they had been conquered and were being held prisoner. the act of keeping them as prisoners requires some sense of being a jailer of people who are not willing to be held. -pi ask where the context of thm being subservient comes from. >> that is a very good question, and one that we have faced. henry need not have granted quarter, but once granted, could not provoke it unreasonably. we had to be certain they were indeed enemy prisoners, and not just noncombatants. if you look at the places where the kill orders were issued, there were very specific. every soldier killed his prisoners. the second point says, "besides, we will cut the throat of those who we have," implying that they have possessed the prisoners, íand we shall take our mercy." we are fairly confident the record made henry proprietor of these prisoners as captured. the historical record is a little bit different. these prisoners may or may not have been prisoners from harfleur and ttere is no knowing whether there were killed at the beginning of the battle or at the end of the battle. at least on this record we know that they are english prisoners. >> a follow-up question. >> if they were released, that is the part i do not understand. >> you are right. that was a leap in logic. that is why the only answer i gave was that we know how to surrender. that bespeaks of a larger point. the knights who have surrendered have in effect given their word there will not return to battle. that is a tradition of parole. in actual practice, a prisoner released on parole has to sign a paper saying they will not return to battle. i interpret the act of surrender and the laying down of arms to be that type of commitment. but you are right that it is commitment that is not etched in >> would the defense teaa like to respond to the issue of noncombatants returning to battle? >> if you look beyond the play, loads of people have looked at this. everybody seems to point to two thiigs. the weight of opinion at the time was that it was the only thing that henry could do. as i mentioned earlier, the field was strewn with weapons. the moment you turn these people out or let them go or stop paying attention they could kill in another attack. there is a fair amount of discussion as to how the rules could have been different. in closing, viet actually mention some of the people at the time and somewhat later who started to advocate for a more humane treatment of the prisoners. it was sort of inherent in taking a captive in the middle ages that he had to give himself up. it was also true there was a common experience where the word would not be capped -- not be kepp. the remedy for the captor was only to kill the prisoners if you caught him. it was also true that the -- phat you would keep them until they paid ransom. it was expected in the code of chivalry they would stick around until they paid up. but oftentimes the prisoner would escape, and it was thought you could kill them if you found them. the problem with the construction of the exercise is that by the time you were in the position to exercise your right to go ann kill them you might yourself be dead. >> do we have another question from the audience? >> the point was made that if the french prisoners were left on parole they could grab a weapon on the battlefield. however, the english could have and it wwuld have also beenons profitable to the english if they had gathered the weapons. that would not allow the french to use them against them but also weapons were of great monetary value themselves. why could they not have done that instead of telling the prisoners? >> the weapons at the time were somewhat heavy. [laughter] we are not talking see-through clothing. we are talking about stuff that was somewhat bulky and heavy. when you consider that according to shakespeare there were 10,000 frenchmen and 25 englishmen on the field, there was certainly a great store for the prisoners to turn to, which is beyond the wildest dreams of the second amendment. so where i guess theoretically we could have a flying saucer with a truck attached o it that could pick everything up and also do the dishes in the interim it does not seem not practical in this battle. >> would the plaintiffs like to reinforce? >> only a very brief point. looking at this and studying the historical record, the point is quite interesting. the french did not need more men on the field. that was the problem in the first place. if you look at the strategy of the battle, the analysis done by the french got in trouble wason- that they got funneled into a situation whereby the second line was running into the first line and could not use its full advantage on the field. henry knew this. that is why he did not advance his line beyond the difficult terrain. he was setting a trap for the french. that is why i tend to question we do not want these guys back on the field. the field was basically a slaughterhouse, this small bottle neck. in his defense, the historical record -- the engliih chronicler said there was some movement in the prisoners' ranks. that suggested that the prisoners had some seese they might get free. that would have been a justification, but not one shakespeare offered. >> it also has been mentioned now that ransom for these captured combatants was to be expected. it seems that killing them would have been to hanenry's this credit and monetary loss, yet neither side brought this up as pn argument in favor of henry doing this only under a dire circumstance in which he would otherwise lose the war. can i hear a comment? >> maybe i should not reveal all privileged communications with the king, but there is some significance to your point that killing the prisoners was against the king's self interest. it was a lot of the time that he got a cut out of every ransom. the order that he gave was kill all of the prisoners. as a historical matter, nd this gets shown later in the play, he ordered all of the expense of people saved. -- all of the exmspensive people saved. he saved the dukes. the monetary argument is a good one, but the record is and if theeone. >> that was the hardest part of my argument. the more you look at the law of the time, it looked like quarter was really driven not out of humanity but out of prrfit. john 1ii was taken capture at the battle of poitiers. the french bond -- the french still owed the english for ransom that was not paid at the time. that was one argument for monetary redress. >> where is our next question? >> i have the microphone, so i will ask a question. going back to the first part of the evening -- so much has been said about solid law obverses the law of primogeniture in england. the council for the english king said nothing about the veryy riiht full tank -- right the claim of the english monarch to a vast majority of french land through henry ii. >> you learn something new every day. i think that there is -- it is fair to say there is a lot of complexity when you get into the issue of earlier claims to portions of french territory. i think the ultimate problem with that argument, as with the argument concerning edward ii is that it only gets you halfway there. henry was seeking dominion over the entirety of france. that is the implication of the plate. for that reason, one has to have a justification on his right full entitlement to the french throne or some theory of self consent. >> that is all the time we have four questions. thank you very much. the people have spoken. andrew is going to weigh the outcome, remembering that counter intuitively blue is for england and red is for france. >> it is pretty even. >> recount. [laughter] well, now. send the audience back to chambers for more deliberation. you think it is wet? >> by a hair. >> it looks a little blue to me. >> i am seeing red. >> i'm seeing blue. i guess the judges will be the tiebreaker. all rise, ladies and gentlemen. >> the court has wrestled with these trying questions. we hesitated about the global war crimes tribunal, but decided that if the court in texas did not have to follow the judgment of the international court of justice we could pass over that one. [laughter] i must tell you that we deliberated first on the justifications for the war. we were about to report to you a decision when one of us found a huge package. [laughter] on that basis, the court is evenly divided. [laughter] but i can repprt that on the question of the killing of the prisoners of the law, assuming that the war itself was justified, we are unanimous that the killing of the prisoners was not justified. i will call upon justice of the toe -- justice alito to explain why. >> in accordance with the great medieval scholar on these questions, cole porter -- [laughter] in this situation, anything goes. however, we apply the standards of a maturing society. under those, there is insufficient evidence to show that these french prisoners presented a dire threat to the english army, which after all defeated the french in this battle, with 10,000 casualties on the french while suffering only 29 casualties of their own. this is according to the record compiled by an englishman, shakespeare, so it may not be entirrly accurate. but that was ever judgment, that the killing of the prisoners was not justified. >> that is the judgment of the court. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> our last word is to complement these four super lawyers, advocates. this was a stunning performance, do you not agree? [applause] the court is adjourned. we will convene again next year. [applause] >> still to come on c-span, remarks from actress ashley judd on the practice of mountain mobile coal mining in appalachia. later, weekly addresses from president obama and house majority leadee john boehner. later, a mock trial on whether henry the fifth was justified in killing french prisoners of war. >> with a confirmation hearing for supreme court nominee elena kagan coming up, c-span takes you inside the supreme court to see the rarely seen spaces. hear from the justices as to provide insight about the court, the buildings, and its history. the supreme court, home to america's highest court. this sunday at 6:30 eastern. >> tomorrow morning on "washington journal," president obama's relationship with the liberal and progressive wings of the democratic party. then, the reason un sanctions against iran will affect their nuclear program and relatiins with the rest of the world. after that, the former executive director of the pension benefit guaranty corporation will discuss the government's ability to offer federal protection for private sector pension plans. "washington journal," live sunday at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> the democrats had run congress for 40 years. there was a certain corruption that was taken home. we were rallying against that. it is ironic that years later i would be faced with a similar corruption from a different group of people. >> it director talks about corruption on capitol hill in his new documentary, casino jack and the united states oo mooey, the life and times of jack abramoff. >> now, remarks from actress ashley judd on the practice of mountaintop removal call money in the appalachian region, where she was raised as a child. this has an impact oo surrounding valleys and waterways. this is about an hour. >> good afternoon. i am the president of the national press club. welcome to the national press club. we are the world's leading national organization for journalists. future by fostering a free press world. for more information about the national press club, please visit our website at www.press.org. to donate to our programs, please visit www.press.org/library. on behalf of our members worldwide, we would like to welcome our speaker as well as our attendees at the day's event, which include guests of our speaker as well as working journalists. we would also like to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences. after the speech concludes, i will ask as many audience questions as time permits. i would now like to briefly introduce our head table guests. from your right, an associate editor, a freelance reporter and author of the blog energycheck. a member of the natural resources defense council, and a guest of the speaker, the associate editor for " the hill ," the national director of conservation for the sierra club and a guest of the speaker, the associate editor for "kiplinger ." skipping over our speaker, we have a member of the natural resources defense council. we have the president of tte defenders of wildlife. we have the chair of the national press club's young members committee. we have the washington correspondent for the atlanta " journal constitution." on june 2, environmental organization american rivers ranked west virginia's river as no. 3 on its 10 most endangered rivers list. the threat that put it there was mountaintop removal. as the name implies, this practice removes the top of the mountain to reach a cold source inside. it does not just affect west virginia. it affects other appalachian states, including kentucky. ashley judd is an eighth generation kentucky and. -pshe first learned about mountaintop removal from the group kentuckyans for the commonwealth. she gave an address at the state capital last year. she is on the board of the center of wild life and works with the sierra club on environmental issues. she is known as a feminist activist and advocate, serving on the board of directors of population services international, a human-rights organization in developing countries. she spoke on her work with the national press club in 2005. in 2008, she addressed the u.n. general assembly on modern-day slavery of women. she is best known as an actress. her work includes "kiss the gi rls," "double jeopardy," and "where the heart is." she lives in tennessee and ssotland. please welcome ashley judd. [applause] >> thank you for that kind introduction. there is a devil here. do i get to use it? do i need to hide it from you? thank you for the top table and for organizing this. i have a lot of friends here. i would like to start by saying good afternoon. i am southern, so that means you are supposed to respond in kind. good afternoon. >> good afternoon. >> i would like to start by acknowledging my many friends. if by accident i overlooked you, please shout out your name. this is the president and chairman of the organization defenders of wildlife. i am proud to serve with him. i have friends from the sierra club. i have friends from the natural3 maybe he does not exist in real life. maryann is a writer of exceptional ability to evoke important things. she wrote perhaps the first ever story on mountaintop removal coal mining, published in "mother jones." this is a friend of mine's from harvard. he is actually from mit. he was born and raised in west virginia. he wants to start a clean energy company in west virginia. i think he will be governor of that stake and perhaps serve in many capacities beyond. also here is ms. evans, a long time mountaintop removal coal mining activist. chooses her talents as an artist. she is made a powerful documentary called "coal country," which she generously allow us to be shown without cost. her producer is also here. i understand there are university of kentucky alumni represented. i want to say thank you. no one does any of this work alone. although i stand at the podium ostensibly by myself, i am surrounded by an extra regroup. i am surrounded by people doing work to help the environment. everyone was panicked because i do not have a hard copy of my speech. . . >> being and eastern kentucky and is the simple fact that brings me the most honored and greatest sense of self. i love and am proud of being a hillbilly. [applause] i trace my family in the mountains of eastern kentucky back at least eight generations. in kentucky we talk about counties, so mind include and are not limited to marchetti, lawrence county, and boyd county. in eight weeks, i will know even more about my mountain people, their original home, holdings, and habits. my genealogy is being prepared for me as a gift. my life, a very well-traveled one, will see nothing like the wonderful a venture of journeying back through my family history in the appalachian mountains. is by far the richest and sweetest trick. a few details have slipped out. my five times great-grandfather bequeathed 247 acres, and not one but two copper stills, an acre of land which he insisted be set aside for a meeting house in which all the nominations could worship. i can hardly wait to learn more. there is no better home in kentucky. -- know better home than kentucky. [applause] we have a deeply ingrained, mystical sense of place, a sense of belonging that defines us. although i currently make my home in rural middle tennessee and in scotland, ky calls to me. it is my avalon. took a friend to see my beloved great and pauline's form in lawrence county. she passed away when i was in only the fourth grade, and i had not been to reform since. nevertheless, i had never even driven myself there, but i navigated perfectly to her small place on little cat creek without making a single wrong turn. equally, in college i drove from lexington, ky, and although i had not been there since the second grade, i navigated without turning the wheel wrong. in 2008, after doing a lyover of legal and illegal mountain top removal, in sites, i drove to black blog holler, where my paternal grandmother was raised. i had never been there before. pulling onto blacked log, something ineffable, without word and deeper than memory, from a place so prrmal it transcends thought and conscious actions, i stopped at the foot of a long drive, and although i had ever seen it, i recognized it. i was not surprised when i looked at the mailbox and it said dalton, my grandmother's maiden name. my kin live there yet. >> the old woman accused me of being from the law, or a tax collector. [laughter] the only thing missing was a rifle across her lap. i do not see that light house as much as i feel it right here. but that a i feel for my mountain home is now more than a bittersweet nostalgia, accrues 3 inimical generations of belonging. there is a gaping wound in the fabric of my life and in the lives of all appalachians, and it gets bigger with every appalachian mountain top that is blown up, at eeery holler that is filled, every stream that is very, every wild thing that is wantonly and recklessly killed, every ecosystems that is diminished, every job that is lost to mechanization, every family that is pitted one against the other mother state sanction, federal government supported coal industry operated rape of apalachicola. the appalachian mountains are the oldest in north america. they are indeed so old, geologists rather poetically called them deep time. they may well be the oldest mountains in the entire world. i am here to tell you, amount of removal coal mining simply would not happen in any other mountain it is utterly inconceivable that the smokeys would be blasted, the rockies razed, the sierra nevadas flattened, that bombs the equivalent to hiroshima would be detonated every week for ttree decades. the fact that the appalachians are the apple acton's makes this environmental genocide possible and permissible. by the end of our time together here today, i hope you will commit your journalistic integrity to stop mountaintop removal immediately. our appalachian mountains reseeded the whole of north america after the last ice age. i smile when i remember that. what an act of biological generosity. the genetic stock of our forest, in part because they were and and glaciated refuge for many species, exceeds any value that can be conceived of or articulated by the human mind. ancient, like giving, a perfectly complete and closed loop of life and economy, but the preciousness of these mounds is an actual endowment that should be treated as sacred. instead, they are being blasted to smithereens. coal lies in those hills, but you all know that. there are essentially three stories i am telling today, an ancient one, a tiny bit of the appalachian genealogy, an old one, about how the current exploitation and abuse was set up in the late 19th century and perpetuated in the 20th, and how technology is being used contemporarily to permanently and irreversibly obliterate amount to arrange a, a culture, and of people. to say nothing of the original american art form, the people of a black to have given birth to. the broad form -- the people of appalachia have given birth to. a stunningly arrogant and entitled as a white man buying from a native american vast tracts of land for a nickel. in the following section, i will be quoting from henry caldwell and others. ccn you tell i just finished graduate school? in 1887, john mayo road up into the hills with silver dollar sewed into his clothes, taking his wife with him in order to make a good impression. he bought the first mineral rights using a so-called broad form, which he popularized across the mountains that came to be known as the coal fields. the methodology of the dwindling -- swindling and manipulation is documented, the call buyer would spend hours admiring the mountaineers course, all comments were dropped on every phase of his hosts accomplishments. he marveled at the ample contents of the mountaineers smokehouse, and sever the rich flavor of the good ones apple butter. after such a visit, he and the man of the house would get down to business. before long, the deed or option was signed with the uncertain signatures, sometimes just an "x"of the mountain air and his wife. i will read briefly to you from three of them i happen to have on hand. all the coal, minerals, and mineral products, oil and gas, salt water, potter's clay, iron ore, stone and such standing timber as may be held, the necessary for mining purposes, including timber necessary for railroads, branch lines, and they are up, etc. the right to enter upon said land, use of, for this purpose, divert water courses -- this is important -- in any and every manner that may be deemed neeessary or convenient for mining. hereby released from liability in perpetuity our claim of damage, free access to come upon, and over said land. all of coal, gas, oil, minerals of every description, in, on, and under my forms and tracts of land situated in an on the waters of bull creek and its tributaries. transporting all said minerals, whether contained on the set premises or elsewhere, and for any other purposes. earlier in the late 19thth and 20th century, that swepttthrough the region, buying up mineral rights for as little as 50 cents an acrr, separating the use of service and tax liability from the natural resources that might be below. other words, the hillbilly's still paid the taxes on land. initially, the deed separated mineral rights from our ship of service land, but in the 1940's, courts began innerpreting broad form needs to mean the service owner also sold with the minerals the right to extract them through whatever means the mineral rights honored shows. written in finely printed legalese, they signed over the right to dump, store, leave upon set land, any and all muck, bones, shells, water, and other refuse, to use and pollute water courses in any manner, to do anything necessary and convenient to extract minerals. these clauses eventually cost much regret on the part of the sellers progeny, when kentucky courts continually interpret them in favor of the companies. broad form eachhtransfer the land to the land companies, ll the mineral rights, the right to remove it by any means necessary, leaving the original owners with the taxes. with the advent of surface mining in the 1950's, these old deeds took on new meaning as mining companies sought access without regard to any rights of the owners. roads cut across pastures, for as, devassated fields, ruined waterways. states upheld the rights of miners as convenient and necessary. families down their hope of subsistence destroyed. they abandoned the armsttad. the relentless migrants, unemployed workers, roamed the region, or let the mountain charlie. it was not until 1987 -- or left the mountains entirely. it was not until 1987 that this interpretation of the broad forms was finally struck down. kentucky ins spoke at the ballot box and voted in favor of a homestead amendment which restricted strip mining by the mineral rights owner without the consent of the landowner. five years later, the ruling was appealed. i used the "rape"earlier. i remember discovering that spells a rape was still legal in my state. i thought, if i were married, it would be legal for my husband to rape. i felt horrible shame. kentucky's gender laws have come far since that time. the governor just signed a progressive policy requiring that men who beat women, and against whom an order of protection has been taken out, must be monitored with tps. i salute the governor and the legislator for enacting this law. kentucky's environmental laws monitoring, inauguration, and enforcement need to move apace. the surface mining and during the carter administration was an addict -- was inndequate to begin with. coal mining techniques outdistance regulation immediately,,not to mention the appalling lack of oversight, reporting, and enforcement. as shocking as strip mining was then, mountaintop removal is work speed, overdrive, streamlining on steroids. first, a permit is applied for. often, at least until recently, with lisa jackson at the epa taking over that administration, they were largely rubber-stamp. a friend in west virginia called it creeping permititis. what few restrictions there were on the permit process could easily be waived by merely applying for a permit variation. often, however, a coal company did not even bother to apply for a permit. that sounded more convenient to mine without any permits and simply leave. others were good enough to sell the report, and state often showed them leniency for having done so. access roads are made. the timber on those mountains, one of the most rich and bio diverse habitats in the entire world, which shares species with places like china, are not even parvested. the old growth trees, hardwood forests, and in some places 30 species can be found standing together, they are simply razed. explosive so volatile the must be carried on separate vehicles, small hills are drilled into the rocky is the mountains and every single day, in kentucky and west virginia, a round-the- clock, seven ays a week, 2,500 tons of explosives are detonated. blast 1000 times greater than the blast that brought down the oklahoma city federal building. we used to be home for humans, flora and fauna, and the potential economic boon for a classically exploited and distressed area has become in the coal companies callous terminology, overburdened. the smoky mountains, as the crow flies, not so far away, generate a billion dollars in tourism revenueelast year for the state of kentucky. using shovels the size of buildings, the essential ingredients of deep time is pushed into the mystical hollers of appellation, indiscriminately bearing all that exists and is produced there. contaminating groundwater in the process. for example, children ii eastern kentucky did not know that creeks aae supposed to run clear. ussng a dragline 20 stories high, the thing rips out ribbons of cold light layers of chocolate cake, they are scooped out. in some cases, once the coal company is finished, the site is simply abandoned. the coal company often sets up a shell company or to to operate a job and then defaults on the bond. in other cases, the company decides to make the site a model example of their responsibility. they returned "to a proximate condors." -- "to a proximate condorcontou" they plant non native grasses and then celebrate the site as an example of how good for appellation up mountain top removal coal mining is. why they even build a presencprn one former site. the foundations of cited, and the locals call atir "sink sini" in less than one year, international coal groups and others to join in this list of shame bring down in affable mounds of profound past that should have a future, and americans take even less than one year to burn up the coal for which it was all done forever. shame on us. this practice is the stain on the conscience of america. there areemany missed promulgated by the coal companies, and those that keep dependent on them through the mano economy they have created in the mountains and maintained since the first broad form deep. the charleston, west virginia paper this week captured one such enduring myths dwelt in an op-ed, talking about a hearing in which a permit application for what would become the largest mountain top removal site in west virginia was being discussed. a man went all the way to charleston from pike county, kentucky, to plead, please approve his permit. it is all we know. the charleston paper said, what an indictment. what a credit-rating condemnation of all the leaders in this young man's life, up to legislators, governors, and presidents. and anyone else who meets and greets and congratulated themselves for being for jobs. no matter what you think, the epa regional maater what you think the epa should do regarding the mine in logan county, projections for coal employment for the future or the same. coal will never employ 100,000 west virginians like it once did. i hope to have the chance to address with you some of these other ridiculous yet persistent myths during the question and answer portion of our time. there are many individuals on the ground to live with the daily consequences and the nuisance problems, as they are called, caused by mountaintop removal coal miningg two daughters of coal miners have been granted the goldman environmental prize for their grass-roots organizing and heroic efforts. there is another wonderful woman whose name i cannot think of right now who decided to get a college degree at a local community college when she was reached by a local grass-roots group that was teachinggher how to go to her state legislators and lobby for her and her community's own best interest. her daughter graduated from high school the same time she graduated with her degree from the community college. upon receiving her transcript, she thought she -- her daughter explain she had made a 4.0. it is important for us to stick together, because we can feel totally and absolutely crazy. their denial, sleight of hand, smoke and mirrors, and relentless propaganda is absolutely stunning. but i know what is happening. i know how at regis is. it a try to make us feel like lunatics -- i know how outrageous is. they make us feel like french conspiracy theorist. no one would really let that happen. 4 million pounds of explosives, everyday. i wrote a paper about mountain top removal at the harvard school of public health. it was hard. it allowed no advocacy. i did not know how not to include adjectives. she said it would be good exercise for me, and indeed, it was. i got my three minutes of advocacy when i presented my paper to my co-worker, who naturally work highly intelligent and engaged 3. not a single one of them had ever them hadmtr. when i finished my paper and was leading the class, they followed me out onto the street and said, who are the migrant laborers who are being recruited to work in these sites? at the harvard kennedy school, i thought for sure this issue would be that creed of my class. the only other person who join with me in the fight to stop it is in this room, john genser work. together we applied for the forum, hoping to bring mr. blankenship, lisa jackson from the epa, bobby kennedy, jr.. they turned us down. my own class presented to one another every thursday our personal working interest. i could not get mtr on the docket. the opportunity to be here today is very powerful and very special. thank you so much for your time, and i look forward to your questions. i would like for those of you who are already working with me on this issue to feel free to raise your hand and contribute. we all have done a lot of work. we have lawyers, environmentalists, we have regulatory people. we have folks are very interested in creating clean energy jobs in the mountains. there have been some updates just today about solar and wind farms being built in west virginia and kentucky. we got an e-mail that jim was going to be here. the actionable thing that i want everyone to consider doing upon leaving here is to write these the jackson at the epa and say, veto the permit for arch spruce my numbeonemine no. 1. thank you. [applause] american municipal power announced an agreement create 300 mw's solar power. duke orgy said toddy it is examining its use of mountaintop removal ined coal -- duke enrgey. >> i am looking at the clock run your laptop. we certainly appreciate your words today and your willingness to speak with us. the first question from the audience, what is the worst consequence of mountaintop removal mining that you have witnessed? >> one-family comes to mind. equally as important as the mountains are the people of appalachia. they were kind enough to show me what was happening on island creek in pike county. their little home is this ever diminishing oasis of green that is absolutely surrounded by a catastrophic moonscapes rubble. this is an illegal side, and everywhere they termturn, things have been blasted. they have health consequences. they are no longer able to use their tap water. they boil water and let cool before braving the baby. they put juice in a cup before bathing the baby to prevent her from accidentally ingesting contaminated water. the loss of jobs is extraordinary. when i was researching the paper i told you about, i thought when i went on the call website, somehow that would omit those facts. even their own web site document and calculate the jobs lost in kentucky and west virginia to mountaintop removal, beccuse of its high mechanization. the question was, what was the worst? it is a little difficult to compare suffering, but those are of the worst. >> you paint a very black-and- white picture of the impact on the communities and of the minn itself. the united states is a representative democracy. these folks have congressman and senators they can write. why are people from appalachian states not converging on capitol hill? why are there lawmakers not representing them? >> with all due respect, it is because they have people like hal rogers in congress. and i do say that with all respect, congressman rodgers. i have met him, and he is a lovely man. his policy and stands about coal mining is radically destruutive to the people of appalachia. until recently, he was the single most tenured member of the house. i believe he still is, and equally, his county was documented as the single most unhappy and poorest place to live in the entire united states of america. his county is also the highest coal producing county. now there is good news, because we also have members in congress such as been chandler, who opposes mount tom removal coal mining. there are some folks coming forward on the right side of the issue and understand we need to develop clean sources of energy and get off and renewables such as coal, and we need more of them. >> could you elaborate on some of the efforts you have seen at the state house are federal level, attentively to stop this practice could mark >? >> folks are empowered with the facts. they have the opportunity to go through committee coaching -- communication coaching and community building, and then they plan trips and go spend time at their state legislatures, making appointments, sitting in offices, and generally doing the deal. they make a difference, and every time i have the opportunity to visit with burt lauderdale, their executive director, he disappears. it is not about him and their staff. it is the people who are becoming engaged. also, there are some other organizations i should mention. [inaudible] >> mining is not a rite of yours, it is a privilege. >> that is maryann who is speaking. she points out that senator byrd is having a change of heart about coal, and he has said that west virginians need to take a serious and realistic look at the fact that coal is no longer the future of the state. >> within the use and production of mining of coal, energy use is a broader issue. coal is being used because people want energy, and there are alternatives to that, as you well know. there are drawbacks to those alternatives, however. wind turbines in mountain areas, one possible other form of energy, kill birds and bats. nnclear power create radioactive deactivated and poses storage problems. solar power is not economically viable. what is viable, if coal mining is not encouraged in this way for meeting our need for energy, and what is the timeframe in which they could happen? >> i cannot tell you how much i lovv this question, because it is difficult. the fact is, we have to be willing to look at uncertainties, ambiguities. however, i believe in american creativity, ingenuity, and i also believe in the power of markets. mark moody stewart himself said to me last night, the former chairman of shell, former chairman of the anglo-saxon mineral coal co., whatever -- he was talking about the early 1950's, when the british parliament and the burning of coal in open fireplaces. of life would collapse, yet within three years, no one burn coal in open fireplaces. it was a regulatory decision by a responsible governing body that set the standard. also with regard to this question, and i do want to pitch some of the questions to john, because it is his area of expertise. the definition of leadership -- taking responsibility to enable others to cheap purpose in the face of uncertainty. what is certain is that blowing up mountains is not appropriate. that must stop. some of the other technologies, i frankly think or little less uncertain then this questioner put forward. has anyone read ban jones'-- van jones' amazing book? >> i think right now, with regard to the development of renewable energy technologies, that the questioner asked, nuclear, wind, solar, things we have not even dreamed up yet. this is our specialty as a nation. the call of future americans really cannot be denied. we have been ripping down are mounds and burning coal for 150 years. we have been trying to harness the wind for a couple of decades. the sun, about the same time. these are nascent, baby technologies that deserve our support, just as cold deserve our suuport 150 years ago. nuclear deserve our support after world war ii. but these technologies will be driven by american entrepreneurs. they will be driven by markets demanding ever more energy. 9 billion people we expect to live on this planet and a couple of decades. we do not have enough coal to provide power for these people, so we have to come up with ways to harness energy from the sun and from the wind. this is not whether or not there cost competitive today. its tower going to make and cost competitive tomorrow, and how are we as americans going to create an economy based around that, so we can continue to share the weight of american life with the rest of the world? this is our challenge today. it is the fundamental challenge we face as a nation. >> there's a wonderful fact sheet available at sierra.org. coal is not cheap. that is one of those ridiculous, persistent myths that we need to debug. >> oxymoron. one word. carbon sequestration, that technology already exists. it is called a tree. [applause] >> giving -- given your reverse internal interest, has your interest in mountaintop removal giving yoo a greater appreciition of mountain ecosystems in general? do you see other threats to mount an appellation or worldwide? >> the number one threat to the smokeys is pollution. that actually have air pollution warnings throughout the peak tourist season in the smoky mountains. that is heartbreaking. so yes, by learning about montauk removal coal mining -- about mountaintop removal call money, i have learned a lot broadly. i also really suggest you read "lost mountain," an explicit diversity of appalachian%- mountains. >> also in the spirit of the language in the technology of the national press club, i have a question submitted by a black berry. have you ever met don blankenship, and what is your interactton with folks who would be considered on the other side of this issue? >> on the other side of the issue. i don't have any difficulty whatsoever envisioning coming together in a spirit of dignity, talking with people. i was going to make a joke about not wanting to meet him because he might push me. i would love to meet mr. he was the first person on my list of invitees on the kennedy school forum that never happened, but i would absolutely love to. i would also love to me president barack obama. i would love for him to do a flyover of mountain top removal sites, the way he has recently of the gulf. one of the things i want to make sure i leave time to read very briefly before we close is a remarkable essay by an exceptional writer who is nnw the director a appellation studies appellations studies. his blog is entitled "a country boy can surmise." he said with a profounn respect and empathy for the people of the gulf, look at what has been happening in appalachia for the last 30 years. >> how long did it take you to read that as a? >> not long at all. -- how long did it take you to read that essay? >> not long at all. he summarizes that the president recently toward the gulf to see firsthand. i cannot imagine the president doing a flyover are holding a press coverage about it. i have neverrseen a mountain blown up on national television, not even once, much less not every single morning on the today show. i venture to say npr is more devastating -- mtr is as devastating as the oil spill. i don't mean to compare suffering. what i am saying is actually the opposite of comparison. everyone is outraged about the spill, while few people even know about mtr. both are in purnell, cultural, and economic health disasters. they are devastating an entire way of life and disrupting generations of knowledge. every time someone says that more than 100 miles of shoreline have been affected by the oil spill, i want to shout at 1,500 miles of waterways have been lost forever in apalachicola. i also think about the pollution pumping into our creeks and rivers. every single body of water ii the commonwealth of kentucky is under advisement of contamination. i think all the people in appalachia but cannot find a good paying job besides the minorers -- i think of how but spill could affect the region is so badly that the region's fishing industry could be wiped out, and i have said this -- we are witnessing the death of the gulf, and that is a heartbreaking prospects. it seems true, unfortunately. we have been witnessing that for 44 days. the president said every day this week continues an assault on the people. it be traced back to win now and talk removal started, it would be 2950 days, a lot more than 54. the big difference between the gulf and appellation, the gulf is not caught up in a mano economy. we actually have fisherman on the news who constantly complain about oil companies. miners lose their jobs if they complain, and we have been taught that to oppose coal mining is actually unpatriotic. the lack of outrage over mtt may boil down to images and quick definitions. it is more complicated mtr. the spill was preventable. mtr is intentional, and sanctions. >> we have a couple of questions about your role on this issue and questions about your life as well prefers a wall, with the many causes your support, had assured celebrity support the causes your supporting? >> again she would have to ask the organizations that do not+ ask me to work with them what the risks are? i just take that question. i am being coy, but i do not know how to begin to answer that question. i am an activist and an advocate pnd an artist, and i have portfolios of experience. i don't have to decide or i am not limited to just one. they each give my life meaning, direction, and purpose, and i ain't changing anytime soon. >> you also recently got a degree from harvard. can you tell us why you felt like he needed that accomplishment in your life? >> i have such poor self-esteem, i thought going to harvard would make a good about myself. i always wondered to go to graduate school. it was for the mentor ship but some powerful women who make but it will contributions in my life that ultimately made that decision. i thought that new energy and clean, renewable energy and a green color economy would be the creed of my class, and i was sorely disappointed about that. >> we have eight more minutes in the program. looking at your own vision and for what apalachicola look like 50 years from now if mountain top removal is banned, is it realistic without mining jobs to see it as a growth area? if not, where is the growth come from? >> of course, something does need to be done with the 800 mountain tops that have already been leveled, and is not strip malls, which is what the coal companies have suggested hillbillies' do with this now flat land that they allege we so desperately need. i believe that the federal dollars and the state dollars that are being set aside to invest in clean energy jobs absolutely should go first to apalachicola. our environment is ravaged and contaminated by the practices, the mitigation something which defenders of wildlife need to begin immediately. industries are kept out by coal companies' collusion and berries and other practices to keep employable people exclusively dependent on coal related jobs, and of course, the next bigg industry is health care, because as michael hendricks in his research and writing partner are doing the science to show a causal links between coal companies, coal mining, and poor health outcomes. there is a variety of investments needed, both in cleanup and mitigation, in job- creating, in education, in skill building, and then bringing in new industries. >> what are your thoughts regarding the recent bp oil spill. >> just devastating. just absolutely devastating. i like what my doctor said about it best. he said if you have a six story building in your town, you do not have a two-story fire department. i just thought that captured it beautifully. i had the coincidental good fortuneeof actually flying with the executive director of noaa from new orleans to washington, d.c last week and her executive step. i am grateful for the opportunity to do of field visit with hurt. she said the planes go out every day, and there are usually one or two in the seats. while i am doing a picture in baton rouge, i hope to rally the captain and crew and to make a difference in some way to the people of the gulf. >> on mountaintop removal, what will it take for their to be a tipping point in this debate where you feel like you have sufficient profile and the momentum is on your side where change is tangible? >> press, press, press. this issue needs press. in 2000, the martin county oil sludge spill was bigger than the exxon valdez spill. how much bigger was it? it was enormously bigger. bigger. have you ever heard of the martin county sludge spill? point taken. i don't want to be quoted on the numbers if i don't have them exactly right. there of billions and billions and billions of gallons in a sludge pond, held back by an earthen dam 600 feet above an elementary school in martin county, kentucky, right now. the tipping point is you putting this on the front page of your newspapers at the top of your news program, on your online links, in your blogs, and n your hearts. >> we are almost out of time. we have a couple of important matters to take up before it -- take care of before the last question. and june 15, the editor in chief and chairman of the committee to protect journalists will be discussing collaborating and competing in journalisms new era. on june 18, we will have the administrator of usaid who will speak about the u.s. response to disasters in haiti and elsewhere and the outlook for international development. on july 17, the national press club will host the national press club beat the deadline 5k benefiting our professional development and scholarship programs. with that, we would like to present our guest with first, the traditional national press club mug. >> i think my dad got the last one, and he might get this one, too. i think very highly for your time today. i would just close with a brief excerpt from a letter that my great aunt wrote to my other great aunt in 1975. talked to daddy day before yesterday. they are millard and coal company tried to get road coming over our place, get it through the country, but thank god, so far it has not worked. made me awfully nervous and have had headaches so much. i understand they got road over another place down the road, across the creek and over from the spencer place. however, that would have to come across our place and strip mine. dispensers will let them. how i wish they would outlinoutw strip mining. people do not want to comthe coy torn up by strip mining. thank you. [applause] >> and thank you for coming today. we would also like to thank the national press club staff for organizing today's event. joining the press club and how to acquire a copy of today's program, please go to our website, www.press.org. ashley, which like to adjourn this meeting? >> i would be delighted. thank you. thank you. we are adjourned. [laughter] >> thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions coppright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> tomorrow morning, norman solomon on president obama as relationship with the progressive and liberal wings of the democratic party. recent u.s. sanctions against iran mean for that country's nuclear program and its future relations with the rest of the world. after that, bradley belt, a former executive director of the pension benefit guaranty corp., will discuss the federal government's ability to offer federal protection for private sector pension plans. calls. "washington journal, all live sunday aunt's c-span -- on c- span. >> tomorrow, congressman spencer bachus, the financial services committee ranking member talks about the financial regulations bill and how it may alter the and into committee. the conference committee's opening day was on thursday and they plan to continue next tuesday. he is interviewed by dennis brady oo "the washington post." that is sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> should the federal communications commission regulate the internet? two views on "the communicators, " monday, on c-span2. >> the president's weekly dress is followed by john maynarboehn. >> more than a decade ago, congress set a formula that governs how doctors get paid the other medicare program. the intent was to slow the growth of medicare costs, but the result was a formula that has proposed cutting payments for america's doctors, year aftee year after year. these are cuts that would not only jeopardize our physscians pay, but our seniors' health care. since 2003, congress has acted to prevent these pay cuts from these votes were largely bipartisan, and they succeeded and democrats ran congress and when republicans ran congress, which was most of the time. this yearr a majority f congress is willing to prevent a pay cut of 21%, a pay cut that would undoubtedly for some doctors to stop seeing medicare patients altogether. this time, some senate republicans may even block a vote on this issue. after years of voting to defer these cuts, the other party is now willing to walk away from the needs of our doctors and our seniors. i realize that imply kicking these cuts down the road another gear is not a long-term solution for years, i have said that a system where doctors are left to wonder if they will get fairly reimbursed makes absolutely no sense. i am committed to parmele reforming this medicare formula in a way that balance is fiscal responsibility with the responsibility we have to doctors and seniors. in addition, we are already taking significant steps to slow the growth of medicare cost for health insurance reform, not by charging doctors and seniors, but by eliminating the to% of the waste, fraud, and abuse in the system by 2012. this not only strengthens medicare, it saves taxpayer dollars. i am willing to take the difficult steps necessary to lower cost of medicare and put our budget on a more sustainable path. i am not willing to do that by punishing hard-working physicians or the millions of americans account medicare. that is just wrong. that is why in the short term, congress must act to prevent this pay cut to doctors. if they don't acc, doctors will see a 21% cut in their medicare payments this week. this week, doctors will start receiviig these lower reimbursements from the medicare program. that could lead them to stop participating in the medicare program, and that could lead seniors to lose their doctors. we cannot allow this to happen. we have to fix this problem so that our doctors can get paid for the lifesaving services they provide and keep their doors open. we have to fix this problem to keep the promise of medicare for our senior so that they get the health care they deserve. i urge republicans in the senate to at least allowing majority of senators and congressmen to stop this pay cut. i urge them to stand with america's seniors and america's doctors. thanks. >> hello, i am john boehner. in these tough economic times, american families have done their level best to stay afloat, spending less and working more, of trying to map out a financially sound future. they deserve the same degree of discipline and vigilance from their government. instead of bringing a fiscal standard to promise -- to congress like the promise, president obama has spent taxpayer dollars with reckless abandon comer fizzing to make tough choices and pushing the burden on to future generations. -- with reckless abandon, forcing them to make tough choices. unemployment is still close to 10%. the private sector is at a near+ standstill. small businesses are still gasping for air. i can tell you that the new health care law, with its burdensome mandate and tax increases, is already stalling the engines of our economy. a new report from the treasury department shows that our fiscal situation is much worse than we thought. our record national debt, which tops 15 trillion dollars, is on pace to exceed the size of our entire economy. our debt is drained of resources from our country to cost us nearly 1 million jobs. we cannot go on like this. real economic growth requires creating jobs in the private sector. to do that, we need to start reining in washington's out of control spending spree. the spending, more jobs. it's that simple. economists agree, and this week i gave president obama a statement signed by more than 100 of them, urging both parties to take immediate, deccsive action to cut federal spending. unfortunately, democrats in

Related Keywords

Haiti ,Pike County ,Kentucky ,United States ,Japan ,Acton ,Tennessee ,Texas ,Iran ,Hiroshima ,China ,Poitiers ,Poitou Charentes ,France ,Virginia ,Logan County ,West Virginia ,Lawrence County ,Capitol Hill ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,United Kingdom ,Boyd County ,Martin County ,Geneva ,Genè ,Switzerland ,Mount Tom ,Paris ,Rhôalpes ,Kennedy School ,Americans ,America ,Englishman ,West Virginians ,Scotland ,French ,Englishmen ,British ,Frenchmen ,Japanese ,American ,King Philip Virgin ,Lisa Jackson ,Dennis Brady ,Moody Stewart ,King Philip ,William Shakespeare ,Potter Clay ,Cole Porter ,Burt Lauderdale ,Henry Caldwell ,King Pepin ,Samuel Alito ,Ruth Bader Ginsburg ,John Boehner ,Ashley Judd ,Spencer Bachus ,Henry Rowen ,King Henry ,Michael Hendricks ,Mary Catherine ,Ted Olson ,Hal Rogers ,King Louis ,Oprah Winfrey ,John Genser ,Barack Obama ,Don Blankenship ,Garre Henry ,Bobby Kennedy Jr ,King Richard ,Elena Kagan ,Jack Abramoff ,