So we have to be if youre in an enclosed environment be very concerned with what the human body is exhaling. In terms of the future of space station, do we have plans to expand, put different elements on to the space station at this point . Currently on the u. S. Side we just reconfigured the permanent Multi Purpose module from one location to the other location to make room for a docking adopter that we discussed earlier to let commercial vehicles come. Thats about all were going td on the u. S. Side. Theres no major new additions coming. The russians talked about a solar platform to provide solar energy for their segment. The russians talked about another Research Module they may add. We on the u. S. Side dont have any major additions, no. The Bigelow Company has a new concept without the inflatables. Is there any use of this technology . It will be added to space station next year. This is an expandable module that will be added to the station. It will stay there for about a year, year and a half and remove it from station. Instead of a regular pressure shelf, its to understand what we can gain from the expandable technology. It has a very thick wall so it may be better for a penetration trpt. It also may be better thermally. That needs to be looked at. And the acoustic environment may be better. So the idea is to get it on orbit, take those claims, test it on orbit with space station. It might also be cheaper than the traditional way of building a space station. Which is something we should be concerned about. Let me just note two things. Orbital debris continues to be and always was an expanding concern. I believe that this is something nasa should look at not just in terms of space station but we should be thinking about International Cooperative effort to just deal with the debris problem. Thats something we need to this committee should be dealing with at least in the time ahead. And second and last of all let me just note that your report on your cooperation with russia during this time period when there are frictions going on between the United States and russia i think is demonstrates a very wonderful aspect of space. That is once you get up there, you look back down on the earth and some of those problems dont seem as important or you were able to put it in perspective. And im happy to hear that we are and the russians are putting these areas of friction in perspective to the point that we can Work Together and create a better world while were doing it. Thank you very much for demonstrating that to all of us. Thank you. We have just had votes called and i want to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the members for all their questions. If we had had time, i would have liked to have gone through a second round. But the record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and for written comments for members. Its our hope that the office of management and budget will wore more expeditiously with nasa to put together responses to these questions. The committee is waiting for nasas responses to questions from the commercial crew hearing from six months ago. Mr. Gersenmeyer, please send back the message that these delays are not acceptable. The witnesses are excused and this hearing is adjourned. Thank you. This weekend the cspan cities tour travels across the country with time warner cable. To learn more about the literary life and history of lexington, kentucky. Edward pritchard was a state hero who had a tumultuous political career. In the mid 1940s, if you had asked who was a bright shining star in american politics, on a national scale, someone who is going to be governor, perhaps president , a lot of people, car rin graham, ar they are slessinger would have said edward pritchard. He seemed destine for great things and then came back to kentucky and in the mid 1940s, was indicted for stuffing a ballot box, went to prison. So that incredible promise just flamed out. We also visit ashland, the former home of speaker of the house, senator and secretary of state henry clay. The mansion at ashland is a unique situation clays original home had to be torn down and rebuild. It fell into disrepair and his son found that it could be be saved. What we have is a home that is essentially a fivepart federal style home as henry clay had in detail and architectural elements etcetera, and aesthetic details by grand granddaughter granddaughter, greatgranddaughter and so on. Watch it on American History tv on cspan3. Coming up at 10 00 a. M. Eastern, fer chair janet yellen will be on capitol hill. Shell answer questions about the economy and monetary policy. Shell testify before the house finances Services Committee live on cspan3. Later in the day, president obama speaks again about the iran nuclear deal. Congress has 60 days to review the accord and to vote to accept it or reject it or do nothing. The president said he would veto any resolution of disapproval and thats also on cspan3. The Supreme Court term ended a couple of weeks ago with major decisions on health care redistricting and legalizing same sex marriage. Next Supreme Court reporters review the major cases and rulings from this Supreme Court term, giving an inside perspective on what its like to cover the Supreme Court. Good afternoon. Thank you all for coming and welcome to the 27th annual view from the press Gallery Program sponsored by the d. C. Bar section on courts, lawyers and administration of justice. Im arthur spitzer. I work at the legal director of the local office of the American Civil Liberties union, but not wearing that hat here, im wearing my hat as a former member of the Steering Committee of that section of the bar. Our thanks first to arnold and porter for graciously hosting us again this year and thanks to Marsha Tucker and the firms technical staff for making all the oral arrangements. Thanks to cspan which you can see is covering us again this year, if you have any problem with the back of your head being on cspan, you can take this opportunity to sliver off to the side. Its not being broadcast live youll be able to invest in the video on the cspan website probably sometime tomorrow. And many thanks on my former aclu colleagues, chris mohouser who is coordinating this show. Our main sponsor concentrates on matters involving Court Administration and rules between the relationship between the bench and the bar and all aspects of a lawyers relationship to the profession such as ethics, admission standards. It focuses on improving access to justice for everyone in d. C. Its one of 20 sections of the d. C. Bar. 15 others are cosponsors of todays program. Im not going to name them all. The section carrying on most of the bar is work. As you can see from the list they cover most areas of the legal practice. If youre a member of the d. C. Bar and youre not involved in a section, we encourage you to become involved. In youre an aspiring member of the d. C. Bar, we would encourage you to be involved after you graduate law school in a couple of years. If youre not yet a member of the aclu, you can sign up at www. Aclu. Org. Well be privileged to hear from a panel of journalists who have been covering the Supreme Court for a cumulative total of 112 years. Ill introduce them in order of seniority. On my right is tony morrow American Lawyer media. Hes covered the court since 1979. He joined the washington legal times in 2000 Washington Times doesnt cover the court and continued its Supreme Court correspondent after it mernled with the National Law Journal in 2009. David savage next to him on the right has been with the Los Angeles Times since 1981 and covering the court since 1986. In recent years, hes been covering the court for the chicago tribune. Hes offered the latest tradition of quarterly guides to the Supreme Court. Joan biscuip on my left is in charge for Legal Affairs with reuters news. Her most recent book is breaking in, the rise of sonia soto my or ra and the rooiz of justice published last year. Shes the author of biographies of justices Anthony Scalia and sandra day oconnor. Before joining reuters she was a reporter for the Washington Post and usa today. Shes a regular panelist on pbss Washington Week with gwen eiffle. Im going to ask her to tell us about that later. On her left is Robert Barnes who joined the Washington Post as a reporter in 1987 the. Since then, hes been Deputy National editor, National Political editor and the metropolitan editor, but he decided to return to reporting in 2005 and begin covering the Supreme Court in 2006. Bob had been planning to go to law school but changed his mind after returning to a course as an undergraduate. He says it didnt occur to him as it apparently did to others that he could do both but perhaps a better explanation was that he didnt need four years of law school to not practice law. On my far right adam lipparticular who took over the New York TimesSupreme Court beat seven years ago, but he has a much longer history with the times as he first joined as a copy boy in 1984 after graduating from college. He then went back for a law degree in 1988 and in 1992 joined the times Legal Department advising the paper and representing it in deaf mission, news gathering and similar issues. A decade later he became a reporter covering legal issues. His work has appeared in the new yorker, vanity fair, Rolling Stone and other publications. This bringing, adam served a marshall with chief Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg recognizing to hear an appeal regarding the affairs of don xuixote. Finally, Kimberly Atkins emailed me this morning to say she was home sick and unable to leave the house. So well be without her this year and hope to see her again next july. This is not a panel of litigators analyzing case law. There are lots of those that you can go to. Although we will talk about some case law but our plan is to talk about the course as an institution and a collection of individuals and about covering the court as journalists. I plan to save some time at the end for questions and answers. There are two mikes set up in the audience. So if questions occur to you during the program, please joet jot them down and ill give you a heads up when its time to go to the mikes. Finally, there should be evaluation forms from the bar. There are not. But a repeat to the reminder you just got check your emails in the next couple of days and you will be getting an email from the bar asking you to fill out an evaluation form and we really appreciate it if you would. We read those evaluationes and we made changes in how we run this Program Based on comments from past years. Last term ended with hobby lobby which was a very complicated issue in multiple conditions. Samesex marriage yes. Obamacare yes. Medazalam, yes. Confederate flag license plates, no. So let me ask the panelist, am i being flip about that . Or did you find the big cases easier to report on this year than last year . David. Youre right. There are a lot of decisions and they were fairley easy to report. There was not a lot of complexity. There was not a lot of divided votes. Its very nice because in this era, adam and bob and i talk about it all the time. We have to file stories within a few minutes, particularly with the health care, gay marriage. Ive done it long enough that i can remember the time when i can read the whole opinion listen to justices read the dissent and now you have to move very quickly. Fortunately, the outcomes were clear, the holdings were very similar. There are not a lot of complications. We were all writing within ten minutes so were grateful to the court. Another thing that i thought i noticed about it this year that seemed somewhat different is how much the decisions were spread out over the month of june was, for the most part, sort of one leading decision per decision day. Jet stream passport june 1e8 was the license plates, june 22nd was the california raisins and then baek and samesex marriage and Death Penalty each on a separate day. Sometimes there have been many. Do you think that was a complete accident or do you think the court has some interest in spreading those high profile decisions around to make your job easier or better decisions . I think the court is not very interested in making life easier for us by spreading things out. I think the only exception may be that they decided not to hand down samesex marriage and Affordable Care act on the same day. Our heads would have exploded and they didnt want to see that. But apart from that, theyre quite adamant about releasing the opinions when theyre ready. I dont think they spread it out. The prior chiefs Justice William rhenquist after one day in june when we all we got like seven or eight opinions on the same day, hundreds of pages we kind of went for him in the chief and said would you please spread it out and he had well, why dont you just save some for the next day. It shows great understanding of how journalism works. I think the new chief woovsh maybe a little more sensitive to this, but maybe other people have different views. But i dont think they care that much. I thought that you tried to have a little fun at our experience when at the end of the last day there were three decisions that were big and all of which we knew we would be writing about when he finished, she said i have two retirements to announce. And i sort of felt like i was going to throw up there for a second. But it was Justice Scalias secretary and someone else. So it wasnt quite what would have really made our day horrible. But that last day was no picnic so we had three Big Decisions and they decided to take a big affirmative action case. Then in the afternoon when we thought we were done, they decided to let a bunch of abortion clinics in texas stay open. So thats five legitimate stories. But what was interesting though, was that the very biggest two cases didnt come on the very last day which typically is the pattern. In fact, i cant remember another term where the case that was most awaited didnt come at the end. Hobby loobbby it was going back to 1992 the casey ruling comes at the end. Typically the hardest, toughest case does come at the end. So there we were on the thursday of last week getting the Obama Health Care law case and then friday getting samesex marriage. Fortunately, everyone up here was ready for that. If theyre going to end on monday, maybe that will come on monday. So it goes to show we need to be ready no matter what. Sometimes a really big decision is going to come before the last day. It always feels like the grand finale at the fourth of July Fireworks and then theres a boom boom, boom, and then boom boom boom, boom. Last year, many of you reported and we talked here about how the justices had a greater proportion of unanimous decisions than they had for decades, about 65 and how dissenting opinions had fall frn 52 the year before to only 31. And we talked about whether chief Justice Roberts was making good on his promise to try to be a unifier. Then this term, just the opposite. Unanimous decisions were down to 40 . 68 dissents more than twice as many as last year. 54 decisions were up 41 . Is the chief losing his magic powers or whats going on . Bob. I think its that every term is different and thats what we thats what we learn all the time. The issues that are presented to them are what really is controlling about how they do things. We all said last year, too, that even though there were a lot of unanimous decisions, they werent really unanimous. They were unanimous in the judgment, but they were not unanimous in the reasoning. And the court was just as divided by ideology as it was this year. I think that really has to do with that whats up for them to decide every term. If the justices were to take the same types of cases each year, we would probably have a better time measuring them year to year. But i think the statistics could be misleading, like so many people have talked about theres this liberal tilt this year. Next year well be up here saying the conservative tilt again. It really does depend on what is before them and as bob mentioned, how broadly theyre going to rule. If theyre going to go super narrow, theyre going to get more unanimity and then youll find in the details and in the consents and concurrences, youll find more splits. I think theres 0. Been some talk about the liberals being more disciplined this year and falling in line with a single majority or dissent and not having a lot of concurrences. And i think thats it was notable, but i think most justices dont feel that way. Justice alito once said i asked him why he writes dissents. One is just he could have just joined the you know or why he writes concurrences which he could have joined the majority. And he said, its like somebody coming to your front door and asking you to sign a petition. Would you sign a petition that you dont really believe in . So i think they all feel like they have a responsibility to say their own piece about important cases. Do you think that goes for the samesex marriage case . I mean, there was the line in the ska lena dissent, a stinging line t