Rebut. If you do not have to take the full three minutes, but if you want, you can. Mr. Bonifaz . I do want to clarify something at the outset. We at free speech for people are interested in lifting up voices, not suppressing voices. Our view of the Current Campaign finance system is that it suppresses voices because when you allow the very wealthy, and now very well endowed corporations and unions to drown out other peoples voices, you are effectively suppressing those voices. Jim agrees that money does not equal speech. I think that is fabulous that we have reached agreement on that. I wanted to make clear, however, that when we limit the amount of money in our elections, we are not limiting speech. We are limiting the volume of speech, the d. C. Circuit court of appeals in the buckley case understood that. Scholars of the First Amendment all over the country have understood that. Justice stephens understands that when he says money is property, it is not speech. We limit the volume of speech. This very debate today as time restrictions for jim and for me. I cant stand up here and filibuster because it would not be an open and honest debate. We have time restrictions. We do this all the time under First Amendment jurisprudence. Reasonable time placed in a manner of regulation on speech and Campaign Spending limits operate as a reasonable regulation on the manner of speech. Those who speak very, very loudly without any limit, unlimited, are able to drown out the voices of others who do not have the money to make expenditures at those decibels. Another point of clarification jim says that i think everybody involved in politics are crooks. I happen to run for office. I dont think i am a crook. I dont think everyone in politics are crooks. That is that we are saying at free speech for people. We do believe that a system in which candidates running for office must cater to wealthy interests and big money interests and corporate interestanin order to be successful, that that process is corrupting of the fundamental principle of equality for all. There are a lot of wellmeaning and the decent people in politics and many of them are on the side of saying, we need a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court rulings and reclaim our democracy. Thank you. The last point of clarification is the idea that somehow this is about a liberal agenda. That i somehow want Campaign Spending to promote a liberal agenda. I have to be very, very clear. I am a small d democrat. I am a small r republican. This is not an issue solely for the one side of the little political spectrum. 55 of voters in montana voted for mitt romney in 2012 and 75 voted for our Ballot Initiative with common cause calling for a constitutional amendment for overturning the ruling. Across the political spectrum and across the country, people believe that the system undermines the fundamental promise of democracy, regardless of their ideology. This is about a small d democracy agenda. Thank you. [applause] thank you. Mr. Bopp, the same round rules. Three minutes if you need it. No selfrespecting lawyer would ever Say Something in a sentence that could be set in a paragraph. [laughter] im really glad i have debated john a number of times and i am glad he finally heard me say, which i said for decades, that money is not speech. But that spending money on speech, if you limit that, you are limiting speech. He says he says he wants to lift up, but not suppress lifting up would be public funding. Giving money to people who do not have money so they can speak. Lifting up would be tax credits, which by the way, i am in favor of, for people making modest contributions to candidates, pacs, and parties. That is lifting up. That is enhancing the ability of someone to speak. That is not what he is talking about. What he is talking about is shutting up other people that he thinks he thinks he can get the government to think spends too much. It is not just anybody who spends too much. He has not said a single word about the unions. They will spend 400 million in this election cycle to support their agenda and his agenda. He is talking about suppressing voices that he does not want to hear. He thinks that he can get the government to shut up. The court has repeatedly rejected this idea, that you enhance the voice of somebody by suppressing the voice of another. No, you dont. It is not a question that there is not enough ad time where people can go buy additional ads. It is not like they are not available. They are available. We need to enhance the ability of people to participate and the labor unions want to praise the provisions that would drive them out of the political system and that is the only way that people of average means get to participate. We are not talking about how high the volume is on an ad. We are talking about how many you can buy. He wants to limit or prohibit people from buying ads, particularly that people he does not like. To cater to the wishes of the wealthy, the corporate, whatever things he has been saying, bigmoney interests, isnt that an interesting word . Cater to what does that mean . What is he driving at . Does he think it is wrong that a politician has friends . Does he think it is wrong that they give 100 in a Campaign Contribution . He supported such low limits. You know, we have contribution limits in order to prevent the undue influence of a particular contribution. The court upheld that in order to exclude large contributions that would tend to unduly influence. Excuse me. You have less than a minute. Wrap it up, ok . Theyre talking about undue influence. Not friendship, gratitude, or appreciation. They are talking about quid pro quo corruption. The final thing, the fact that he has absolutely no interest in reimposing the limits that both corporations and labor unions shared before Citizens United. Has no interest in imposing that on unions. It demonstrates conclusively that this is a partisan effort. Unions are the biggest spenders as a group in our political system. They are seconded by trial lawyers and they are rich individuals. He does not want to limit them, either. The two biggest groups he has no interest, as far as spenders and limiting, and though it and they are the two biggest groups supporting the democrats and unions. This is without a doubt a partisan political effort to shut up voices that he personally does not like and this is exactly what our founders wanted to prevent. [applause] thank you. We will give you i know it is not much time, but a minute at the end. We run a tight ship so we have to stay on schedule. We have questions from the audience. I have not seen these. I dont know if theyre directed. Some look like general question. If you dont mind answering from there. I am looking at these for the first time. One question is, did Citizens United allow unlimited donations to candidates . By corporations . If not, what is the problem . I have to make clear that i have not said that we want to support the idea of unlimited union money in elections. We have made it clear and the constitutional amendment we support would equally apply to corporations and unions. We believe the old decision of Citizens United, which allows unlimited corporate and union money in her elections, is wrong. Jim has got that completely inaccurate in terms of how he views what the amendment would say. As far as unlimited donations, directly to candidates, it is correct that there are still direct limits on what you can give to candidates. The problem here is that we have unlimited expenditures. We have the ability of unions, corporations, wealthy individuals to make unlimited expenditures as a result of the super pacs as well, postcitizen united. It goes back to the earlier case i cited and it is why we must engage in overturning these rulings because unlimited expenditures undermine any purpose of having direct contribution limits. The unlimited expenditures allow these bigmoney forces and corporate forces and union forces to dominate our election and our politics. Just one other point on this, which is public funding elections i fully support publicfunding elections. I have been in court defending them. This is not about one reform versus another. Today, in a post Citizens United era, public funding of elections will be very much vulnerable to this idea that wealthy individuals and bigmoney interests and Corporate Union forces can make unlimited expenditures making such a system ineffective. I think we need all of these reforms. A couple of points. John and i have known each other for years and we have debated several times. I know what he supports and he knows what i support. His criticism of Citizens United, as you heard, was all about corporations. When i challenge him, he wants to throw in unions too and i was not talking about his amendment. I do agree that his amendment would encompass unions but it would also encompass the press. This is one of the big secrets out there, that the reformers dont want cspan and others to figure out. That is these amendments will mean the New York Times versus sullivan is overruled. That was a decision New York Times versus sullivan overruled. That was a decision where people running for office it protects citizens and their ability to criticize people running for office by imposing a higher standard for libel actions against citizens politicians. One of the things they had, the courts had to decide because this involved the states, was that the 14th amendment does confer rights on people and the question was, was the New York Times a person . The court has long decided under the 14th amendment that corporations and many other entities and people encompass within those protections. What he does not say is that it would also overturn the New York Times versus sullivan. It would treat the media, which is owned by corporate conglomerates, it would allow them to suppress the speech of the press. If you look before 1974, the court cases, what you will find is all the big freespeech court cases involve the press. Miami herald sued because it was a florida law that if they criticize a candidate, they had to give equal time and space for a candidates rebuttal in the newspaper. The Supreme Court struck that down. The montgomery, alabama paper had to sue because in alabama law said they could not endorse candidates on election day. The press has been a target of reformers who want to control everybodys speech and decide who is worthy of speaking and not speaking and what voices are to be suppressed because he does not like the message and the press has been one of those targets. It is targeted once again in his amendment. We are not going to be able to get to all these questions. I have a few others. This is for you mr. Bopp. Mr. Bonifaz, you can weigh in as well. Mr. Bopp, do you think there is a ceiling on the money a corporation can contribute to a campaign . As a corollary, do you think that money that is contributed has no influence on a legislature once they have been elected . First, limits. Right now, corporations and labor unions can be prohibited from contributing to candidates. Citizens united involve independent speech, not contributions. They are also subject to a lower standard under the law as far as allowing contribution limits to be had. I do think they are abysmally low. I am involved in the Republican Party and i say to republican groups, and i will chance it here, you cant even buy a democrat congressman for 2600. The anecdotal evidence is that it takes six figures. Congressman William Jefferson of new orleans, he had 99,000 in cold, hard cash in his freezer. He went to jail. To be bipartisan, duke cunningham, a republican from san diego, he came in for an earmarked weapon system. He would literally pull out a schedule and the lowest schedule based on the value of your your earmark was 140,000 and a yacht. I dont know where he got the yacht thing, but in any event. To buy these people, it takes much more than 2600 and the effect on our system has been a tremendous distortion, driving money away from the most transparent sources. I think it is great that we have super pacs. I won the first case in the court of appeals saying that super pacs were legal. I am not in favor of driving money to them. By having these low contribution limits, that is what we see. You cannot vote against a super pac. You can only vote against a candidate or the Political Parties candidates. They are accountable. Super pacs are, and of course, what john proposes and supports would continue to create that distortion. The other question on influence yes. I can see, and this is why i go back and forth on whether i really support contribution limits. I can see that there are some politicians that, if you give enough money to them, you will be able to unduly influence them, meaning that you will be able to get them to change their vote from what they would have otherwise voted to something else. Frankly, it takes a lot more money than 2600. If it is a seriously large contribution, i can see some undue influence and i think we have to make a decision on balance, whether we want to be able to know what interests are influencing our politicians because they actually give them the money and we can vote for or against them when an interest gives money to a super pac, how does anybody know that has anything to do with candidate x or y . How did they know it has anything to do with what the super pac does . Leave it to the voters frankly, i go back and forth on that. I will jump in. I think the other dimension of the question needs to be at the promise of the political equality for all. 2600 is not something that the vast majority of the American People have available to contribute to political candidates. The kind of money coming in the system is coming in from. 00001 of the population. Those are the people who are participating in this Campaign Financing process. Jim talks about ordinary voices wanting to participate, but the vast majority of the money coming in is coming from the very top percent of our society. That is undermining the principle of oneperson person, one vote, and the promise of equality for all. I would urge jim to review. There is a section in the amendment Section Three of the amendment says nothing in this amendment would abridge freedom of the press. The questions around freedom of the press are different questions. Editors, journalists, producers, they all have freedom of the press rights as individuals and they are protected under this amendment. Thank you. I guess moderators privilege, i will go off the board. This is more of an issue that occurs in local elections, but the notion of the wealthy candidate who finances his own campaign or does not need contributions for anybody, whether it is mayor bloomberg or recently in the city of miami beach, we had a wealthy person elected to office. Do either of you have thoughts about the wealthy individual who does not take Campaign Contributions . Is that a good or bad thing . I think it is destructive as well for the same equality turns. In buckley, the court faced the questions coming out of congress of Campaign Spending limits that would apply across the board. Independent expenditures, candidate expenditures, including whether they raised it from their wealthy friend or whether they raised it from their own bank account. It is not what democracy is about only allow only those who are very wealthy to play this game, enter into politics, or have access to wealthy friends. I understand that the very local levels of government, it may be different in terms of the kind of money it takes to run for office. The ultimate trajectory that we are on here with this Campaign Fundraising process is even in the local elections, we are going to see Citizens United have a destructive impact. If you dare, at a local level, to go out against a big corporate interest where the union interest, and i did mention union in my opening remarks, perhaps jim needs to read them outside of this event, but if you could if you dare to go against those interests, they now have the ability to come in and make unlimited, independent expenditures targeting you and make that race antidemocratic and i think that is troubling as well. Mr. Bopp, any thoughts . Sure. I do. It is true that johns approach to this is all about equality and nothing about freedom. Of course, he thinks he can shoehorn that in under the first used to think. Good point. Used to think he could shoehorn that under the First Amendment and now he realizes he has to change the constitution in order to get that concept in there. He has his own peculiar view of equality. He is not in favor of equality under the law. What he is in favor of his equality of results. Not that everybody gets the opportunity to spend, but that everybody can spend what any other person can spend. Think about that consequentially. If equality is the driving consideration, that means since there are a significant number of people that cant contribute anything to candidates, then really, equality means that no one can contribute to any candidate. That would only be the context of true ecology. It frankly points to where i think john wants to go. That is governmentrun elections, not free elections run by the people and the government would decide how much you get and how much you spend and what you can spend it on and there we would be. He wants to target labor unions and that demonstrates his view that it is not about rich people. It is about people of average means, pooling their resources. That is what labor unions of all organizations, that is what labor unions do. They are members pooling their resources and participating. He thinks a bunch of people that are very modest and means, because they pool, they had the audacity to pool their resources and purchase rate in our system, participate in our system, are an evil force and need to be suppressed. I think it is fine if the rich participate. I just dont want them to be the only ones that get to participate in that is why we need participation of labor unions and associations and corporations and advocacy groups in our system. On the political effectiveness, which he seems to be somewhat interested in, anyway, what i have found is that there is more liberal democrat rich people than there are conservatives. While some liberal interests seem to think that they stand in the way of getting their liberal agenda, they find out differently when they go to hollywood and raise the enormous sums that they do from the richest people in our country. There are rich people on both sides. This is not about partisan politics or punishing those people you dont like or suppressing those you are fearful of, that speak out in opposition to your favor policy, but the ability of all of us to have outlets of participation in our political system that are now proposed by partisan efforts or Government Agencies to proceed. I dont know if you want a minute to sum up. Mr. Bopp, that sounded like a summation. I can always Say Something else. [laughter] im sure you can. As is most lawyers prerogative, they like to talk. As i make a summation, for many unions to support this constitution because they recognize they cannot compete with exxon and mobil and chevron in this process and they need to have a level playing field. As far as where we are going with this overall movement, dr. Martin luther king jr. Said the ark of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. We looked at what happened in the poll tax case going before the Supreme Court. We have to remember that was a 1966 case. Before that, there was a case brought in 1937, a group of poor voters challenge the poll tax, a fee charged to voters in order to vote. They got to the Supreme Court and lost. The Supreme Court said it was necessary to charge these fees in order to ferret out the frivolous voters. Surely, if you are a serious voter, you could come up with that dollar or 1. 50 in order to vote. In 1951, a second group of poor voters challenged the poll tax. They too got to the Supreme Court and they too lost on the same grounds. And then on the way to harper v. Virginia board of election, the 24th amendment went and barring poll taxes in election. There remainded four states in which poll taxes remained and virginia was one of them. In 1966, the Supreme Court finally got it right and the court said it qualified as equal protection under the equal protection clause does change and evolve. Dr. King is correct. The right side of history is one that says democracy will prevail, not big money interests, big union interest, big corporate interests drowning out our speech and undermining the fundamental promise of political equality for all. We were designing the time limits here, i was thinking, how can i give a lawyer one minute for anything . [laughter] we are trying. Mr. Bopp, your closing thoughts . The example that john gave demonstrates the fallacy in his argument. The government set the poll tax and the government then imposed the burden on people participating. The government does not determine the price of ads. The government did not decide that ads are going to cost something. It is the marketplace. Its the private it is a reality, one, and there are people doing that. Youre going to get the lumberjack to work for free to cut down a tree in order to make the newsprint so you can do this for free . So, it is not about the government imposing a barrier. It is about the government providing for freedom and preventing the government from imposing a barrier which is the suppression of speech by criminal penalties that john has supported and continues to support. As to exxon mobil and chevron, to my knowledge, they have not done anything after Citizens United. Very few private companies, forprofit companies, labor did but not private companies, because of the market forces. They do not want to get in a controversy. They do not want to lose customers. What we have seen is advocacy groups of all stripes participating in having new avenues of participation since Citizens United. The final thing is, we have reached the Tipping Point as far as contribution limits are concerned. We have had 13 states including four to that florida raise limits. Finally the forces of reality are sinking in on incumbent politicians that by limiting contributions to them, they are not preventing a challenger from getting the resources. Theyre actually hurting themselves visavis these independent things, and super pacs, advocacy groups. That is a good thing. If we had that, we would have a more transparent and accountable system. This is an illuminating debate. [applause] 10 a journalist this is 30 minutes. Good morning, everyone. I am ceo here at the newseum. I want to welcome you all for todays rededication of the journalists memorial. Since the newseum opened in 2000 eight, more than 4 million visitors have seen this soaring memorial behind me which pays tribute to over 2200 journalists worldwide who have died covering the news. Around the world, generalists journalists placed himself themselves in journal every journalists place themselves in danger every day. Although some may be in the wrong place at the wrong time, most are professionals taking calculated risks, and they pay with their lives for doing their jobs. The journalists memorial bears the names of milk journalists, photographers, broadcasters, and others who have died in a line of duty. Each year, this dedication renews the newseums commitment to make sure those brave journalists are remembered. This year, we have the regrettable task of adding new names to the memorial and it represents all journalists killed in 2013. We welcome all families and friends and colleagues who have traveled thousands of miles to join us here this morning for this remembrance of their loved ones. We also welcome back family and friends of journalists who are added to the memorial in previous years. I spoke this morning with vicky horton. This is her fourth time visiting with us on this occasion. She drove from wichita to honor her father, joseph. We thank all of you for helping us pay tribute to these journalists. They are truly among democracys heroes. I would now like to introduce our chief operating officer here at the newseum institute, who will introduce our guest speaker. Good morning. Kathleen carroll knows the dangers facing journalists from at least two perspectives, as executive editor and Senior Vice President of the Associated Press and as vice chair of the board of the committee to protect journalists. As the top news executive of the Worlds Largest independent newsgathering agency, she is responsible for the news content in all formats from the aps 280 two bureaus across 110 countries. We gather today to rededicate this memorial and recognize those who died in 2013, but we should note that in april, a photographer for the Associated Press was killed and a reporter was injured in afghanistan. Miss carroll has been a leader on many journalism friends, challenging government moves to limit press freedom. In focusing attention and action on Security Issues for journalists in war zones and other hostile environments. From the Associated Press, Kathleen Carroll. Good morning. Im glad to be here with you, but i suspect that most of us would prefer that we didnt need to be here. Instead, we are gathered because we must be here to salute the men and women named in this memorial and the ideals they died to uphold. Too many are dying over and over. Nearly 100 died last year, more than 1000 since 1992 according to the committee to protect journalists. The numbers are growing so fast that the newseum now offers 10 of the fallen as the representatives of the many others killed in the last year. Killed in russia and syria and egypt, mali, india, brazil. Killed for doing what so many journalists, particularly those in the comfortable confines of the united states, can too easily take for granted. Killed for being a journalist. Why then do these men and women keep going . Why keep reporting on the actions of the cartels in mexico, despite the blunt messages to stop that are left with the butchered corpses of their brave colleagues . Why keep going back to afghanistan as the troops withdraw and the worlds attention begins to drift away . Here is what one photographer said to that question because it is what i do. Within a few weeks of saying that, she was dead, shot by an afghan policeman as she shot in the sat in a car with her ap colleague and friend who was badly wounded. Why did the policemen shoot . We dont know for sure and probably never will. The irony, of course, is that they were covering the distribution of ballots for afghanistans president ial elections, by any measure, a hopeful sign of empowerment for the afghan people. That hope was why they wanted to be there to bear witness to the good after so many years of covering strife and conflict and pain and death, all among the people they had come to care about a great deal, bearing witness. Whether journalists are covering a distant land or their native soil, the root of their calling is to record the world around them and to ask westerns, to expose what others would prefer to keep hidden to ask questions, to expose what others would prefer to keep hidden. Why do we do it, and why should anyone care that we do . Because journalists are proxies for citizens. We ask the questions and seek the answers on behalf of citizens. Journalists are also the proxies for threats to those citizens. If there is a desperate handbook, the first page must say silence the journalists and the citizens will get the message dont talk back, dont fight, dont challenge, submit. But across the world, journalists are not submitting. They fight for the right to freely chronicle the actions of the powerful and the humble. Is that a lonely fight . It must be. But it need not be. We, all of us, we owe them our support and our attention and the attention of our audiences, because indifference only empowers the killers. Indifference the drumbeat of death being met with a selective societal shrugged. Youve seen it. People feel bad for a little bit and they offer a tweet or two of morning, heartfelt, but they are soon back to posting selfies. And what would you rather do here at the newseum get filmed doing a practice newscast or come warn a bunch of journalists whose names you cannot come mourn a bunch of journalists whose names you cannot pronounce and homes you may not be able to find on a map . This makes people uncomfortable. Lets look for a minute and why these journalists died. They took pictures that somebody didnt like. They shot video that somebody didnt like. They asked questions that somebody decided were out of line. They wrote things that somebody thought shouldnt be written. They expressed ideas that somebody disagreed with. Now, you take a look at that smartphone glued to your hand. How many times a day do you post something . How many photos do you share . How many snotty remarks and bad jokes and critiques . So, what if your critical comments about a local restaurant or a sports team earned you a visit from thugs who knocked you around and threatened your children . What if your unflattering photo of a lawmaker got your business license revoked . What if you were on your way to lunch one day, you took a quick video of a street protest, and suddenly guys in uniform stashed your phone and hauled you to jail . You think it couldnt happen. It happens every day, hundreds of times. When might it happen to you . There will always be people who believe that they have the right to tell others how to think and what to believe and how to behave. Too many of them try to enforce their view of the world with violence. And there will also be people who disagree and citizens who try to change things. It is the job of the journalists to report on all of that. Even when it is much harder to do than any of us in this room can imagine. Why do we do it . Longtime journalist and journalism professor Terry Anderson posed the question in a recent essay for cpj, is covering the news worth the risk . The question has some resonance for him. He explored that has exposed the topic often since he was released two decades ago he has explored the topic often since he was released two decades ago. Many times, the truth hurts, but we have to keep going and hope that what is good in people prevails over what is evil. Hope that what is good in people prevails over what is evil. These are not new issues, as this wall attests. Those who recall their u. S. Journalism history know the john peter singer was part of a legal case that laid the groundwork for truth as a defense against libel. Singer had much more in common with todays web aced business is been crusading webbased businesses than crusading journalists. He was called to account for putting ink on paper, not for writing the anonymous columns that called out the governor for being crooked, for offering sweetheart deals to cronies, packing judicial benches, using the law to intimidate anyone who opposed him or his pals. The law of the day was on the governors side. The seditious libel was writing or printing anything in opposition to the sitting government. This was 1732 and new york was a bustling colonial hub for great britain. The u. S. Constitution and the protections of its First Amendment were nearly six decades in the future. Six decades, three generations. A long way into the future. The idea that his attorneys voiced, that you cannot libel someone if what you say is true, were not forgotten. It was one of the many rights that colonists fought the American Revolution to enshrine and preserve. On this wall and among the faces you will see our men and women who have planted the same seeds of those same freedoms in their own countries. They and their colleagues carry on despite threats that you and i may never understand. They carry on in the face of torture, years in prison, threats to their families, despite grief, intimidation, and fear. These men and Women Deserve a few minutes of your time. This display of photographs is not a quilt of portraits that we gather once a year to remember with solemn speeches. Each one of these photos is a son or daughter, father, brother , mother, sister, a beloved friend, someone who chose this terrifying and wonderful profession because they believed in facts, in truths, in the cleansing power of truth. Remember them and what they stand for. Remember them every time you pick up a newspaper, turn on the newscast, watch a live video. Remember them every time you pick up your phone. Remember them, and whisper a word of gratitude, and vow that you will never forget what they have sacrificed and why. Thank you very much. [applause] the individuals we recognize today were brought together in a fellowship that none of them would have chosen. A fellowship created by their commitment, their courage, and, ultimately, by their sacrifice. They spoke different languages, they worked in different spheres of newsgathering. Some of them were known to millions on the nightly news. Some of them worked in anonymity. Some of them reported from their own communities. Some of them were on assignment far away from home. Some of them knew of impending danger, but too many of them were surprised. The Common Thread that united them all was their commitment to journalism and the fact that they left us all too soon. If a Journalists Mission is to shine light in places where there is darkness, then let the light that emanates from this journalism memorial be a testament to these journalists and to all the others whose company they join today. We will never forget them. In their memory and in support of journalists working in dangerous places and in difficult situations all over the world, we will now read the names of our colleagues who represent all the journalists who were killed in 2013. In russia, akhmednabi akhmednabiyev. His news organization, novoye delo. His killers were waiting for him when he stepped into his car outside his home in the volatile republic. The newspaper editor, akhmednabi akhmednabiyev. He had just shot that started the engine when he was shot in the head in an ambush. He died in the same spot where he had survived a previous assassination attempt six months earlier. Despite being targeted on a death list and receiving threatening phone calls and text messages, akhmednabi, 53, reported relentlessly on government corruption and human rights violations. At his funeral, mourners held signs saying, who will be next . It is one of the most dangerous places for journalists in russia, where deadly attacks have become a common way to silence reporters. In syria, Yasser Faisal aljumaili, a freelancer. Iraqi cameraman Yasser Faisal aljumaili didnt tell anyone where he was going when he borrowed money to buy a new video camera and headed to syria to cover the civil war. Days later, he was shot to death by rebels at a checkpoint in northern syria. His footage was never recovered. Aljumaili, 35, cover the iraq war for international broadcasters, then places to places considered too dangerous for foreign journalists. A friend said aljumaili wanted to capture the Untold Stories of misery, violence, on justice, violence, injustice, and war. He was one of many journalists killed in syria, the world that list country worlds deadliest country for journalists. Mikhail beketov, khimkinskaya pravda in russia. On a frigid november night, the newspaper and editor, mikhail beketov, was attacked outside his home by men who smashed his skull with a metal bar and left him to die in the snow. He lost a leg, several fingers, and the ability to speak. Nearly five years later, he died at age 55 of complications from his injuries. Before the attack, the former war correspondent had used his newspaper to campaign against government corruption in suburban moscow. He was threatened, his dog was killed, and his car was firebombed. No one has been charged in his death. Russia has one of the worlds worst records for prosecuting the killers of journalists. Mick deane, sky news in egypt. Helicopters circled overhead and clouds of tear gas enveloped the streets of cairo as british cameraman mick deane raised his camera to film clashes between Security Forces and supporters of former egyptian president mohamed morsi. He was shot by a sniper and killed. Dean was 61. For nearly 40 years, he covered wars and major world events for cnn and britains sky news. Described as courageous but careful, never rash, he filmed china positively cracked down on the 1989 Tiananmen Square protest and reported undercover in north korea. Deane was one of six journalists killed in 2013 in egypt, where violence between police and protesters made it one of the deadliest countries in the world for journalists. Ghislaine dupont, radio france internationale, in mali. The french army warned them not to go, but radio france internationale journalists ghislaine and were determined to shed light on the violence in northern mali. After interviewing a rebel leader, they were abducted by gunmen. An hour later, there their bulletriddled bodies were found in the desert. Dupont was 57. A theory of this a fearless reporter, she covered conflicts in angola, the democratic republic of congo, and sierra leone. She was expelled from the immigrant record public of congo in 2006 because of her reporting. Northern mali has become a stronghold of islamic stream us since the 2012 military coup plunged the country into political turmoil. Rodrigo neto, radio vanguarda and vale do aco, in brazil. Crime reporter and radio host rodrigo neto refused to share work with his family out of concern for his safety. He aggressively covered Police Corruption and was working on a book about suspected Police Involvement in a local murder when two men on a motorcycle gunned him down as he left a restaurant in southeastern brazil. Neto was 38. A colleague said, those who thought they were silencing rodrigo neto are going to realize that, on the contrary, they have given birth to a rodrigo neto inside each one of us. Several Police Officers were arrested in connection with netos death, however, brazil has one of the worlds worst records for prosecuting the killers of journalists. Sai reddy, deshbandhu, in india. Newspaper reporter sai reddy was leaving a market in central india when maoist rebels armed with knives and an axe attacked him, leaving him to die in the street. He was 51. For more than 20 years, reddy reported on families caught in fighting between police and maoist rebels, who have led a rebellion in india region since the late 1960s. His reporting earned him the wrath of both sides. The police accused him of being linked to the maoists. The rebels torched his house. The International Press freedom organization, reporters without borders, ranked india among the worlds five deadliest countries for journalists in 2013. Fernando solijon, dxls love radio, in the philippines. The day he died, radio commentator Fernando Solijon received an onair death threat from a caller warning, your coffin is already made. That night he was shot multiple times by a masked gunman who fled on a motorcycle. Solijon, 48, was known as a courageous commentator. He often criticized local politicians, linking some to the drug trade. A local Police Officer was arrested in connection with his death. Deadly attacks against journalists are common in the philippines, where warring factions battle for power and murders of journalists often remain unresolved. Claude verlon, radio france internationale, in mali. Sound engineer Claude Verlon could set up a sound studio anywhere. When he was taken to a remote saharan town, he jumped at the challenge. Hours after the interview, verlon and duponts bulletriddled bodies were found in the desert. An Al Qaeda Linked group claimed responsibility for abducting and murdering the journalists. Known for his caution and meticulous technical skills, verlon had worked with some of the worlds deadliest countries worlds deadliest countries, including afghanistan, libya, and iraq. Olivier voisin, freelance, in syria. Olivier snuck across the border into syria. Days later, he was hit by shrapnel while covering fighting between rebels and government forces. He died three days later at age 38. Voisin had worked in some of the countrys most dangerous countries for journalists, including libya and somalia. French president Francois Hollande said, his death is a tragic reminder of the risks taken by journalists to inform our fellow citizens regardless of the dangers. Syrias civil war has been deadly for journalists. More than 60 journalists have been killed since the war began in 2011 according to the committee to protect journalists. As Kathleen Carroll noted and as you heard from some of the accounts this morning, all too often, the death of a journalist is met with in deference indifference or even official collusion. It is important to note that this morning in moscow five individuals who were charged with the death of ana, who died in 2006, were brought to justice. They were convicted last month. They were sentenced this morning, two to life terms, three to lesser terms, including a Police Officer who furnished the weapon. It is important to note that the person who ordered her death is still at large. But when someone is brought to justice, we need to take note. This memorial exists to remind the world of the sacrifices made every year throughout the decades and centuries by journalists. But we are but the caretakers, guardians of this memorial. On behalf of those who ultimately require no such construct really to confirm their courage and selfsacrifice, we cannot add to the laurels that these men and women have earned themselves. Each stands on their own accomplishments. Each has made the ultimate sacrifice as journalists. We do gather here every year to acknowledge that sacrifice and to encourage future generations to recognize that sacrifice and to remember it. It is to that duty and that task that i will all those watching around the world will pledge our continued effort. Thank you for being with us. Next, kilo and a with wayne a. I. Frederick. Then house of commons. After that, a discussion on climate change. This week on q a, our guest is dr. Wayne a. I. Frederick who talks to us about the challenges facing the school as well as his life and career as a cancer surgeon. Dr. Wayne a. I. Frederick, why do they call howard the mecca . They call it the mecca for several reasons. It has been a place that has drawn people from all over the world and has been a soue