Transcripts For HLN HLN News 20090921

with me. on the other level, we are in to political questions and i would probably belau before i started getting into substantive positions. -- i would probably bowed out before i started getting into substantive positions. but the first criticism is summed up in one of the first phrases from robert frost's last great poem -- i think i remember right -- waste is in the essence of the scheme. . . the very point of the structural rigid structural element of the constitution is to make some things difficult. they're made difficult in part to eliminate too much efficiency of power at the highest level. some things remain difficult for the very reason that we tend not to make very good decisions in times of great difficulty, apparel, hysteria. -- peril and hysteria. it is good not to let ourselves go too far too fast. the kind of waste or inefficiency was the essence of the scheme. to the extent there is criticism of the constitution and not suggesting this was the essence of anyone's criticism today, but on the grounds of inefficiency or waste the answer to that is -- yeah. [laughter] to the extent you get down to the further level, the lipitor college, senate, and so on, those are basically political questions. the only thing i would try to contribute to the debate there is to voice the thought i started with. i frequently tell a story to school groups. your more than that, but i cannot resist telling it because there's a great lesson in it. there was a teacher at dartmouth college years ago by the name of foley in one of his concerns was the regional english was disappearing in the u.s. he used to travel around in the countryside collecting examples of local speech patterns. i don't think he had a tape recorder, but a notebook as this was quite a while back. he stopped at a far more he knew the people and had talked with them before. -- at a farm. the husband was a former and the professor wiley asked how his wife was. the answer was -- compared to what? [laughter] that it seems to me is the essential question to raise when you get to the second level of constitutional criticism. what are we going to replace it with? water the odds that it will be better -- what are the odds? and what are the odds that it will function with less grief than what we have? that does not make me a veneration list, but -- a venerationist, but instead a pragmatist. be sure that it is broken and be sure that you can fix a better before you start doing that. james madison would not have answered exactly like that, neither indeed would thomas jefferson, so i'm somewhere in the middle. >> the system design for conflict demands resolution. interpretation of the constitution is one of the leading ways to resolve those difficulties. it is also one of the job you have been deeply engaged in over the last couple of decades. could i ask about a couple of leading schools and see how you react? let's begin with originalism, a school which emphasizes the original meaning of the constitution as it would have been understood by those who framed it or sometimes people attribute it to those who ratified it. what do you think of that as an approach to decision-making? you often begin with reference to what the framers thought. >> i think you have to answer that question with reference to specific questions. maybe the only general answer i could givei is couldsm is fine if you don't expect too much from it. -- originalism is fine if you don't expect too much from it. it is unlikely to provide you with specific answers to the kinds of questions you're likely to ask. maybe i should step back -- the reason i say it is fine is because one of the conditions for legitimate constitutional interpretation by an elected court is that we look to sources of meaning and two guides of how to make practical sense of what the constitution says. they have more authority than merely the preference of the judge who is talking. they are sources of legitimacy. one source which we recognize not only constitutionally but elsewhere in the law is respect for the intentions of those who use the language you are trying to interpret. that is what originalism ultimately looks to. in terms of what it can and cannot do. usually it cannot give you very specific answers even if you have made a careful canvas of debate at conventions, at ratifying conventions, or state legislatures, commentary by it those who might have been spoken with a common understanding of the time -- usually you do not get very specific answers, but sometimes you do. or sometimes at least it is possible. the longest thing i ever read from the bench was the descent from the seminole tribe case on the scope of the 11th amendment immunity from federal court. i thought in that case that originalism, for reference to regional sources indicating meeting understood that the time, provided a strong argument that the 11th amendment was intended to limit federal court citizen/date. date the majority of the court disagreed with me. -- federal court citizens/state jurisdiction. you have been either/or question and that helped to answer it. most of the time originalism is not give you clear answers like that. the so-called hard originalists who claim that specific answers are nearly always possible i think our people who tend to do what one professor of mine used to illustrate when people gave conclusive answers -- he would drop a magician's hat and two magicians ears and his plan was in order to pull the rabbit out of the hat to you first have to put their rabbit into the hat. originalism does not provide many specific rabbits. i don't know that there are many left today, but there's a tendency on the part of some primitive originalists to think there are more rabbits there than i think can be found. what a broader regionalism would do is to at least inform one about the conceptual thinking at the time the language was adopted -- i think that historicalism would be better word. this kind of background could provide good, legitimate reasons to go one way rather than another. what it cannot do is give -- and after all what virtually all constitutional interpretation is incapable of -- is something called the right answer rather than the wrong answer. one thing to bear in mind about any philosophical presuppositions is that we are by and large answering questions for which there is not a clearly ride or clearly wrong answer. however, the questions are capable of having a better or worse into. the idea is to get the best reasons to support the better answer. -- of having a better or worse into. >> when one speaks of better and worse answers the immediate better than what? you call yourself a pragmatist and a wonder if you talk about that as a self-conscious we're going about constitutional problems. the author of the metaphysical club is still here. >> if he is still here i would like to shake his hand. >> you yourself have was been interested in justice holmes. you took losses in this room and rhoda of senior essay about him. i wonder what pragmatism means to you in a constitutional context and whether it is an approach to deciding questions. >> there are two broad traces for pragmatic role. one is to look at a question pragmatically and say, i have all sorts of constitutional reasons for thinking the answer ought to be this rather than that. i will answer on a functional ground that gets me to whatever that better answer is. that kind of pragmatism is and difficult to what we'd like to call principled judicial decision making. but there is another kind of pragmatism and i guess that it also has two parts. the first is that which recognizes that all the principles we hold -- and i'm doug about normative principles now -- propositions about what ought to be. the constitution is a set of propositions about why it things ought to be. what ought to be done in situations with civil liberties, and so on. all normative propositions constitutional and others are essentially pragmatic in origin. no and adheres to a set of principles that over the long, long run produce horrible results. a few years ago -- >> no one knowingly does. >> that is right. a few years ago one of my teachers here wrote a wonderful book that summarized the approach to this kind of pragmatism. it was called "a philosophy of culture." he took up the question of whether normative propositions are factually verifiable or possible to disprove. that was essentially his point. that was milton white. we do have long or broad series of value and subsidiary principles that produce results that are thought to be horrendous by those values. principles that will ultimately be discarded. all constitutional principles have a pragmatic basis. that is one sense of pragmatism. that does not help you to decide particular cases because it is the kind of pragmatism that is engaged in by society as much and perhaps more so than by judges. the second part of pragmatism is that kind which was most magnificent and demonstrated by a certain judge. hand exemplified may be as well as anyone in my lifetime on the bench one prong of the distinction of appellate judges to judge from the top down and those who start from the bottom up. those who adjudicate from the top down start with principles of usually great breadth and look for cases to express those and embody them in judgments. the other school which was the hand school has respect for fact because your first job is to decide the case, not to embody principles. you may not be able to decide the case without exception some legal principle. after all, it is a normative proposition, but make sure you are being honest in your assessment in respect for the facts first. i think this latter kind of pragmatism is at least essential to my kind of judgment. i think we should start from the bottom of. it is essentially the common-law method in. -- from the bottom up. one consequence of that which she embodied in his own great judicial corpus was that a great many of the legal problems we are asked to face our problems that in fact can be given answers depending on factual differences on prior cases. rather than answers that require vast departures of the principal. that kind of pragmatism i guess is that which i would espouse. holmes dr. pragmatic game much of the time. it is the pragmatism that i think number one excepts the fact -- the demonstration of which i attributed to milton white about the ultimate verify ability of normative principles. it worries first about the case and the factual details before deciding how grand a principle is necessary to decided. >> the common law mfn begins with particulars. it is also accretive. it draws on a precipicedent from earlier cases. many people think it is directional, moving incrementally in a certain direction. burke often thought this more broadly about gradual change in the direction of something. many people think it should be in the direction of liberty or quality. living constitutionalism is the name usually goes under. it has been controversial. i wonder about the underlying picture in which a case by case decision-making goes somewhere into the expansion of liberties? some who have observed you over the years would describe be this way. >> fair enough. there has got to be a direction. at the end of the day you have to say something. bear in mind two different conflicts of judging. one is the historical context of the judge who was their frequently to judge whether be civil or criminal cases in places where there is a total absence of statutory law. you have to start from scratch. the value propositions whether constitutional or criminal responsibility are propositions you must derive by any method you do. the second type is that of common-law method. that is what you were principally referring to. i think it is appropriate in a constitutional context. it is accretion very rich in accretionary and starts with fa ct and moves slowly. one when you get to the fork in the road you have to go one where the other. that is the point at which it is important to remember some of those we heard today for the preamble to the constitution, the founding documents which suggested direction. however, one cannot just look to the founding documents for the direction for the very reason i went into a little earlier. the founding documents whether preambles, declarations, they are documents in a system that wants it both ways. one cannot, for example, interpreting the fourth amendment answering specific questions about its application say, well, the fourth amendment is dedicated to reasonable respect for privacy. once personal property -- one's personal property. that does not get you anywhere because the fourth amendment uses the criteria a reasonable ness which says you must look a both sides. secondly, even assuming there is a libertarian kind of direction there is to a degree -- it is not a zero sum game -- at least one in which one side wins and the other loses -- because it is a legitimate constitutional by you to promote the evenhanded enforcement of the law. the detection and punishment of people who break. -- of people who break it. there is no way at the end of the day except to say that i have a couple of sets of values which are in play here, one is of value that would generally be classified under liberty, the other classified under authority. we want some of both. i do not think there is any a propri wait to settle that in a specific way -- any a priori way to do that. i do not know of any formula and advance that can say liberty always wins, authority always wins. either would be anathema. that is why i espouse the common-law method which gets down to new the gritty -- nitty gritty issues to provide a promise for which of the two has the better argument for the given case. >> let me return a little bit. by your own account the previous cases do not fully decide the case before you. your turn to figure out the better of the different direction you could go. your at the fork and would choose one direction. you won't be like some judges who are yogi beara said when you get to the fork take it. there are some justices who you have served with who seem like they did follow that adage. that is not what emerges from the. method you the menu are figuring out which direction to go you look not only a prayer cases but at a broader directional sweep. -- that is not what seems to emerge from the method you use. greater liberty relative to authority, not limiting authority -- that seems to me it is an important force in your jurisprudence. those who espouse living constitutionalism say it openly. you have thought a great deal about substantive due process. there are many who believe and would say that you have written through the decisions that there is a directional expansion of liberty that should take place slowly because that is the direction of what has come before. it seems a little different from your formulation that speaks of reasoning from empirical fact. >> you are quite rare. my formulation when i was speaking did not speak of the significance of precedent. of course it is one of those principles of decision would be of great respect. originalism is something different, so is textualism. precedent is of course agree. we have to remember in every case in which there is a genuine issue that maybe we are at the point at which the line of precedent has been developed as far as it should be and there should be a counter-line. if an appellate judge will not accept that as a possibility, then the fix is in when he goes on a binge. -- on the bench. no line of precedent as were is the embodiment of an absolute right. the notion of the constitution in which we want it both ways it is sensible by accepting the proposition that we cannot have it both ways always, but we can have both ways partially. >> the issue say in to those 9 and 1991. i'm struck by the similarity of this formulation and the one you used when confirmed. the argument would be that -- one would want to ask -- is it that you're jurisprudence simply applies to the same principle is begun now and did at the outset and that it was simply fairly infrequent that you found it to be the case that the line of precedent expanding the reduce or quality have gone thus far and should go no further -- at least relative to your colleagues? or whether in fact the original pressures, and i don't mean that in the negative sense, but trending - towards liberty or" shows some gravitational pull on your decision making? there are critics who say that they are mutually exclusive. >> no one can see himself as others do. >> they say it is a great gift, yes. >> i am sure that i do not have it. the gazette have two thoughts in response to that. -- i guess that i have to thought about that. the upper level values of the legal system, a value that cannot be taken as absolute if you take my approach, is in fact the value that develops, or the value of developing a coherent system. if there is a significant by you in developing a coherent system albeit not an absolute one, then there will be the gravitational pull from any precedent. i'm certainly subject to the gravitational pull. i am very willing subject to it. the second thing i would say is on a purely individual basis, the basis of one judges output we do not invent the wheel again every time the possibility of invention or the lack of it comes up. we tend to follow our own precedent. i have not always done that. i did a 180 on nude dancing. [laughter] >> that metaphor calls out for such a response that would be inappropriate on c-span. >> not an emerson hall. we hope that we worked out the problems we're working on in a sufficiently reasonable way of what appeared to us five years ago as sensible or legitimate in its conclusion was in pretty much the same five years later. one will build on it. there's no question that except in cases in which one hopes really do so no, a book the first time around -- it will be a coherence. there will in fact be a progression. but ultimately, a coherence to the broader body of law. i apologize if i sound like a johnny one note on this. what we cannot forget is that we do not have the system in which the coherence of values allows for the development of any one guy you necessarily as far as it can logically go because there is usually a legitimate competitor somewhere. we cannot lose sight of that. the value of coherence and a system or body of doctrinal development must always have an open door. the door must be open to a competing value. >> but observation leads directly to another school of constitutional interpretation that everyone says they embrace and outsiders often think no windows. that is a judicial restraint. if you listen to chief justice roberts or justice sonia sotomayor who sounded very much alike all the judges do is apply the law. the reason is that we have a tripartite system of government. apologies to the fourth branch. there's not a policy to make the law but merely to decide it. that seems to be an orthodoxy one now recites in confirmation hearings. how does the judicial restraint as a theory of interpretation a square with the challenge of resolving competing principles? >> two answers. i will not use the word judicial restraint in my answer. that is a term -- fortunately like having the appendix out it does not have to -- one does not have to go through it again. judicial restraint was frank furter's favorite term. let's just go to the proposition that judges interpret law cannot make a. it there is a perfectly legitimate sense of which that is true. -- they interpret the law, not make it. in a judge should affirm that. there is also a sense in which judges are forced to make some law. that has to be recognized too. in the political arena of those distinctions are not drawn. when someone says do you think judges ought to interpret the law and not makie it? they're asking if you think that judges are bound by the text of statutes, but they are bound to follow the toleadings if there's a choice, the policy leadings of the political branches? the answer to those questions are legitimate yes. -- with legitimately yes. there's a sense that recognizes there is no statute or constitutional provision that was ever devised that can possibly answer in advance every question about application. when the answer just is not there someone has got to give it. it is perfectly fair to say in those moments judges are making law. they're making it in the sense that they're deciding specific questions, what ever there interpretive principles, deciding questions the legislative branch either did not think of or could not possibly have decided in advance. likewise in the constitutional adjudication to say that judges did not make a lot and applying the due process clause is to fail to understand that the word due process does not settle many specific issue is. the same thing is true even in carefully drawn statutes. it is a pretty good rule of thumb trying to understand how judges may call. it is a pretty good rule of thumb -- how judges law. though it would drive textualist mad to from this -- that there is no statute or normative proposition -- it would drive then add it to a from this -- none that can be understood solely by reference to its terms. i ran across a wonderful illustration of this in a footnote a couple of years ago. a friend of mine who teaches law at michigan wrote this book. he tells the story of the raising of the granite obelisk in the center of the colonnade. it was the late 72 century -- 17th century. the huge problem at that time was engineering and communications. the obelisk was enormous. given the engineering of the time it took the labor of hundreds for most of one day to get it up. the difficulty the anticipated was that the spacing of the work was so great that if there were any noise there was no way for the four men were decision- maker to be heard -- foreman to be a. the pope said he would solve the problem by forbidding anyone except in designated foremen to speak. to show that he meant it he said anyone who spoke during the period of the installation would be hanged. to prove he meant that he directed a gallows in front of st. peter's so that everyone could see it. the great big game and the work began. hundreds are pulling on these ropes. -- the great bay day came. one man noticed that the rope was a chafing against the edge of the obelisk and if nothing was done it would break and the obelisk would fall. he held out "the rope" -- but it's of water were brought and it was what did down. the job was done and it was successful. when the obelisk was up everyone asked what the pope would do. the pope came out and stood before the gallows and ask for the workmen who had shouted out contrary to his orders to be brought to him. when the man did the {him warmly. that is the end of the story. some would say that was an example of the executive discretion. [laughter] >> people dispensation. -- papal dispensation. >> the better interpretation is that what the pope meant when he said no one should speak was, no one should speak in a way to distract from the work or jeopardize the accomplishment. the pope knew what he intended. his words could not be understood without reference to that intention even though he had not expressed an intention in his decree. that is why i think the story is a good example of the general proposition that you cannot understand texts ultimately without references outside. when judges have to look to outside references to answer questions about application as with the obelisk which was not spelled out -- the pope did not say it is ok if the rope will break -- then there is a perfectly legitimate sense in which the judges may gainlaw. >> the typical response would be this -- perhaps i can even attribute does not to just thisfrankfurter but to judge hand. he said he did not wish to be ruled by a bevy of platonic guardians. ranted you must be right there when it comes to the interpretation of some particular language you must look to intent and perhaps not even to the conscious intent of the estimated in the first place, but to their implicit intent. what they would have wanted. but said the skeptic, that does not mean that institutionally and should be the judges who do that on a regular basis. it may be for other institutions in society to have comparable opportunity to speak about what the framers might originally have wanted for a reasonable person putting himself in their place might have interpreted. that allows a judge hand to come out strongly against the judicial discovery of rights implicit in the structure or unspoken language of our own bill of rights. even he did this sometimes. i don't think anyone would claim that judges never could do it, but if we're talking about frequency that argument seems to me to say don't do it frequently or rely on the possibility -- impossible the of interpretation without it. >> your point about judge hand calls to mind a commentary on him. he sayshand has pointed out that the judges cannot do everything, but surely they can do something. in essence a think the house to be the answer to that criticism. -- in essence i think that has to be the answer to the criticism. then there would be nothing for judges to do. the answer beyond that is two- fold. number one, it is the question of how broadly anyone wants to sweep when answering those questions. hand when he did that sort of thing into them very narrowly, as felix and so would anyone who pursued to the commandant methodology. do not go too far. you are not as smart as you think. -- with a common law methodology. the second part is, if judges were to adopt, or if the society for judges were to adopt the proposition that there could be no lawmaking, then there must be in the answer to the question i alluded to a moment ago. you have to say something. somebody has to win and someone must lose. to say that the judges will follow a radical minimalism -- to say i think that answer calls simply for a look at interpretive sources that would be better done by a committee of the legislative branch, is still to decide the case because after the pronouncement is main someone has lost. to say that is a way of rescuing judges from making policy choices is to forget that is itself a policy choice. presumably courts were not put in a position to decide every case by a let's say the default of modesty. there is no historical precedent for that. those are my reasons for thinking the skeptical answer still leaves something to be desired. >> let me ask you more personal question. one of the many things that distinguishes you from supreme court justices in recent years is your decision to leave the bench while still healthy and in possession of your mental faculties. what does a retired justice do? >> if we can come back on constitution day next year biking to be a better answer than i can now. right now i can tell you that i sent a message to my successor in the course of the confirmation hearings. i said what you are going through now is the easy part. it is getting off the court that is harder. i am still in the throes of that. what i at least have in mind are bunch of things. number one, i will continue to be a judge part-time. i'm signed up to sit part-time in the winter months on the first circuit here in boston. i was appointed to the first circuit before i was appointed to the supreme court, but i sat there only one day. i heard one set of cases. that was the end of my first circuit career. i am going back. that, and i want to engage in some useful city jobs in my own state. i have an element in the this is the real life of the nation is lived in its cities and towns across the republic. i want to do something useful. all i will go slow on the jobs i except. but i have taken on this one not terribly demanding job. there is a committee of new hampshire citizens who are trying to examine the state of civic education in new hampshire and propose standards for curriculum of civic education. it is a subject that has fallen into great disrepair nationally. i got upset about it in the course of some conferences bad was put together a georgetown law school. the justices were concerned with the problem of attacks on judicial independence. i remember the first conference. i thought i must go to be polite. it is sandra and steve to set this up. the great surprise was that something really worthwhile happen. it was not just another gathering for an endless talk. it was the discovery that the root problem of defending judicial independence is that if one has no sense of the structure of government even as imperfect as ours, the notion of judicial independence has an attraction. independence from what? how can anyone understand how it functions without any sense of the actual constitutional organization of the government? as nearly everyone has heard the last year, two-thirds of the people in the u.s. cannot name and have no idea of the nature of the three separate branches of government. that is scary. for the reason the -- the story about benjamin franklin when asked by a woman in philadelphia after the convention had gone to recess in 1787 what kind of a government his constitution would give, a monarchy or republic? he famously answered a republic if you can keep it. you will not keep it if you do not know what it is. i have signed up as a committee member to work on it. at this time yesterday and was at a meeting for it. i will sign of for some other things. frankly, i also want to spend some time reading. it is very difficult to get any reading time once the court term starts. when summer comes is like sampling orders of the bar. you want a little of everything because you do not have time to concentrate on anything. i want to do some concentrated reading. i have a very good unread library. [laughter] >> your all monitor is a place which tries to offer lots of orders but also some substantial fare and you are always welcome here. thank you very much on all our behalf for your contribution today. >> thank you. [applause] >> c-span to the supreme court week is just two weeks away. there'll be an inside view. >> this is the highest court in the land. the framers created it after studying the great lawgivers in history and taking a look at what they thought worldwide was important for the judicial branch to do. >> starting october 4 on c-span. go online now to c-span.org/ supremecourt for virtual tour and links to other supreme court sites. >> later today a look at how attorneys approach cases involving national security and classified information, hosted by catholic university law school. participants include two former inspector general's from the cia. last week max baucus unveiled his health care bill. tomorrow the committee goes through it. the process continues at 9:00 a.m. eastern with the committee markup session. the seal live here on c-span. >> tonight using the internet to provide health care resources. health central ceo chris schroeder. that will be on c-span2. >> this november marks the 20th anniversary of the fall of the berlin wall. now the president of the czech republic examines the democratic advances by his country and other former communist bloc countries over the past two decades. this 55-minute event is hosted bycat cato. >> good morning. mining ms.ed and i am president of this institute. i like to welcome you to the conference today. -- my name is ed. it should be a fascinating conference. we will examine the results of the 20 years of the freedom from communism in eastern europe. certainly that is reason to celebrate. i have a particular fondness for the fall of the berlin wall which was in november 20 years ago. that is because my wife was watching on television that collapse and went into labor. my soon-to-be 20-year-old daughter the sided with the fall of communism it was safe to come now. [laughter] the cato institute has always had a strong interest in promoting freedom, not just in the u.s. but internationally. that meant since we were founded back in 1977 dealing with communism. we published a book in polish called "solidarity with freedom" surely after the solidarity revolution era and have people come up to us from poland to this day to say the book was so important, passed around, 5 million copies smuggled into the country. then we published a book in russian called "the friedman and hayak on liberty" -- so we have been active on this for some time. we had the very first conference in the history of communist china on freedom and free market. it was held in 1988. it was a remarkable event. we had milton friedman there. he and his wife were there celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary. milton was treated like a hero. i could not believe it. here is this communist country and of the people were so excited to be a book to meet milton friedman. rose passed away in august. my take on her was that she was none too happy to be on this earth without milton anyway. that is a horrible loss for us all. then in 1990 we had the first conference devoted to freedom -- the cato institute did -- devoted to freedom in the soviet union in moscow. we had charles murray, the nobel laureate jim buchanan, all these wonderful true liberals are doing against stateism. it was really instructive. in that conference we had good relations with the mayor of moscow. it turned out that he was a crook. but he was friendly to us. we were able to get meats sent to the conference. this was in 1990. i promise you if you had been there and sing and smelled the food you would not have beaten it. yet in this communist country because we laid the food out at 11:00 a.m. word got out into the conference with about 400 people that there was food outside. the conference just ended. they devour the food. the next year we have another conference in moscow. this was at the october skaya hotel, the hotel of the communist central party committee -- it was again devoted to freedom. the thing now was interesting was that we brought with us buttons for lapels that has c thoughato logo on them -- and above those words in russian said capitalism and private property. they were the most popular thing in the hotel. all the waiters wore them, all the people behind the desk, the front desk. everyone did. even the maids. it was like the communist central party is coming here tomorrow to meet. isn't this a concern? it was certainly an indication that communism was about to collapse. i went to the soviet union the first time in 1981. as a libertarian, someone who think understands economics a new that there would be a lack of material goods. indeed there was. as late as the mid-1980s the cia suggested the soviets had 63% of our gdp which was ludicrous. there was no gdp for them in the 1980's. . . >> the young people did not know how devastating it was. we are glad that that is all behind us now. one hopes, anyway, given what is going on in washington. about this conference will take stock of political and economic reforms over the last 20 years in eastern europe. we will talk about what went right and what went wrong and why. we have some marvelous speakers. it is something that the center for global centers are responsible for. we tend to underestimate the success, the collapse of communism and what it has meant to people. it has not been perfect. this is an ideology that killed hundreds of millions of people. suddenly, in eastern europe, you have freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom to travel, things that simply did not exist before. it is a very important that we ignore is the success of this revolution. one of the people most responsible for this success is our speaker this morning. he is the president of the czech republic and has been a longtime friend of the cato institute. he is somebody who understands economics very well. he understands freedom. he is the kind of person you wish, in america, we have politicians who cared about political -- political philosophy and cared about right and wrong and not just power. the czech republic has been very fortunate to have this giant of international politics as their president. prior to being president, he was prime minister. during his years as prime minister, he established the policies in the czech republic that led to the prosperity and freedom that they have today. he is a special individual. he is somebody who, not only has had major positions in the government over the years there, but one of the things -- and he is associated with my friend fred smith at the competitive enterprise institute. he is somebody who has had the courage to stand up to the scientific nonsense of the global warming all -- alarmists. you think it is tough to do that in this country. you should go to europe and see the way they react to people who say that is not scientifically true. it has been 10 years since there has been warming. whatever warning there is, we don't know what causes it. it takes courage to do that. this is a man who has courage on some many different issues. we published a book some years ago called "renaissance." which was a collection of essays by vaslav klaus. i am thrilled to have him here to kick off this conference. i would point out that he has agreed to take questions but when this session is over, we will not have a break. we will go immediately to the next panel. please welcome a great advocate of liberty, the president of the czech republic, vaslav klaus. [applause] >> good morning. thank you for your very nice words. distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, thank you. thank you for the invitation to come to washington and the cato institute once again and for giving me the opportunity to address the 20th anniversary of the fall of communism. i do believe the historic year, 1989, deserves to be commemorated and deserves to be commemorated not only in the countries of central and eastern europe but all over the world. also in this country. thank you for organizing this conference. i have been in this room before. i am always been very pleased to be here. it is not by chance that this conference is organized by the cato institute. on this side of the atlantic, cato institute has been, for a long time, one of the most important institutions devoted to defending and promoting the principles of individual liberty, limited government, and free markets. i learned a lot from the cato institute. when communism collapsed and we were finally free to travel to the western world, we found many friends here. i remember my first meeting with mr. crane and others and many of their collaborators. it was not long after the revolution. i was pleased that the cato institute published my book more than 10 years ago. as a side remark, i saw upstairs, that the book is sold theire. it is quite visible. i discovered it is sold at a $2 price. it demonstrates something. it is good to know. >> capitalism. >> it may be surprising for some of you but the fall of communism remains to be a rather controversial topic, at least in our part of the world. there are several competing interpretations, both of the fall of communism in 1989 and the following radical restructuring of our societies. that is the reality. we have to live with the fact that there does not exist any generally except to carry on the subjects. another point is that personally am not happy with many of the interpretations ic around. most of them are based on a misleading and very biased storytelling which does not take into account the broader picture and which does not use the available instruments, concept, and series of social sciences. the storytelling and exaggerate the roles of individuals. especially of those individuals who are present -- presenting history and see themselves as the real heroes of that era. this is something that bothers me. any serious debate must start with a workable hypothesis of the dominant features of the communist system and of the reasons which led to its so- rapid germination. since the very beginning, i have been advocating the rather on popular concept that communism was not defeated. it collapsed or simply melted down. looking at it in hindsight, i don't feel i have to change this position of mine. communism was at the end of the 1980's, already too weak, soft, old, and empty of all meaning to exist much longer. those who did not see it in that way at that time proved to be wrong. some people are, of course, not happy with this interpretation because it greatly diminishes their role in this process. the transformation from communism to a free society was a very fragile mixture of inevitably imperfect and fragmentary constructivism of rules and institutions by the politicians and of a spontaneous grouping of markets which was luckily and organized -- and on organized outcome of the activities of millions of finally free people in our countries. this is something we have to insist on and only on this basis we should evaluate the whole process and the role of politicians in it. some of us are satisfied with what happened. it may be partly because we knew that it would have been a tragic mistake and a complete misunderstanding of the meeting and nature of the market economy to aim at constructing and permanently regulating markets as many of our contemporaries, both friends and adversaries, wanted. the market's can be constructed and regulated. they must be evolved and left to themselves. the same is true about political markets. i am convinced this is fully and the spirit of the cato institute. at the beginning, in the first years after the fall of communism, we had to go through a highly politicized depute between those who wanted more constructivism and less spontaneity and those who know that this ambition was nothing else but an attempt to legitimize the continuation of a slightly reformed status quo of the perestroika years. this was misinterpreted and mislabeled as a dispute between the schools of [inaudible] and shock therapy. this was in the post-communist countries but also in the u.s., as well. these terms have been almost fully discredited. i am repeatedly frustrated when i see them reemerging again and again. i hope they will be not brought to the fore. some people still do not know how complicated and how unpleasant and painful the transformation process really was for many of our fellow citizens. it was not a painless laboratory exercise in applied economics. it was all very real and the citizens of our country's had to bear its causes. it was measured by the fall of real income. i have to insist that we were not able to organize and the experiments and did not intend to do so, either. we already live in a highly democratic political setting. we were not czars, cannes, or other rulers of any kind. our task was to minimize the costs of this inevitable, fundamental system of change and i have many times emphasized that there are not only no free lunches but no free systemic changes, either. it was a very costly process. most of the politicians who were in charge of the reforming countries at this moment had a mixed mandate. they felt relatively strong support for rejecting, abandoning, and dismantling the oppressive communist regime as well as it's a rational and on productive economic system. there was no clear idea or regime of where to go. there were not many of us who were ready to openly say that they wanted capitalism. some of you remember, in my terminology, markets without objectives. most of the people in our country's were afraid to openly say that they wanted capitalism and free markets. they were dreaming about various kinds of ways. this is almost forgotten now. the reluctance at that time was, in this respect, enormous. the second issue was how to get there. immediately after the fall of communism, it was necessary to open markets, both internally and externally, to liberalize and deregulate them, do de- subsidize the economy to reveal the true costs and prices of all kinds of economic activities, to privatize the whole economy. the quick disappearance of the institutions of the old system led to an institutional vacuum which had to be filled with alternative institutions as soon as possible. this was to avoid huge costs of anarchy or semi-anarchy. waiting for the existence of a perfectly prepared box of rules and institutions of a market economy before the starting of bohol whole liberalization and deregulation process, would have been a tragic mistake. the scholastic dispute of what should come first, markets or market supporting institutions, reminds me of the eternal chicken/x sequence. -- chicken/egg sequence. we had to work on chickens and eggs simultaneously. the moralistic preaching coming even from this country that there must be boat rule of law first was an empty slogan. the issue was how to create it, not whether we wanted it or not. this was easily and cheaply misunderstood in many circles. where are we now? on the one hand, the economies of the post-communist countries are stronger, more mature, more stable, more robust, and less vulnerable than at the beginning. the institutions and rules are more solid and comprehensive. spontaneous learning by doing brought about good results for the new generations. the development was, however, not going in one direction only. i believe that the first post- communist decadeb can be characterized as an uphill movement. more freedom, more democracy, more market economy, less state intervention, less regulation. in the fundamental equation, we have been moving towards the free system. we've moved away from the state socialism, democritus some, were in retreat. there was environmentalism which had gradually gained strength and some of us were aware of that but their role was not as prominent as it is now. this has dramatically changed. the second post-communist decade was quite different than the first one. we have been moving in the opposite direction, downhill. we experienced less freedom, more regulation, more manipulation of people in the name of all kinds of politically correct ambitions. we experienced post democracy. we experience growing disbelief in markets, social democratism is the market economy has all but disappeared because of social and ecological market economy. this shift was evidence during the old second decade of the post-communist era to all who wanted to see it. the current financial economic crisis made it even more profound. it weakened many achievements of the era of the radical dismantling of communism, 20 years ago, even further. the same happened in the non- post-communist countries, as well. we did not come here to discuss the current crisis. it will sooner or later be over. the real damage caused by the crisis will, i'm afraid, stay with us for a long time. the adversaries of the market have, again, managed to spread a far reaching distrust in the existing economic system but this time, and this is the main problem, this time it is not the mistrust in the free market capitalism. this is not mistrust in the laissez-faire system. it is not the mistrust in the capitalism of famous scholars. this is not the mistrust of decades defended by the cato institute as it was in the case 80 years ago. it is now the mistrust in the highly regulated capitalism of the last decades. i am not sure that capitalism can't survive such a massive attack. the market either is or is not. there are no third ways. we should consider a way to fight against the newly rediscovered belief in the state against the second generation we see around us these days. we must not allow the repetition of the 1930's and the decades that followed. we must limit and not expand government intervention to and into the market. that is our task today and for tomorrow. the final sentence is that the communist experience should never be forgotten. otherwise, it will be repeated. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, mr. president. we will take questions. i would ask that you hold the could microphone close to your mouth so everyone could hear which your question is and please identify who you are and whose acts you are grinding. >> i'm with the cornwall alliance and i wondered if you could give us a bit of an update on how things are going in europe in terms of the controversy over potential policies to deal with global warming. i know that in europe, you have been standing against the attempt to do more cap in trade. i think that is a good thing for you to do. can you catch us up with where things are about that? >> i think it is wrong to concentrate or to narrow the discussion on a cap and trade. the debate is we accept the doctrine of global warming or not. and what kind of instruments to use to achieve some goals of that movement is another issue. captain trade is just an instrument, one of the possible instruments. for me, it is irrelevant. i am afraid there is no serious debate in europe. i'm afraid there is no serious debate in the united states around minorities who have strong views. it is a dialogue of the death. the other side has not listened. the politicians do not participate in the discussion. i had one frustrating expression -- experience after another. i go directly from here to in new york city where there is a whole day of climate change conference where heads of governments participate at the united nations. i will have the pleasure of sitting at the same table with angela merkel and others and discuss those issues. i'm afraid there is no serious, serious discussion. nevertheless, i published a book which some of you may be saw. the cato incident published the book and -- the cato institute published a book and the book was also published in the slovenian language. this is the 11th language it was published in. as a positive gesture, a launching ceremony at the university of rubliana, the president of sloot b -- slovenia came and reacted positively. this means that things have been changing a little at least. at least, i hope. the real controversy, the real debate in europe simply does not exist. the politicians bully, fully swallowed the doctrine and it is our task to do something. >> economics correspondent, barry would, your final words about mistrust in markets, particularly the advanced economies regulated markets, what is your take on the financial crisis? there is some spot -- there is so much thought that it was the absence of adequate regulation that allow banks to be haven in the way -- to be paid in the way united states banks behaved. >> tomorrow, i will argue about the nonsense of global warming. the day after tomorrow, there is the general assembly of the united nations. i will speak wednesday afternoon and i discovered that we will talk about the crisis. i am afraid that my fellow heads of state sen and governments will be surprised that there is someone in this huge building who would openly and dramatically say that the financial crisis was not a market failure by government failure. that is the substance of my speech on wednesday afternoon in the wind. i do not believe -- in the u. n i don't think this is the problem of regulation. and regulation is more or less what. i am sure all of you -- any regulation is more or less or long. -- more or less wrong. i don't believe in regulation. we live in a regulated world. we lived in communism. that was a system based on the mistrust in the market and the trust and regulations. we have very strong views about that. who is organizing -- >> business people magazine -- mr. president, i would like to ask you to comment more on the debate of communism and capitalism in conditions of the crisis. you are talking about mostly post-communist countries. according to look to the latest questioners, i would like to raise a question about latin america. in columbia, most of the people voted for socialism. socialism, in conditions of crisis for many people who are going through extreme poverty, it is a directive. it is a directive that it is health care and education and in communism is free of charge. i would like to ask you if you think that health care and education could be free and a market economy? >> was that a question or was it a statement? i don't know. we live in a world where education and health care both were hypothetically free. this is not the case. they are not free and you have to pay for them. another indirect form, the more you pay, the real prize and a low-cost directly, the more you are aware of the costs. that was the teaching and preaching we were trying to bring to our countries. i am afraid that you are moving slowly. i wish you success. in america. >> i am with the cato institute. you recently served as president of the european union. would you share with us some of your impressions of that experience? [laughter] >> it is better to say that we had the president of the european councils. we were asked to organize meetings for the agenda at to give the floor to one and another. it was somehow to demonize that position, my understanding is wrong. i have one observation, only one. i supposed before the presidency that i already knew what was the european union about. i understood it and i was wrong. it is much worse than i expected. [laughter] >> i am from austria, interning at atlas economic research co.. facing all the things going on in our continent, growing hostility against private property, free markets, family and religion, i wondered if you have recommendations for me as a young european what to do to stay on our continent or to leave and begin somewhere else. what would you recommend? >>'s i don't know where to go from our continent. to go here used to be the solution. i am not sure that is the case now. it is more complicated. i don't know. we have to come back to the clear messages of what we want to cheat. the situation in europe is very difficult, especially because the decision making power has been moving for years. from individual member states to the unelected central power in brussels and this is really the post democratic world. i'm afraid this will bring us more and more problems. we have a short-term task and short-term ambitions. one of them would be to stop. >> what do you think of the obama administration's decision to reorganize missile defense and pull missiles, rather the radar system out of your country and poland? have you see the relationship developing in the future with russia for the czech republic and eastern europe? >> this is a question for the press conference not this meeting. it forces me to make strong political statements which is not my ambition here this morning. what happened is something i don't have a problem accepting. i did not demonize the solution. i did not demonize the previous concept. it is a relatively small moment in our current history. it is not a big issue for me. someone invested too much of their political capital into this idea. now this investment is lost. that is quite understandable. those people who lost the invested capital are a little bit more angry than i am. >> i was involved in political activities in 1989. recalling your role, what was your observation or the point at which you realized that czechoslovakia could break free without the soviet union stopping them? >> this is for writing a book, not just a question. i am preparing a serious book about the last decades. it should be published in november in the czech language. i will try to discuss both. the first part, i call it a pre-yesterday which is the communist era. that we left behind. the second is yesterday, the moment of transition and transformation. the third part is today and the fourth part is tomorrow. i hope this book will be completed in one month's time. for more detailed answer to that question, on the one hand, the fall of communism, in its timing, came unexpectedly. on the other hand, we had been moving in the second half of the 1980's to such a situation. it was a question of time. it was not a shocking experience. we were more or less prepared for something like that. the question was really what would be the last drop that would change the situation. it was not a shocking experience. when i got the austrian question, i happened to be in austria in the last six days before the 17th of november in our country. it happened on a friday evening, the student demonstration in prague. i was at the university atlin szt. i spent two hours talking with professors at the economics faculty about things and i asked about hyack. they said it does not exist here. the students at the university do not have hyack on the list of literature they study. i was n/a large hall with students and i said that if hyack is dead in austria, we will make him alive in prague again. [laughter] i could not expect it would be the next day. [laughter] the general feeling in the country, i would say, was really such. >> one last question. >> thank you for your comments. i am from temple university in philadelphia. i am ukranian. i am cheerful about the communism -- the fall of communism. at the same time, i want to ask you, there is plenty of historical evidence that free market capitalism does not work in every aspect of life. in certain areas of life it works better. there are pathologies of free- market capitalism that are real in the environmental sphere, the social sphere, i am not trying to say -- in my view, and many people, younger people, neither of free-market capitalism nor socialism work as ideologies or systems of organizing societies. they both have their own policies. there are dangers. there is plenty of evidence. the question is -- how are you planning to protect your society in the czech republic from these pathologies? >> we understand the question. i don't want to protect the checks society from free-market. on the contrary, i want to introduce the free market system as much as possible. the market system will take care of itself and of the rest of us, i am sure. [applause] >> thank you> >klaus, for an informative presentation. i should mention that in 2004, give a speech at st. petersburg university to 60 business students and asked how many knew who ayn rand was and she was a graduate of the university and one person raise their hand. it is a similar situation. thank you very much, mr. president. please stay seated. the next battle will be appear immediately. [applause] -- the next panel will be up to here immediately. [applause] [no audio] >> coming up later on c-span, all look at how attorneys approach cases involving national security and classified information. this is hosted by the catholic university law school. there will be two former's inspectors general from the cia that will be live at 5:00, eastern, here on c-span. as we look at a live picture of the u.s. capitol where the house and senate will meet later today, the house comes in at 4:00 p.m. eastern to hold a quick pro forma session. work will start to marron. there will be more debating on fiscal 2009 spending. live house coverage here on c- span. the senate committee chair, max baucus, revealed his health plan last week. the process continues at 9:00 a.m., eastern, with a committee session. that will be live on c-span. in a discussion on health care with vermont governor jim douglas. he is also the president of the national governors' association. this is from last thursday. this is about one hour. >> we are committed to a future of journalism. we provide journalism education and fostered a free press worldwide. for more information about the national press club, and visit our website. on behalf of our 3500 members worldwide, i would like to welcome our speaker and our guest in the audience today. i would also like to welcome those of you who are watching on c-span. we are looking forward to the speech today and afterwards, i will ask as many questions from the audience as time permits. please hold your applause during the speech so we have time for as many questions as possible. for our broadcast audience, i would like to explain it if you hear applause, it may be from the guests and members of the general public who attend our luncheons and not necessarily from the working press. i would like now to introduce our head table guests and ask them to stand briefly. from my left, leland schwartz, states news service. family walker, med page today, john bullard and a member of the national press club board of governors. the director of the national governors' association center for best practices and a guest of our speaker. the health reporter for reuters news. dr. craig jones, the director of the vermont blueprint for health. the speaker's committee vice chairman and independent journalist with news corp. media. -- news composite hoom meuium. -- news hook medium 5tthe executive director of the national governors' association. the senior editor of provider magazine. the congressional reporter of bloomberg news. and the washington bureau chief for the providence journal. after serving vermont for nearly 40 years, beginning with his election to the vermont house of representatives in 1972, our guest, governor jim douglas, has announced he will not seek reelection in 2010. governor douglas currently serves as the chair man of the powerful and bipartisan national governors association. perhaps this is why our guest has been able to handle and lead the radio act of health care debate without becoming a victim of political sniping. as governor, he focused the stayed on health care reform and reach across party lines to achieve consensus on his blueprint for help. he built on the blueprint and he signed a comprehensive package of health care reform in 2006, designed to expand access to coverage, improve quality and the performance of the system, and contain costs. as a result of his health-care reform efforts, he was honored in 2006 by aarp, as one of 10 extraordinary people who have made the world a better place for their innovative thinking, passion, and perseverance. vermont has been ranked the healthiest state by the united health foundation for the past two years while the state's uninsured population has shrunk from 9.8% in 2005 to 7.6% in 2008. as chair of the national governors' association, he is focusing his seventh on the critical role states in health care reform. today, he will talk with us about his yearlong ntia ga initiative which looks at opportunities for states to contribute to the success of national health care reform and the importance of state efforts to help all citizens have access to more coordinated and efficient health care. please join me in welcoming to the national press club, governor jim douglas. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you for those kind words. it is an honor to be here with all of you today. especially with a couple of expatriate's from vermont who i ran into in the audience. it is great to see them, along with some of our team from the national governors' association. i don't get to the nation's capital to much. when you live in heaven, why would you want to come to washington. ? [laughter] >> i am honored to be here today and talk about a timely subject. we had an outstanding season. we had an outstanding maple cropp and next month will be wonderful as the leaves begin to turn and the autumnal splendor is in full glory for we hope you will have a chance to come to the green mountain state. i want to thank, and match for their invitation to be here. i&ol-- i want to thank donna and matt. rather than dwell too much on the national governors' initiative, i would be remiss if i did not talk about what is going on capitol hill in terms of health care reform. no one else is talking about a washington so i thought i would bring it up and offer a few perspectives from the standpoint of the governors. these are important issues for all of us. every governor, i believe, wants to improve the quality of health care in our country. every governor wants to reduce the cost of that year. is particularly imperative now because health care is such a huge portion of the national economy in terms of its percentage of our gross domestic product. increasingly, it is a large percentage of every state operating budget. medicaid alone is nearly 22%, on average, of state budgets around the country in places like vermont, we have an extended program. we think it will be much higher over the next decade. we have to take this seriously from an economic and fiscal standpoint as well as to what we can to improve the health outcomes of the people of our great country. if health reform gets through congress, states will play a significant role in the implementation. some health programs are generally run by the state governments, whether it is medicaid or some other program. it is obvious that states will play a key role in what ever passes the congress. it is critical that governors be given the time and flexibility to implement those reforms. if you want to be successful in carrying them out. i will talk a little about several aspects of reform. and how they affect the governors across the country. i think it is fair to say that although these are my own thoughts, they reflect the preponderance of my contemporaries. we appreciate the efforts of the congress. we recognize their progress but we want to make sure the federal policy makers are aware of the risks that states face in the national reform efforts. as i talk with people around the green mountain state and discuss the issue with my colleagues around the country, there's a real consensus that we have to do something. keeping the american people healthy is not a republican or democratic object to. we want to do something for everybody. one focus of the early education and health of young kids is that they should be healthy. they should come to school ready to learn because their education will allow them to be more successful. at the vendor -- other end of the spectrum, vermont is the second oldest state and the country as far as median age. as we get older, which have the best possible care for those in their golden years. we have a common interest across the political spectrum. we need to make sure that the congress gets it right from the standpoint of the state. i mentioned the economy and over the past year or so, every state is facing some real economic stress. even before the current recession began, i talked about the affordability agenda, making sure that vermont is an affordable place to live, work, and raise our families. one key element of that is the cost of health care. it is squeezing the budget of families, small businesses, and the state government. that is why i work with republicans and democrats in our legislature to find common ground and pass the comprehensive health reforms that are making a difference for people of our state. the successes we have realized in vermont have not come easily. they have required timor, compromise, and a willingness to wrestle with the tough issues. it is vital for the people of our state and they can be a model for reform across the country. this is especially now as we seek to come out of the global recession. this is longest and deepest since the great depression. we need to be sure we are ready to grow in terms of economic health and health and well-being of the people who live here. we'll have to find some common ground. that is why i have decided to make health care reform the focus of my yearlong initiative as chairman of the national governors' association. after six and a half years of working to reform health care, i welcome the current discussion in washington because in order for state reforms to be successful, the federal government has to be a full partner in that effort. reforming 1/6 of our national economy is no small task. it is a tough job for the congress. i certainly respect that. whenever they are talking about health care, they are really discussing not one single system but a complex web of political, economic, and social issues that will have a big impact on american people. i think it is understandable that americans have a right to worry about how the reforms will affect the quality and affordability of the care they receive. they have a right to worry about how inaction and the rising cost of health care in our quantity- driven system will affect them. there's nothing wrong with debate, especially on an issue is critical as this because policy makers and politicians and citizens at large haven't a right to speak up about the cost and consequences of the reform proposals. the debate seems to have a way of going off track, away from the common goals and tore all political fault lines. my greatest concern about the current political discussion in washington is that it is too focused on the wrong end of the health-care debate, namely the payment structure that we have in place. with so much time and energy spent discussing where the money comes from, we miss the fact that no matter who pays, a health-care costs are on track to bankrupt the whole country. we have to act boldly. the nation spends almost $7,500 per person for health services every year. that is more than double the national average for all the other industrialized countries around the world. the outcomes in america are no better than the army's other places. . states like vermont can be a guiding light as we continue this debate in our nation's capital. we have learned one thing about reform that i hope washington will remember. coverage alone is not enough. without significant improvements to the delivery system and efforts to lower costs will eventually cause for the strain on an unsustainable system. true form needs to get the cost drivers. we need to get changes in how we incentivize health-care to promote a healthier population. these things will truly reform health care and contain out of control spending. we need to drive the value but it will take a lot of effort. in vermont we have gained a national reputation for successfully implementing comprehensive reforms that incorporate high quality, coordinated care and expanded coverage. the simple reality is that when americans are healthier they spend fewer dollars on health care services. government programs payless. plans are not as numerous. by combining the coronation of care with health-care technology we can eliminate duplicative systems. through the innovation we put into place six years ago realized health teams to provide coordinated services through primary care practices. all payers including medicaid and private insurance. insurance with yesterday's announcement by kathleen sebelius, medicare will now be able to participate in this reform. these and not just theories about what will happen sometime in the far off future. they are having real impact on the lives of people today. vermont is not the only place where these reform efforts have been taking place, although i do think it is the best model. minnesota, washington, and some other states are improving care and removing excess spending. all these can serve as models for the federal government and for other states. a system for reform and coverage efforts need to go hand-in-hand. it needs to be more than insurance in the name on them. americans need coverage to help them stay healthy and prevent disease, and is available if. they get if we focused on improving the delivery to improve health outcomes and cost savings. it is not only critical for americans, but for the state governments. in must be done right. for my colleagues and i are watching the debate in washington closely because the impact on our state budgets could be enormous. reform that does not respect fiscal reality of state governments will not only fail to improve the system but takeaway vital resources from other efforts including education and others. states can not print money. we have to balance our books of the end of every fiscal year. doing so as not getting is here. collectively states face projected shortfalls of over $250 billion of the the next two years. both democratic and republican governors have been forced to painful decisions. 28 governor's proposed general spending and cuts and 27 recommend cuts in k-12 education. some governors also recommended tax and fee increases totaling nearly $24 billion. vermont is no different. we just learned last month that our state revenue projections were down 2.5%. right after the budget was passed earlier this year over my objections. rockefeller institute for state government estimates even under its most optimistic projections state revenues will not have recovered to pre-recession levels even by 2014. states will have to make even more tough decisions in coming years to balance budgets and avoid increasing taxes to a level that will stifle growth and innovation. federal mandates not fully funded, health reforms that shift costs will bust the budget and fail to achieve objectives. reform needs to respect and that implementation at the state level is not one size fits all. governors will have a critical role if national reform passes to implement the broad policies. it will take a lot of preparation and potentially restructuring. states will be where the rubber meets the road. gubernatorial experience will be crucial. states must work in partnership with the federal government to make sure they have the flexibility necessary to implement them. my colleagues and i are working hard to make sure that policymakers to the message in a flexibility is the key to innovation. it is critical to the success of their reforms. we're not naive unless there will inevitably be some adapting. a key component of my chairs initiative is to help governors understand what national reform means for them and their state programs. governors will need to make decisions on the timing and process. states wendy to approach the issue strategically. if reform becomes law many details will remain undefined and left to federal agencies to decide through regulations. we will need to work with them, the agency's. -- the agencies. want to offer personal views on the current discussions. a lot of work has gone into developing the house and senate reform proposals. governors appreciate that they have been listening to state concerns and made some changes. well all governors believe improvements are needed to the health care system there and it should -- initial reactions differ. some are frankly opposed to any unfunded mandates while others signal strong support, but all the vendors need more details. i want to mention three areas. on insurance reform the finance committee in the senate lays out new federal standards, but it appears to give states flexibility to make these changes and others states believe best suit their markets. most importantly, the amount of state insurance preemption is limited in the day-to-day monitoring is left cuba states no reason not changes we can make happen on the flip of a switch. it is critical to have time to phase in new rules and phase them out as the finance committee is doing. we need to make sure rules allow experts in the states allow them to fit them with the rules and regulations we already have. for the health insurance exchange concert seems to be recognized. the complex array of coordination issues to be put simply cannot be dictated from the federal level. it is states critical is run these exchanges. several pioneering states most notably messages and utah have already demonstrated this. states have a tremendous new health i.t. initiatives under way. we know that states need to thoughtfully develop the relationship between the exchange and a state medicaid programs. states need to be with to coordinate the programs with other services provided to low income individuals like food stamps and welfare assistance. the bottom line is that the finance committee's reforms still need work, but i think they're headed down a path that seems workable to the states. governors remained most concerned with the medicaid expansion and the potential tremendous financial liability. the original house try- committee bill recognizes the precarious position by fully funding of medicaid expansion. it has been discussed a grilling. the proposal has moved far by a german moving from zero to nearly 90% federal funding over the long term. there is still enormous risks for rostates. many are concerned about aboard pressure. to bring nearly 30 million additional people into the system including an additional 11 million on medicaid. it has many governors concerned about the pressures created by enrolling millions who are currently eligible but not enrolled. by some estimates there could be 6 million of these. they should be treated as part of the expansion population and therefore, i believe, should receive an increased federal message. for as congress moves forward we hope you'll continue to work with governors to craft successful reforms, but they need to recognize reforms cannot be built on the backs of states, but can be accomplished in partnership. we want to make sure it is affordable and accessible and accountable to citizens. we want to fulfill our role as leaders in addressing key cost- service, improving quality, and providing more coverage. it is an important issue on the minds of all governors. i am pleased for the national governors' association we have been able to work across the aisle to communicate with congress and articulate concerns. i certainly hope before this is all done that folks in the congress will find a way to reach across the aisle. thank you all very much. [applause] >> we have a lot of questions. i will start off with someone from your home state. what lessons should washington take away from your experience in passing health reform in vermont? >> the key to what we have accomplished is the comprehensive approach, not just expanding coverage and adding more people to medicaid or other publicly supported programs. it is changing how we actually deliver care. here is a specific example. we have a community health -- we have community health teams. three across the state comprise 10% of our population where we have a primary care delivery model that is exciting. we have a medical home for citizens of vermont. the practice includes not only a physician but a nurse, behavioral health specialist, dietitian -- ever is necessary to fulfil the needs of the individual patient. at the white house health for i was privileged to host in burlington in march a young woman from our state, wanda rose, spoke about her experience. she suffered from a crime disease and was not making much progress, was out of work, expensive to our system. when she got into a practice, that constitutes a medical home with a community health team her life began to turn around because she has a team of professionals who really care about her and we're providing the ongoing care necessary. she is managing her illness. , back illness. it really can make a difference. -- she is managing her illness and back to work. it needs to be a comprehensive approach. it provides an incentive to providers for quality rather than quantity. we pay in incremental a bonus -- we pay an incremental bonus to our primary care providers in the program based on their adherence to standards of the national council on quality assurance. they get paid more for delivering better care. i think we have a great model. in medicaid alone over the last couple of years we have seen an 11% decline in the number of admissions to hospitals and a 6% decline in the emergency room usage. our model works. we have saved a quarter billion dollars for medicaid over the last four years. believe me that as a lot of money for vermont. >> what is the one aspect of reform you have not seen represented in the national health care bill? >> to be honest we have not seen the bill from the senate finance committee. [laughter] so i'm not sure i can answer that until we do. i appreciate chairman max baucus reaching out to governors. we have had a number of meetings and teleconferences. he has reflected some concerns we have raised and moved in the right direction, but most governors at this time went to see what it means to their individual states. off until we have the actual language of legislation i'm not sure i know the effect on vermont. there were numbers floating around this week, but i want my medicaid director to crush them for vermont. we have been so focused on expansion that we have not had detailed compositions about delivery system reform. to the extent of the senate bill does not describe this delivery system reform, that needs to be added. >> is their health care reform that vermont tried that was a mistake and that you think federal lawmaker should avoid? >> probably the ones the legislature passed the heavy debt a few years ago. [laughter] namely tax increases. the reason i say that is we have to get costs under control. i have often said that whether you were for publicly or privately funded options and does not matter which pocket we pay for it out of, all of them will be into. we have to get the cost of care under control. raising taxes is not response -- all of our pockets will be into. -- empty. in washington the problem is there is always a need for instant results. that is not likely. we launched the blueprint in 2003 and after six years now we have been able to achieve some results of have described. it takes time. it takes dedication and commitment on the part of the insurers and providers, policymakers, everyone in vermont to turn that battleship. we have demonstrated that it can work. adding more money to the system i don't believe is the way to go. >> what was your political strategy in vermont that help to avoid some of the political pain going on now like though tea party business? >> there was a little pain, frankly. after we passed a bill in 2005 -- they did that i rejected we came back the next year to work together and accommodate different points of view. we got a bill passed the was not all i wanted nor everything the legislature wanted to. it was something we could agree to. i was very pleased when a senator of the other party in our state said afterward that you know, going through the first round with a veto resulted ultimately in a better bill. there was not a lack of pain entirely, but there continues to be a level of mutual respect. vermonters are really independent. we care about the people we represent and despite political differences are able to come together. >> what is the status of the health information exchange in vermont? >> we began a program a few years ago with the acronym vital, vermont information technology leaders the has public-private intermission. i believe that technology is one key to cost containment and the improvement of care. -- it has a public-private information sharing. you reported in your publication donna -- the direct a question? >> no, i did not. >> it highlights that area. notably in one city with the original medicare system there is a pilot project in newf if you go into that emergency room in your part of that community of carrier medication is on line for the emergency room doctors to see. a woman came in and had a stomach pain. without this capacity to get the information immediately online who knows what might have happened. lots of expensive tests perhaps, maybe even exploratory surgery. in fact, the doctor pulled the history up on the screen. talked to the patient and found she had not taken her medication for her problem. so the care was delivered quickly and inexpensively. i believe that intermission technology is key -- information technology is key. we have a program where we are getting laptops to providers. we have a web site called docksite to facilitate this. we will make sure the entire state has this capacity soon. >> speaking of emergency rooms this questioner asks, and it er physician recently told me that emergency rooms are becoming the dumping ground of the nation's health-care system. how you fix that in any reform? >> as i noted earlier we're making progress on that front. we have seen a 6% decline in the medicare population of the emergency room usage because of the blue print strategy which focuses on preventative care and early detection. making sure that people get their regular physical exams. putting these health teams in place. it really does work. most americans would rather spend their time somewhere other than in the emergency room. we have seen progress in vermont. >> how does your program increase access for an insured or under-insured people? what evidence do you have that they are getting access to the system? >> as you noted in your introduction we reduced the rate from 9% down to 6% in a couple of years. we still have a ways to go. the majority and injured are eligible for medicaid. they just do not sign up for it. we have extensive outreach programs. i guess we will have to make them even better. we provided affordable coverage to thousands more as a result of our reforms. it is a seamless system of access based on family affordability. we have the basic medicaid program that requires no outlay. it is for those of the lowest end of the income range. we have an expanded medicaid program that requires a premium based on income. then we have a partnership with some private providers for participants pay a premium based on their ability to pay, and eventually people are able to afford insurance on their own. that is what we need to do. the problem in america is what i call the benefit cliff. you are either on a public program or not. there is no incentive to earn more, better yourself. that is not right. we have to find a way to make a graduated system of access. that has been our philosophy. we have thousands more covered. we will keep at it. >> i want to know who the person is with bad handwriting and a good question. given that cost in vermont have gone up more than the national average according to the banking, insurance, securities health care administration what evidence do have that the medical home cuts will save money overall? >> because i indicate we're saving money. according to the office in the four years of a global commitment weaver we have had in place since 2005 our medicaid expenditures are $245 million less than they would have been under the traditional non-waiver program. we have work to do. we have an infrastructure that is probably not as efficient as other places because of our small population. the rural nature of the vermont, the small population makes it difficult to achieve the economy of scale other places do. it is true in public education where our expenditures per pupil are nearly the highest per capita. it is true in health care as well where we have small hospitals in various parts of the state. i'm not sure the economy of scale is something we can never completely overcome, but we have seen real progress in medicaid costs. i'm confident that the medical home strategy will be successful for the entire population. >> two questions about canadian commuting habits. both are asked in opposite ways. in vermont do you see many canadians coming for medical services that are superior in vermont, or for cure the would have had to wait for? >> we see canadians coming to vermont for many reasons. [laughter] to ski, shop. we have the burlington international airport -- 40% of the passenger traffic is from north of the border. it is smaller and more convenient than the big airport in montreal. we regard our neighbors as not foreigners but our friends and. this is a little bit off topic, but we have villages that are blessed to buy the international border and manufacturing plant that is put. we have been pressure store where the border goes through, so with an opera house and a library. -- we have a grocery store where their border goes through. there's a lot of interaction, commuting for work. i can tell you one conversation i had with the canadian woman. it is fair to say that despite the challenges most canadians like their health care system and want to preserve it although the supreme court of canada earlier in this decade said the famous quotation "access to a waiting list is not access to health care." there is movement towards a public-private blend their as well. this woman told me about her son who has a special need. she said i am almost at the two-year anniversary of when i ask for an appointment for someone to see him. the lesson i take from general conversations with canadians is the quality of care is good, emergency care is good, but if it is not an emergency there might be a weight. the one to make sure in vermont and in america that a mother does not have to celebrate, note the two-year anniversary of a request for an appointment for her son. >> this is the converse. don't lots of vermonters good to canada for care? could we learn something from their insurance free system? >> anecdotally i did not know of those who do. for we have seen some access of prescription drugs from north of the border. they are often less expensive. in terms of actual care i have not seen them. >> moving on to the federal situation how much consultation is going on between congress and the governors? do you feel the governors have been made part of the process? >> i discussed that in my remarks. i appreciate the region now we have seen from the gang of six. even beyond that i have spoken with nancy pelosi number of times. the bulk of the interaction has been recently when chairman max baucus and his colleagues have spent all the time with governors. we have a variety of formats to do that. we have a health care reform task force with 14 governors, seven from each party. it is tough to get everyone on the phone on short notice, but we get the vast majority when we can speak with senators. occasionally there are four leaders, two from each party, available to meet. we do it almost always on a bipartisan basis. i think that is the way we will succeed in these efforts. i thought that senator anzi made a good. in a comment i heard reported a couple of weeks ago. he said yes, the senate could pass a bill that is not bipartisan. and could marshal the necessary votes to push it through, but in the long run i hope the congress will want a reform effort the american people feel good about. that the american people will buy into. if it is something forced, then it will not succeed. i think it is better to get this done right, and then to get it done right away. >> how important do you think the recent discussion on medical malpractice reform is to the reform debate? >> i think it is an element worth pursuing. the president mentioned it in his speech yesterday. chairman max baucus has included it. some states have made real progress. california has some innovations often cited as strong. mississippi has put in place some reforms. we have tried in vermont with less than complete success. it makes sense when the senate finance committee is approaching a new it is voluntary with grants to states to put reform efforts in place. weather mediation processes or malpractice courts. whatever state to like to do with a little federal support. i know that there is a lot of debate about whether it is a significant part of the cost or not. some estimates are that judgments and settlements are no more than 1% of the total cost. let's face it. there is defensive medicine, i am sure. i hear from physicians and hospital ceos. i chatted with one ceo who is no longer in his position. this was a few years back. he said if you, jim douglas, come off the ski slope with a fracture we will give you the best care we can and you'll be fine. you'll be good to go as soon as possible, but if it is someone from washington, not local, we will probably run more tests. that is the way that we do business. it is a factor we need. to need >> do you see any alternative to expand medicaid were is the answer just having full federal funding of any expansion? >> i think we there should be full federal funding if there is an expansion. unfunded mandates are not acceptable. the nga has made that clear. a few minutes ago i suggested that i am pleased the new committee draft has moved in the direction of more federal support. we're grateful. some colleagues have pointed out that even up 5%, 5% of a lot more is still a lot of money. in context and mentioned the fact that we will not be back to pre-recession revenues for about eight years. states have cut education, the other big public expenditure. states have the under-funded pension systems and have borrowed more in many cases and laid-off workers. we cannot expect states just when the revenue recovery begins to put every new dollar and two expanded health care. i think that the feds have to own up to whatever they require the states to do. some believe that medicaid expansion is not the way. it is a program that is big, unsustainable, and flexible. we ought to think of something new and different. the approach in vermont has been a public-private partnership. it has been successful. sorry we have to beg the federal government for permission through waivers to implement some of the reforms. it has been successful so far. i have to tell a story about that. when i came down here to request a waiver and met with secretary levitt a number of times. we got the sign off. then someone said by the way, that you have to go over to omb. i did not know that. they sign off on all these financial arrangements. so i made an appointment to meet with them. i went into the old executive office building there. the of then-governor of texas was coming out of a similar meeting asking for medicaid waiver. i. jeb how would wind. he said he did not think it went too well. i said if you can i get a waiver from this administration i don't know about me. we both got it. >> do you think reform proposals do enough to address long-term care and the strength it places on medicaid, specifically what you think of the class act? >> i'm glad you brought that up. here's another area where vermont is innovative. i feel good about our progress. we have something called trusses for care. for medicaid participants in long term care settings there is a bias towards nursing homes. through a waiver process we have got an equal access for care at home and institutional settings. we're the second oldest state, but despite that we have de- licensed several nursing home beds and downsized the capacity because we're caring for more at home. in most cases that is what they prefer. my in-laws are in their early nineties, not well, live a few miles from us. they are still at home with a lot of care. they're not on medicaid, just for the record. i cannot imagine if we have a choice not keeping them there in the home where they have lived for 65 years. most americans feel that way. we got another waiver from the feds to use medicaid dollars to keep more at home. we have saved literally millions of dollars over the last couple of years. long-term care must be a part of it. it is not the biggest piece of the medicaid program, but important. especially as the population ages. >> considering vermont is the second oldest state what was the public response thereto the debate over the so-called death panel bac? >> i mentioned earlier that vermonters are independent, but it is also quicker to said that we are civil in our public discourse. one of the center serves on the health committee. -- one of the senators serves on the committee. he had several well-attended forums and there were no disruptions. people had opinions and expressed them. sometimes strongly, but in a very respectful and civilized way. i think the range of public opinion in vermont is across the spectrum in terms of their views of these reform efforts. the level of debate has been at a higher level. >> what the maker of tea party movement and its sentiment towards obama's reform nationwide? >> as i suggested earlier i think it is perfectly appropriate for people to have strong views. to ask serious questions. to try to understand what it means when proposals seek to reduce medicare expenditures. does that mean a cut in benefits? does that mean a reimbursement to providers will be reduced, less access to care? these are fair questions. but and the need to be debated on their merits. not with inflammatory performances we have seen. by the way, for anyone who believes that these were organized by the republican party, i don't think we are that organize. [laughter] i think americans are concerned. they showed up at these events to express the. i hope we can refocus the debate on the real merits of the issues. -- they should up at these events to express that. >> ok, you have been asked to solve a mystery. it looks like the public option is dead. who or what killed it? >> i think it was the professor in the library -- [laughter] with the candlestick. i guess i'm not a fan of the public option, to be honest. let me give you a reason from our own experience. about 15 to 20 years ago vermont started a program called doctor dinosaur. it is a medicaid-supported program for children. we have virtually full universal coverage for our kids. the percentage of those uninsured is quite low. it has been affordable because insuring children is much less expensive than for people in the older years. here's what happened. the program went into effect. many employers said to their employees hey, take your kids off the company planned and put them on a new state program. that has happened. we need to provide subsidies to people to get coverage through employers as well as the plan we talk about -- it is the mascot for the in a rush to the athletic teams. it is like a panther. it is now extinct. the last one was shot in a town on an1836.. anyway, we want people to get access to whatever program worse for them. -- the last one was shot in 1836. since we saw this migration to doctor dinosaur away from plans through employers my fear is that a public option will see the same migration. >> in the u.s. we have arguably the best health technology in the world. it is increasing exponentially. however, new technologies are expensive. how should we ration their use across the population? >> i'm not sure we have figured that out in vermont. we have a certificate of process to determine when a major capital expenditure is appropriate for health care institutions, but it is difficult to say no. when a community comes to state and regulators and says we have to have that dialysis program -- i mean, gas prices high and no public transportation you don't expect us to drive 25 miles to get dialysis, do you? that replicates throughout the state many times. we are seeing a significant expense for infrastructure. that connects to the question about the high cost proportionally in vermont because we don't have the economy of scale as other places do. that area continues to challenge us. >> we have a wild card question here. how the few about your veto of the same-6 marriage bill. be regretted? what kind of impact do think the same-sex marriage will have in vermont? >> it is a matter of great debate. earlier this year it was a matter of intense personal opinion. as i said at the time i see quite differently from other issues which confront. it is not something that deals with the economic well-being of the state or the fiscal integrity. does not deal with job creation or affordability. it is a personal opinion that people have. everyone will cast their vote as they deem proper. i cast mine. the legislature decided to go another way. i accept that. >> ok, we're nearly out of time. before i ask the last question i have a couple of important matters. let me remind members of our future speakers. on september 18 we have dr. dennis cortiz, president and ceo of the mayo clinic. on september 28 ken burns, the document 3 filmmaker will join us to discuss his new program on national parks. on october 8 john potter, the postmaster general will give us the state of the postal service. i like to present our guest with the traditional and much- coveted national press club mug. >> why thank you. [applause] >> and for our last question, what is the first thing you do after a new governor is inaugurated in vermont? >> jump for joy. well, it will be a transition for me and for the state. it feels like the right time for me to move on. i have been in public office most of my so-called adult life. i ran for the legislature the year i graduated from college and have been added ever since. we do not have term limits in vermont. we run every two years. i have done it four times. i want to make sure i am as energized on the last day in office as i was on the first. i'm pleased to be going out. when people ask me why i'm going to send rather than in the future when they ask why stayed so long. i feel good about it. there will be more time to focus on my initiative as chairman of nga improve the health outcomes for american people. to make some real progress on something so important to the future of our country. another answer to your question is that i have to remember how to drive a car. thank you all very much. [applause] >> i would like to thank you all for coming today. i would also like to think the national press club staff members, melissa, pat, joanne, and howard for organizing today's lunch. also thanks to matt. also thanks to the library for its research. the video archive of today's luncheon is provided by the national press club and broadcast operations center. our events are available for free download on itunes as well as on our website. non-members may purchase transcripts, audio, and video tapes by phoning us. thank you very much. we are adjourned. [applause] >> later today look at how attorneys approach cases involving national security and classified information, hosted by the catholic university. you can see that live starting at 5:00 p.m. eastern here on c- span. last week the senate finance committee chairman max baucus and build his health care bill. tomorrow the committee will look at it. national health care legislation, the process continues starting at 9:00 a.m. eastern with a committee markup session. >> tonight, using the internet to provide health care resources. this guest on connecting consumers with information and support. >> join us this saturday from the national book festival here in washington. we will be live with the following offers. we will accept your phone calls, too. every weekend on c-span2. what president obama today traveled to new york to talk about his domestic policy agenda. from the hudson valley community college just tell side albany -- this is just under 40 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, to introduce the president of the united states, please welcome dr. joe biden. [applause] hello. thank you. good morning everyone and thank you. i am jill biden and honored to be a community college professor. [applause] i have been an english teacher for nearly 30 years and i have spent much of my career on campuses just like this one. in fact, tomorrow i will be back in my classroom at a community college not too far from the white house. i feel right at home here at hudson valley community college. [applause] people often ask me why i chose to teach at a community college. the answer is simple. it is because every day my students inspire me with their commitment, struggles, and believe in education as the best hope for brighter future for themselves and their families. i have seen firsthand the power of community colleges to change lives and serve as a gateway to opportunity for students at all stages of their lives and careers. i know that the education gained on campuses just like this one will provide the knowledge that will power communities in the 21st entry. president obama knows it as well. i have always said that committee colleges are america's best kept secret. this administration has recognized their value from dave one. president obama is making a historic and unprecedented commitment to higher education in bringing more students to colleges like this one so they can also gain the skills and confidence they need to succeed in a new era. i cannot think of a better investment. i'm proud to be here as a community college instructor, but especially proud to introduce a president who not only recognizes the value of higher education, but is committed to making it reality for more americans. please welcome president barack obama. [applause] >> thank you. hello, hudson valley. thank you very much. everyone, please have a seat. thank you. thank you very much. what a wonderful reception. it is great to be here. thanks for the good weather. i want to first of all say thank you to joe biden who has been a teacher for almost three decades. -- tune jill biden. she has spent most of that time in committee colleges. she understands the power of these institutions to prepare students for 21st century jobs and to prepare america for the 21st century global economy. that is what is happening right here at heads and all the committee got. give yourselves a big round of applause. -- that is what is happening right here at hudson valley community college. [applause] we have some special guests here. first of all, a wonderful man, the governor of the great state of new york, david paterson. [applause] your shy and retiring attorney general, andrew cuomo, is in the house. [applause] andrew is doing great work in forcing laws that need to be enforced. i want to thank the comptroller thomas. [applause] speaker sheldon silver. [applause] the democratic conference leader, state leader, john sampson. albany mayor jeryl jennings. [applause] we have got three outstanding members of congress who were just doing great work every single day. lori, paul, scott murphy -- please give them a big round of applause. [applause] the president of hudson valley community college, andrew -- in the house -- did i pronounce that right, andrew? and joe, executive director of tech smart who gave me a wonderful tour. [applause] you may ask why we are here at hudson valley. we're here because this is a place where anyone with a desire to take their career to a new level or start a new career altogether has the opportunity to pursue that dream. this is a place where people of all ages and backgrounds, even in the face of obstacles, even in the face of difficult personal challenges can take a chance on a brighter future for themselves and for their families. i was just speaking to the mayor of the troy. he was saying how he had studied calculus in the place where we were taking the picture. i had to inform him that i did not take calculus. [laughter] he was a testimony, example of what you can do because of an institution like this. here in troy you want and need that chance. there have been so many years of hard times. a community like this one that was once the heart of america's manufacturing, but over the last few decades has borne the brunt of a changing economy. it has seen plants close in the face of global competition. while all of america has been gripped by the economic crisis, troy and upstate new york has been dealing with what amounts to almost a permanent recession four years. a downturn driven -- that has driven more and more young people from their home towns. . . >> washington has not shown the inclination or ability to tackle our toughest challenges. rising health care costs, growing dependence on foreign oil, our investment in cutting edge research declined. our schools fell further short. growth focused on short-term gains fuelled by debt and reckless risks that led to cycles of boom and painful busts. meanwhile, it to many in washington stood by and let it happen. -- too many in washington stood by and let it happen. many suggest there is not much that the government can or should do to make a difference. what we have seen in places like troy is inevitable and parts of our country that helped us lead in the last century do not have what it takes to help us lead in the next one. i am here to tell you that is wrong. what we have in this community is talented people, of entrepreneurs, and world class learning iinstitutions. [applause] the ingredients are right here for growth, success, and a better future. these young people are testimony to that. you are proving that right here in the hudson valley. the students here are turning full-time while working part- time at ge energy in schenectady, becoming a new leadgeneration of leaders. the partnership and an a- technology is helping students trained in industries where america has the potential to lead. the company is partnering with this institution and companies throughout the valley. there will be instead of the art training facility that is set to open side-by-side with a state of the art semiconductor plant. [applause] so we know that upstate new york can succeed, just like we know that there are pockets in the midwest that used to be hubs and manufacturing better now retooling and reinventing themselves. we know that can happen. we know that in a global economy where there is no room for error or wasted potential, and married -- american needs for you to succeed. as we emerge from the current economic crisis, our great challenge will be to ensure that we do not just drift into the future accepting less for our children and for america. we have to choose instead what past generations have done to shape a brighter future through hard work and innovation. that is how we will not only recover, that is also how we will build stronger than before. we will be strong enough to compete in the global economy, strong enough to avoid the cycles of boom and bust, strong enough to create and support the jobs of the future in the industries of the future. today, my administration is releasing the strategy to foster new jobs, businesses, and industries are laying the groundwork and ground rules to best tap our innovative potential. this work began with the recovery plan that we passed several months ago. it devoted well over $100 billion to innovation from high- tech classrooms to help information technology for more efficient homes to more fuel efficient cars, from building a smart electricity grid to laying down high-speed rail. but our efforts to knock in the rigid but our efforts do not and -- but our efforts to not stop there. it is rooted in a simple idea that government does its modest part, there is no stopping the most powerful economic force the world has ever known. that is the american people. our strategy begins where innovation so often does, in the classroom, in the laboratories, and in the networks that connect them to the broader economy. these are the building blocks of innovation, education, infrastructure, and research. we know that the nations that out-educate is today will out- perform as tomorrow. new industries that thrive depend on workers with knowledge and know-how to compete. unfortunately, today our primary and secondary schools continue to trail many of our competitors, especially in the key areas of mathematics and science. hundreds of thousands of high school graduates do not go to two-year or four-year schools because it is too expensive. they run out of money. roughly 40% of students that start college do not complete college. all along the educational pipeline, to mano many people, o many young and talented people are slipping through the cracks. it is a loss for our country and our economy. politicians have spoken of training, a job training as a silver bullet and as college as a cure all. it is not. we know that. but we also know that in the coming years, jobs requiring at least an associate degree are projected to grow twice as fast as jobs requiring no college experience. think about that. twice as fast. we will not fill those jobs or keep those jobs here in america without graduating more students, including millions more students from community colleges. that's why i've asked dr. biden to travel the country, promoting the opportunities that these community colleges offer. that's why i'm grateful that senator chuck schumer, who couldn't be here today, has shown tremendous leadership on this issue. and that's why i've set this ambitious goal. by 2020, america will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. we used to be number one. [applause] we should be number one again. [applause] now, to achieve this goal, we're going to need motivated students, motivated families, motivated communities, local leaders who are doing their part, state leaders who are doing their part. but the federal government has its part to do as well. so, to reach this goal, we've increased pell grants and created a simplified $2,500 tax credit for college tuition. we've made student aid applications less complicated and ensured that that aid is not based on the income of a job that you've lost. i hear too much from folks who say, "i can't get any student aid because they're still looking at my income taxes when i had a job, as opposed to my situation right now." we've also passed a new g.i. bill of rights to help soldiers coming home from iraq and afghanistan begin a new life in a new economy. [applause] and the recovery plan has helped close state budget shortfalls, i think the governor will testify, because those shortfalls put enormous pressure on public universities and community colleges, while, also, we've made historic investments in elementary and secondary schools. so we're helping states get through some very tough times, without having to drastically cut back on the critical education infrastructure that's going to be so important. now, finally, through the american graduation initiative that i've proposed, we're going to reform and strengthen community colleges to help an additional 5 million americans earn degrees and certificates in the next decade. because -- [applause] -- because a new generation of innovations depends on a new generation of innovators. and just last week, the house of representatives passed a bill that will go a long way to reform the student loan system so that college is more affordable for more people. right now, the federal government provides a subsidy to banks to get them to lend money to students. the thing is, the federal government also guarantees the loans in case the student doesn't repay. so we're subsidizing banks to take on the risk of giving loans to students even though taxpayers are absorbing the risk anyway. that doesn't make much sense. it costs us more than $80 billion. if we just cut out the middle-man, the banks, and lent directly to the students, the federal government would save that money, and we could use it for what's actually important -- helping students afford and succeed in college. that's why -- that's what the bill -- [applause] -- i want to emphasize this, just because every once in a while, you know, you may not know what your members of congress are doing for you. these three guys right here are standing up for young people. we need senators to do the same. [applause] the bill that they voted on, the bill that i proposed, here's what it does. it takes the $80 billion dollars the banks currently get and uses it to make pell grants larger. it uses those funds to focus on innovative efforts to help students not only go to college but to graduate. and, just as important, these savings will allow us to make the largest investment ever in the most underappreciated asset in our education system, and that is community colleges like hudson valley, which are so essential to the future of our young people. [applause] so we hope to improve on this bill in the senate and go even further on behalf of students. ending this unwarranted subsidy for the big banks is a no- brainer for folks everywhere except some folks in washington. in fact, they're already seeing -- we're already seeing special interests rallying to save this giveaway. and the large banks, many who have benefited from taxpayer bailouts during the financial crisis, are lobbying to keep this easy money flowing. that's exactly the kind of special interest effort that has succeeded before and we can't allow it to succeed this time. this is exactly the kind of waste that leaves people wary of government, leaves our country straddled with trillions of dollars of deficits and debt with little to show for it. and that's why i went to washington, to change that kind of stuff. and i look forward to winning this fight in the senate, just as we won it in the house, and signing this bill into law. [applause] now, another key to strengthening education, entrepreneurship and innovation in communities like troy is to harness the full power of the internet. and that means faster and more widely available broadband, as well as rules to ensure that we preserve the fairness and openness that led to the flourishing of the internet in the first place. so today, fcc chairman julius genachowski is announcing a set of principles to preserve an open internet in which all americans can participate and benefit, and i'm pleased that he's taking that step. that's an important -- [applause] -- that's an important role that we can play, laying the groundrules to spur innovation. that's the role of government, to provide investment that spurs innovation and also to set up common sense groundrules to ensure that there's a level playing field for all comers who seek to contribute their innovation. and we have to think about the networks we need today, but also the networks we need tomorrow. that's why i've proposed grants through the national science foundation and through the defense advanced research projects agency, or darpa, which helped develop the internet, to explore the next communications breakthroughs, whatever they may be. that's why i've appointed the first-ever chief technology officer charged with looking at ways technology can spur innovations that help government do a better and more efficient job. we also have to strengthen our commitment to research, including basic research which has been badly neglected for decades. [applause] that has always been one of the secrets of america's success, putting more money into research to create the next great inventions, a great technologies that will then spur further economic growth. the fact is that basic research does not always pay off immediately. it may not pay off for years. when it does, the rewards are often brought a share, enjoyed by those who bore the cost but also by those who did not pay a dime for the basic research. that is why the private sector generally under invests in basic science. that is why the public sector must invest instead. while the risks may be large, so are the rewards for our society. we understand that it was basic research that would one day lead to its solar panels. it was basic research in physics that would eventually produce the cat scan. the calculations of today's gps satellites are based on basic research, equations that einstein put on paper more than a century ago. nobody knew that they would lead to gps, but they understood that as we advance our knowledge, that is what is going to help advance our society'. when we fail to invest in research, we fail to invest in the future. our national commitment to research and development has steadily fallen as a share of our national income. that is why i have set a goal of putting a full 3% of our gross domestic product into research and development, to surpassing the goal that kennedy set when he challenged the nation to put a man on the moon. [applause] towards this goal, the recovery act has helped to achieve the largest increase in basic research in history. this month, the national institutes of health will award more than $1 billion in research grants through the recovery act focused on what we can learn about the mapping of the human genome to treat diseases. i want to urge congress to fully fund the defense advanced projects research agency. since its creation, it has been the source of cutting edge breakthroughs from the early internet to stop technology. as we invest in the building blocks of innovation, in the classroom to the laboratory, it is also essential that we have competitive and vibrant markets that promote innovation as well. education and research help to foster new ideas. it takes fair and free markets to turn those into industries. my budget makes the research and development tax credit permanent. it helps companies to afford the high cost of developing new ideas and products. that means new jobs. this tax incentive returns to dollars to the economy for every $1 that we spend. time and again i have heard from leaders about how important this is. -- this tax incentive returns to dollar-- $2 for every $1 that we spend. [applause] these tax incentives will spur entrepreneurship. but there are other important steps to foster markets that promote and value risk takers and idea makers that have always been at the center of our success. that is why it is essential that we enforce trade laws and work with our trading partners to open up markets abroad, that we reform and strengthen our intellectual property system, that we sustain our advantage is a place that draws and welcomes the brightest minds from all over the world. we must and what sources of credit and capital that had been in short supply as a result of the financial crisis. -- we must unlock sources of credit and capital that have been in short supply as a result of the financial crisis. we must ensure that american prosperity and leadership continues in the 21st century. as a nation that faces challenges from ending our dependence on foreign oil to providing all americans with quality health care, we must attack these challenges to create innovation. innovation can then be an important part of how we meet these challenges. let me give you an example. health care costs leave our small businesses at a disadvantage when competing with large businesses. they leave our large businesses at a disadvantage when competing around the world. we will never know the enormity of the costs to our economy for the countless americans unable to become entrepreneurs or start a small business because they are afraid of losing their health insurance. in order to lead in the global economy, we must pass health insurance reform that brings down costs and provide more security for people with insurance and offers options to people who do not have health insurance. [applause] health insurance reform will be good for business and especially good for small business. it will be especially good for small business. in the meantime, the recovery plan passed earlier this year has begun to modernize our help system. innovation can also drive down the costs for everybody. we are taking long-overdue steps to computerized america's health records. this will reduce the waste and errors that cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives, all while protecting patients' privacy. each of us having our medical records in digital form offers the opportunity to be more active participants in the treatment of illness. help information technology -- help information technology has the potential to unlock many benefits. -- health information technology has the potential to unlock many benefits. the same thing is true when it comes to energy. no area will need energy -- innovation more than in ways to reduce and use energy. you understand that in hudson valley. i firmly believe that the nation that leads a clean energy economy will lead the global economy. [applause] that is why we are doubling our capacity to generate renewable energy, building a stronger and smarter electric grid. i was meeting some young people who are being trained right here. they will be working on creating this smart. . we are investing in technologies to power a new generation of clean energy vehicles. we've helped to reach an agreement to raise fuel economy standards. for the first time in history, which passed a bill to create clean energy incentives to help to make renewable energy profitable in america while helping to end our dependence on oil and protect our planet for future generations. this bill has passed in the house. we're working to pass legislation in the senate. it is time to get this done. we have to leave d on energy. we cannot be lagging behind. [applause] that is an overview of our strategy. all of these pieces fit together. the strategy is essential for our coverage today and for our prosperity tomorrow. the strategy is rooted in a deep and abiding faith in the ability of the country to rise to any challenges. that is our history. we are a people with a seemingly limitless supply of ingenuity and talent. at its best, our government has harnessed that without getting away. that is what led to the building of the erie canal that helped to put cities like troy on the map. it linked east and west and allow the commerce and competition to flow freely between. it is what led a pretty good inventor and businessman named thomas edison to come to schenectady to offer what is today a thriving mom and pop operation known as general electric. [applause] a former senator from new york, robert kennedy, once told us that the future is not a gift. it is an achievement. it is not an accident that america led the previous century. it was a result of hard work, discipline, sacrifice, and ambition that served a common purpose. so it must be in the 21st century. future success is no guarantee. as americans, we always have to remember that our leadership is not an his inheritance. it is a responsibility. from the development of new sources of energy to treating ancient diseases, there is so much potential to change our world and improve our lives walk reading countless jobs all across america. the question is whether we are ready to embrace that or not. are we ready to lead the way once more? i think that we are ready. i have seen it all across america. this generation, the generation of young people sitting here, they have an unparalleled opportunity. we're called upon to help them seize that opportunity. that is what you're doing here at hudson valley community college. that is what i intend to make sure that we do in washington. that is what we will do as a nation. thank you very much, everybody. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. ♪ [applause] ♪ [stars and stripes forever] ♪ [stars and stripes forever] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> live later today here on c- span, a look at how attorneys approach cases involving national security and classified information. it is hosted by catholic university law school. former inspectors general from the cia will be participants. you can watch that at 5:00 p.m. today here on c-span. >> tonight, using the internet to provide health care resources. the help central ceo will discuss connecting consumers with information and support. >> we're looking at the u.s. capital where the house will dabble in in about half an hour for a quick session. no legislative business will be conducted today. work begins tomorrow at 12:30 p.m. eastern. you can see the house live here on c-span. the senate doubled in at 2:00 eastern. you conceit that debate live on c-span2. last week, senator baucus and build his health care bill. tomorrow, the committee will look at it. national health care legislation continues with the committee markup session. you can watch that live here on c-span. this is a discussion on illegal immigrants and health care. next month. host:ç we want to welcome robet rector, a senior research fellow at the heritage foundation. we want to focus on illegal immigration and health care. the president talked about it over the weekend. what is specifically the issue with regard to those who are here in this country without proper people work and without a visa. if they need health care, what do they do? guest: they currently will tend to use the medicaid program by building a hospital emergency rooms -- by visiting hospital emergency rooms. however, if you them full legal status, there will be in a program like medicaid or the new health-care program, which will considerably expand the cost. there has been a lot of debate concerning whether or not it would get immediate coverage under the new health care bill, but it is kind of a tempest in teapot because president plans to give them amnesty, which would put them fully into whatever government programs exist, the new or the old, and that would be expensive to the taxpayer. host: here's the president at the state of the union with john king. >> the finance committee is the only one in congress right now that has specific language that says an illegal immigrant cannot go to one of these new help exchanges and is required to have documentation. would you sign that? >> if i am not mistaken, almost all the plans had specifically which saying that illegal immigrants would not be covered. the question was really was the fourth a mechanism strong enough? here's what i said and i will repeat, i do not think that illegal immigrants should be covered under this health care plan. there should be a verification mechanism in place. we do that for a range of existing social programs. and i think that is a pretty straightforward principle that will be met. >> mcconnell told the conservative group we are winning the health care debate. >> well, they were saying they were winning during the election, too. >> robert rector, a personal reaction to the president's comments on cnn. >> i wish he would have to that when he addressed congress. the effect of the matter is that in washington, a bill can say something and the thing it says is completely meaningless. the classic example of that is the 20 years ago in 1986, we granted our first amnesty and an exchange with that the exchange to that, it would be unlawful to hire illegal immigrants to date. that has never been enforced. tuesdays of thing in a lot is basic -- to say that something is in a lot is meaningless. these programs do not have full verification. the republicans in the ways and means committee sought to put in the normal verification procedures to determine whether someone with illegal or legal before they got into the public plan, for example. and was voted down on a party- line vote. these bills do not pass the whole load test -- the ho-ho test. the effect it has on the credits and allowances are at best, ambiguous. then there's the biggest issue that this does not really matter because president obama has pledged to legalize all of these illegals, and therefore, they will all get into this plan in the next bill anyway. i do not think we are being very honest with the taxpayers. host: what is the ho-ho test? guest: you say, ok illegals can and get into this system. what do you put in place to identify who is legal and illegal? it is the same thing with hiring illegals. we do not have a system never the requires employers to identify and would not have a system of meaningful punishment when they do hire illegals. you can say that you cannot hire illegals, but the fact is that millions of them are hired each year. the law is universally disregarded. this law seems to be written in a very similar way. host: our guest is robert rector, he focuses on immigration and domestic issues. he is a senior fellow at the heritage foundation and the author of a number of books, including "america's failed 5 -- "america's failed $5.4 trillion war on the economy." usa phone call or send us a tweet. let me try to put this in terms of numbers. immigrants are there in the u.s. right now? >> there are probably 10 million to 12 million, but we do not know exactly is the answer. bills have been kind of open- ended foreign-owned -- bills that are open-ended for unknown numbers are potentially more expensive than they are on the surface. host: is there a push to grant these illegal immigrants amnesty? guest: clearly, president obama, is that in the campaign. the center schumer has been done the people that he is going to bring a bill forward. the white house continues to tell hispanic groups that they're going to go forward with a program of earned his citizenship. from my perspective, you weren't a decision by coming into the country illegally and then we give you the huge benefits of becoming a u.s. citizen. we're preselecting those to become citizens who basically broke our laws -- basically because there are laws. -- they broke our laws. host: was the difference to to what was put forward by the president in 2006-2007? guest: very little. i think the bills would be quite was similar. when you grant someone legal permanent residents and to ultimately citizenship, you are granted them access to social security and to medicare benefits and to over 71 means tested welfare programs, food stamps, medicaid, public housing, and so forth. the last bills concealed some of those by not granting eligibility until 10 or 12 years out, which means the congressional budget office does not count them. even though they cost a bundle when you get out there. what i'm hearing is not only push to grant illegals access to all of those programs, but to do it even sooner which would mean the bills would be even more costly than the ones last time around. i estimated that the last amnesty or earned the citizenship bill before the congress was going to cost u.s. taxpayers $2.5 trillion justin social security and medicare alone and benefits coming in. it is important to recognize that 50% to 60% of illegal immigrants are high-school dropouts. probably around 15% of them have a college degree. if you believe that high school dropout -- high-school dropouts pay more in taxes than they receive in government benefits, then renting these people access to these programs will be a good deal for the taxpayer. but if you believe that high school dropouts may believe -- we received more in benefits than it did pay in taxes, that this could be extremely costly. host: what is the solution? do you send them back to their own country? guest: i think the solution is to honor of a law that was passed 20 years ago. we granted amnesty to of about 3.5 million people to be the last dynasty we would ever give. host: side by ronald reagan. guest: and in exchange for that, the american public was promised that we would put in place not only law, but a system the prevented corrupt employers from hiring illegal immigrants. if you did that, most illegal immigrants would not, or stay in the country. that law has not been in force. in fact, it is like that. the first step in dealing with illegal immigrants is to honor the law from 20 years ago. the way to move that -- to do that is to move quickly toward requiring all employers to use a system usee-verify, -- to use a system called e-verify and can basically? most of the on the books hiring of the -- of illegal immigrants. if you did that, i think that's the substantial -- i believe the substantial portion of the illegals would go back across the border because they would not benefit from taking american jobs. host: tony, your of first from lafayette, indiana. go ahead. caller: i have a couple of quick thoughts. the illegal immigration thing will, unfortunately -- it does angerer american citizens. it is never about paid. it is about this appointment when you talk about social issues. what law willç the government t all of us slide on -- for tebo, one year of taxes or something -- because they're going to let them slide? all of the corporations that cannot operate without illegal immigrants are in that and they should be fined or closed. -- are inept and should be fined or closed. why would you not stay in your own country and fight for freedom there? i would understand someone leaving somalia and coming here to live. but i have been to mexico. it is a beautiful country. why in the world would you want to leave there? guest: well, because the standard of living in mexico is very low. the united states has a proper step -- a prosperous economy. you can come here and make more money. the real question is what the immigration does to the u.s. taxpayer. the reality is that 50% to 60% of illegal immigrants are high- school dropouts. the typical high-school dropout immigrant on average receives about $30,000 a year in total government benefits and services. they pay maybe $8,000 per year in taxes. there is a gap there are about $22,000 that someone else has to pay. that someone is the average middle-class taxpayer. every high-school dropout immigrant that you bring into the country requires one college-educated native-born family to pay all of their surplus taxes to fund the services for that family. it is extremely expensive. over $100 billion in government costs. there are substantial welfare costs even though they do not get many welfare programs. host: when you hear the argument that these individuals are doing the jobs that americans do not want to do, what is your reaction? guest: i think that is enormously insulting to native- born americans who do these jobs. in every field that illegal immigrants are in except possibly with the exception of agricultural work, the majority of workers in that field are non-immigrant workers born in the united states more probably getting depressed wages and less job opportunities because of the illegal presence. i work on both poverty and immigration. in the party field, i hear every day that a major problem causing poverty is the lack of low- skilled jobs for americans. then i go to the immigration debate and they say that there is no one to fill the jobs. you cannot have it both ways. you cannot say the main reason we have problems in the inner city is because there are no jobs for black males but at the same time, we need to import 10 million high-school dropouts from abroad because there is no one to fill these jobs that is a native-born american. it is simply not true. i believe a lot of lower-skilled black workers are being pushed out of the labor market by this massive inflow of low-skills from abroad. host: go-ahead from virginia. caller: work in the construction business. i have three quick points to make. i work in the construction business. i have worked with illegal and legal immigrants from various latino countries. none of these guys are getting any services from the government. they work. they get their check or cash and try to scrape by a living. they save as much money as they can and either send it home or save it to go back home and live in their home country and raise the standard of living there. there are a lot of people out there that could work a lot of these jobs. unfortunately, in my experience, i have tried myself to hire a lot of american college kids or high school kids that want to work. unfortunately, a lot of the american kids do not want to do the hard work that people from the other countries will do, even if you pay more than minimum wage. some of these kids in our country feel like they are entitled. it is a fact. host: can you stay on the line? we will get a reaction and come back for a follow-up. guest: you may have to pay more. to say that illegals do not get government benefits is incorrect. up to half of illegal of adults are women with children. there are close to 4 million children of illegal immigrants in the u.s.. if those children are native- born, they're fully eligible for all welfare programs. welfare focuses on the child. it is true that illegals get less government benefits than legal blow-skilled people. but legal low-skilled immigrants receive enormous levels of government assistance and benefits. i get that data directly from the census bureau. granting amnesty to these individuals would escalate the already very considerable costs that go to these populations. i think it is insulting to american workers to say that they will not do hard work. i think that you might have to pay something more to get them to do the hard labor. i do not see that is really an objection. i think it might be a pretty good thing considering that the wages for lower skilled american workers have not gone up very much for the last 25 years. i think that americans should have the first crack at the jobs. i think the u.s. taxpayer should not be subsidizing cheap labor for the construction industry. host: one viewer had this to say. let's go back on the construction energy with greg is still on the line. caller: am not trying to insult american workers. but when you get your data from the census bureau, that is all good and well. but i am in the real world working with these people. i think americans should have a first chance of the jobs as well. but to say that each immigrant has $22,000 out of balance coming into this country, i think that is misleading. i do not think you can paint that as a broad brush. secondly, the large corporations are part of the reason why we've had this huge influx of immigration. they are not going to pay the higher wages for what we consider a good living wage. they are the reason. on the other side, the republican party supports only big business. nothing has been done by either party for a very long time. every time the republicans say they want to do something, the president does nothing. the democrats are a little too liberal or they do not want to hurt anybody's feelings. i understand the problem. living in the scholar leadly wod you live in, i feel like you and a lot of others that we see on c-span, you may have the data and a theory on paper, but you are not in touch with the real world. thank you. guest: the money goes someplace. the last time i looked at the budget document, we spent close to $800 billion for low income people. when you go into the census documents the best documents we have to say who got the assistance, they asked if you got medicaid. the immigrant will either say yes or no. they will ask about food stamps. they will ask about having your children and a public school. they will ask about whether they have public housing. from that information, it is a simple mechanism to calculate how much of this group as a whole receives in welfare and other government services. the fact of the matter is that a high school drop out whether they're born in the united states were born abroad receives a lot of government assistance. we spend literally close to $1 trillion per year assisting that type of low-income individuals. we have a very generous system for supporting less advantaged people born in the u.s.. when you try to apply the system as amnesty would to a mass number of people coming here from the third world, it becomes extremely expensive to the u.s. taxpayer. host: i want to go to this e- mail. we talked about ronald reagan signed the bill. guest: that is right. in 1986, we had a much smaller number of illegal immigrants. it was said that we could not do anything about them. at that point, it was not unlawful for an employer to hire an illegal. ronald reagan basically made an exchange. he said he was worried that amnesty would send the wrong signal and invite even more illegals here in the future. that is exactly what happened. but he said he would do amnesty one time and then we would clamp down on it. we're going to say it is unlawful to hire illegals and enforce that. the sad fact was that we have never enforced the law for 20 years. it is kind of a joke. we go through the motions but nothing happens. that is very typical in washington. a law or a politician will say one thing and in operation do exactly the opposite. i think the american public deserves better than that type of flimflam. host: the president gave a speech in front of congress earlier in the month. our guest is robert rector from the heritage foundation. welcome to the program. caller: i am sitting here listening to the other callers and the points keep stacking up. i do not think the last caller understood that you are using an average for all of the immigrants that you track. he is basing his experience on a small group that he has been exposed to. obviously, they're going to be divergent. your first comment is what made me want to call. you talked about president obama's speech about health care reform. you talked about him not mentioning the way to verify -- what he said was that illegals would receive benefits. president obama did in fact mention the word "e-verify"and other mechanisms widely used in the government. to say that he did not mention a method, maybe that was just an oversight on your part. as far as depressed wages, he could not be more right. it it is $7 per hour in a $50 per our world. it is the corporations in this country and the politicians in washington that do not enforce fair trade. they do not stand up to companies that do not treat us fairly on our trade agreements. the greedy corporate whores realize they can expand their profit margin exponentially if they bring the goods in from indonesia, malaysia or the philippines or tie 1 or whatever -- or taiwan or whatever. if they're going to pay for domestic labor, they will not pay near what the job is worth when they can outsource it to a banana republic. host: i appreciate your call. we will get a response. guest: those are very good points. if you are concerned about the wage level of less skilled americans, i would suggest that the last thing you would want to do is import 10 million high- school dropouts from abroad. the way things have been going, in the next decade, we will probably import another 5 million from abroad. if you believe that wages for low-skilled americans are too low, that is certainly not going to help the situation much. with respect to the current bill in the house, president obama has said at various times that when people say that illegal immigrants would receive some sort of assistance that it was not true. i think that having with to the bill, that is not and accurate characterization of the bill. it does say on the surface that illegals cannot get into these programs, but that does not mean very much. you do need to have specific revocation systems. with respect to the public option, there is no verification system in the bill. with respect to the credit and help allowances, the verification system is at best confused. that is what conservatives have said about the bill. no one denies the bill has the superficial language that says you cannot get if you are here illegally. that does not mean very much in the immigration issue. the real question is how do you verify? the larger point is that this is a tempest in teapot. the president's underlying position is that sometime next spring, he wants to pass an amnesty or earned citizenship bill that would clearly put every illegal into these programs. it is kind of bizarre, almost surreal, that you are having this debate. his intention is clearly to allow all those people who are currently illegals to get in and receive these benefits. host: robert rector is a senior research fellow at the heritage institute. we're joined by a caller on the republican line. caller: i appreciate the wonderful work you are doing on c-span. i want to say three things very quickly. i hope the american language stays intact. the way we're going with integrating in the classrooms and all. i think the problem with immigration has always been with the congress. the congress is the one that is supposed to regulate this. they are doing a terrible job. if they wanted to legalize these illegals, they would provide programs. i know that they can take a lot of these illegal immigrants and put them in the military. if they want to become part of america, let them go to afghanistan for several tours and make their way there. also, in the classrooms today, the children are coming through. they're getting a lot of the valuable benefits that american children are getting. in world war ii when the japanese bombed pearl harbor and we had the separation of the american japanese, which i thought was really sad, here we have a situation where we have illegals coming in and these are not even american-born but they're still getting all the privileges and rights of american citizens. we did a lot of injustice to the american and japanese people in world war ii because of the situation with the war. guest: the fact of the matter is that lower skilled immigrants in the legal and illegal immigration system is focused on bringing in lower skilled people. they received a lot in benefits. each high-school dropout that comes here from abroad with children, the cost of educating those children is around $10,000 per child per year in school system. the typical legal low-skilled immigrant household receives about $12,000 per year in a variety of assistance to the poor, means-tested programs. if you believe that these people are paying taxes sufficient to pay the cost of the services, i have some wonderful oceanfront property in north dakota that you might be interested in. this is extremely expensive. the welfare assistance alone that is to lower skilled immigrants is around $100 billion per year. if you project that out over the next 10 years, it will be $1.5 trillion. this is undeniable. to get around that, you have to. . -- pretend that the welfare state does not exist. our country is facing $500 million deficits for the next decade. we're marching towards bankruptcy. we're mortgaging our children's future. i do not think providing free health care and extensive welfare benefits to people who came here illegally is a wise or prudent choice. host: our last call is from rene in orange county, california. caller: i have to echo the previous caller with regards to construction. i have worked in construction for 25 years. i have lived in california. i have worked in las vegas. they do get counterfeit social security cards. what i am hearing about is the drain on our system. he is not taking into account what they put in. they do pay their taxes. i think the problem is that they are a drain on the states but not on the federal government. 50% of illegal immigrants are from spanish nations. the other 50% are from european nations that come here and overstayed their visas and stay here. you need to differentiate where these people are coming from. . . drain, it seems like immigration becomes a hot issue whenever a democrat is in and the republicans do not seem to do anything when they are in power. are in power. iño the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c. i hereby appoint the honorable -- september 21, 2009. i hereby appoint the honorable peter welch to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father coughlin. chaplain coughlin: o lord, you are faithful to those who are faithful to you. you are even faithful to those who choose to follow their own ways rather than turn to you in prayer. you let them wander in their indecision or confusion until they seek deeper wisdom. keep your people from simple reaction, afford them time to reflect on their deepest needs. and then turn to you in their darkest hour. at that moment, give them the strength to fight the battle of justice with truth and overcome all obstacles. o lord, give us light and dispel the darkness now and forever. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the chair will now lead the house in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam. pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on september 21, 2009, at 10:05 a.m. that the senate passed with an amendment, request a conference with the house and appoints conferees, h.r. 3288. appointments, senate national committee working group commissioned to study the creation of a national museum of the american latino. with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, lorraine c. miller, clerk of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on september 11, 2009, at 1:13 p.m. appointments, united states senate caucus on international narcotics control. with best wishes i am. signed sincerely, lorraine c. miller, clerk of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam. this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives that my office has been served with a subpoena issued by the u.s. district court for the northern district of texas for documents in a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined that the compliance with the subpoena is inconsistent with the precedence and privileges of the house. signed sincerely, joe barton, ranking member. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam. this letter is to inform you that i have sent a letter to the new york secretary of state, lorraine cortez vazquez, notifying you that i am resigning my position as the united states representative for the 23nd congressional district of new york immediately prior to my appointment as secretary of the army. this resignation includes any boards upon which i have served by virtue of my position as a member of congress. on september 16, 2009, i was confirmed by the united states senate to be secretary of the army. it has been a great privilege to serve the residents of new york and the house of representatives for the past 16 1/2 years. i have served during some of the most trying times in our history and have worked to help build a better future for our nation and my state. i am truly honored that the president and the senate have provided me with this opportunity to help lead the united states army forward, and i am humbled by their support. i also want to thank all of my colleagues in the house and in particular new york's congressional delegation as i have enjoyed working with them during my time in congress. i look forward to continuing to work with you and our colleagues in my new role as secretary of the army. with best wishes i am. signed sincerely, yours truly, john m. mchugh. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces to the house that in light of the resignation of the gentleman from new york, mr. mchugh, the whole number of the house is 433. without objection, the house stands adjourned until 12:30 p.m. tomorrow for morning hour debate. >> members are back tomorrow at 12:30 p.m. eastern. among the issues, they will deal with this week, extending unemployment benefits, a bill for the arizona national heritage area, and a resolution to provide temporary funding for the federal government. >> later today, a look at how attorneys approach cases involving national security and classified information, hosted by catholic university law school. live coverage of that in about one hour on c-span. >> last week the senate finance committee chairman max baucus unveiled his plan. national health care legislation, the process continues at 9:00 a.m. eastern with the market peak session. live coverage of that here on c- span. >> tonight, using the internet to provide health care resources. cris schroeder on connecting consumers with information and support >> joined b book tv livem 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. eastern. every weekend on c-span2. >> remarks now from u.s. solicitor general elena kagan. this is about 45 minutes. >> can we have your attention, please? would you please be seated? please take your seats. >> there is a form on each of your tables. if you're interested in what he was talking about, i draw your attention to that form. now it is my great pleasure to introduce the participants of the last part of our program. i would like to introduce you to u.s. solicitor general elena kagan. she was confirmed as the 45th solicitor general of the united states in march 2009. prior to her confirmations, solicitor general elena kagan was a professor of law and 11th dean of harvard law school. during her nearly six years as dean, the law school expanded its enhanced faculty, modernize curriculum, developed the new facilities, and promoted public service. she taught administrative law, institutional law, civil procedure, and seminars on issues involving separation of powers. from. to 1999,, -- 1195 t995 to 1999, elena kagan served the white house. she clerked for justice thurgood marshall of the supreme court. she graduated from princeton university in 1981. she received a master's in philosophy in 1983. she attended harvard law school, where she was supervising editor of the harvard law review. let's give a round of applause for attorney general elena kagan. [applause] >> posing the questions will be our own chief judge kozinski. he was elevated to chief judge of the circuit in december 2007. he graduated from ucla and the ucla law school in 1975. prior to his appointment to the appellate bench, the judge served as chief judge of the united states claims court. he was special counsel to the merit systems protection board, assistant counsel, office of counsel to the president. deputy legal counsel to the office of president-elect reagan. and law clerk to chief justice warren burger and locklear to our own former circuit judge, justice anthony kennedy. another round of applause for judge kozinski. [applause] last but not least, our own kelly sager. she is a partner in the los angeles office and is the chair of the firm's nationwide media and entertainment practice. she has more than 20 years of litigation experience in intellectual property and first amendment related litigation, including representation of television and radio broadcasters, cable companies, motion picture producers and distributors, production companies, newspaper and magazine publishers, book authors, and website owners. both that the trial and appellate level of federal and state courts. she also serves on a number of nonprofit boards and organizations, currently serving in the governing board of the aba forum. and acting as vice chair of the meeting committee for the international bar association among others. and now, take it away. >> thank you. good morning. thank you for coming. we're such old friends. we go back to many years ago when i was visiting harvard law school and elena was a law student. we participated in a poker game. one of us -- >> who won? >> that's the controversy. one of us walked up with $3.50 of the other's money. the dispute has been ever since as to whether i walked away with her money. i maintain that i was the winner. and moving on to the next question. [laughter] good job. in those instances when united states loses before the circuit courts, will you tell us what factors are considered by the solicitor general in deciding whether or not to file a petition? when the united states wins, what factors are considered in making the decision whether to file an opposition? >> ok. when we think about whether to file a petition, we look at it in part to the lance of the court. we asked how the court will view this and what standards apply. we tried to apply those same standards. for example, we will ask ourselves, is there a real circuit split? if there is, that is one of the factors. that will guide us as well. we also think about the importance of the question. we look at it through our own eyes and say how important is it to the united states, our client, to have this case decided by the court. it might be important for any number of reasons. it might be important to us because there is a circuit split, so there is a lack of uniformity. there may be an extremely important federal question involved because some federal program has been undermined as a result of the circuit court's decision. because some set of factors cannot do what they would otherwise want to do. it might be important because a great deal of money is involved. we just filed a petition last week where we said the federal circuit got a matter ron related to royalties related to oil and gas. that will cost the united states upwards of $20 billion. we thought it was important to go to the court for that. any number of federal interests. we will also think about how it is likely to look from the court's perspective. we know that the court count on us to take into account its own set of criteria and standards for deciding on petitions. in terms of oppositions, there are so many to write. we could not file of positions in every case in which a decision that the united states has won is called into question to try to make a cut as to whether they raise serious questions. and questions with the court would want to hear from the opposing party. we basically look at all the petitions. we waive our opposition rights and about half. we look at those and say there's not really a serious question here. the court will not seriously take this petition. we do not have to oppose it. we file in about half of the cases. sometimes we get it wrong. sometimes the court will say, you waive your opposition rights, but we think this petition raises more serious questions then you clearly did. and we want you to file an opposition here. in that case, of course, we will. >> just looking at the numbers between 1985 to 2002, the statistics i read that the petitions were accepted more than 50% of the time. and the percentage is higher than that since then, more like 70% or 80%. that is compared to about 2% or 3% of the average lawyer's. is that a reflection of you just described? or is it something you take into account when filing a petition, that it is much more likely to be accepted by the court? >> it is a reflection that we apply a different standard than most lawyers. i'm a lawyer in private practice, a client will get on the phone and say i really want to take this all the way up to the supreme court. even if you know there's not a great chance of the court will accept it, you might say to the client that there's not a great chance, but if the client insists, who are you to say otherwise? i say no all the time. there is a part of my day which is taking in eight phone calls from agency general counsel's -- irrate phone calls from agency general counsels. i say no all the time. i say the court will not take it, or our credibility is on line. or i will say, forget our credibility, it is just not worth the time of the lawyers in our office. we have to be pretty careful about the way we use the lawyers and the way we allocate their time. i say no all the time. those figures are a result of that. somebody said to me recently, maybe those figures are too high. i think they're up to about 70% of the time they will take our advice. somebody recently said to me that maybe that is an indication that you are filing too few petitions. i used to be a big fan in my old job as dean in saying that if you do not fail sometimes it means you're not trying to do enough things. i took a look at the statistics over the last 10 years or 20 years and i noticed that around six years or seven years ago, there is a bit of a drop-off in the number of petitions that we filed. we may take a close look at that and see whether we are using to find a filter -- too fine a filter. >> there are different perceptions as to the roles of the solicitor general and perhaps different perceptions by different solicitor general's as to the role of the office. some say the solicitor general should be an advocate for the executive branch. there's a view that the solicitor general is more of the conscience of the government. obviously, those are not entirely mutually exclusive positions, but somewhat in tension with each other. perhaps you are still developing your philosophy at this point. where is your thinking on that? >> that is interesting. i'm sure i'm still developing my philosophy. i suspect of give a different answer several years from now than i would give now. right now it seems to me as though the hard part of the job, the challenging part of the job, is you are balancing a lot of different things. you name two of them, but i will add a couple more. you're very much an advocate for the executive branch. i represent the united states in the highest court, defending its policies, practices, various regulations, and that is a critical part of the job. that means that i am a member of the executive branch. i'm part of the president's team. that's an important facet of the job. at the same time, i zero extremely important obligations to other parts of the government -- i owe obligations to other parts of government. i owe clear obligations to congress. one of the most important jobs is to defend statutes. that could be a very controversial thing. people will say, what are you talking about? you are part of obama administration and there you are defending a statute that the obama administration wants to change. until that is changed, the solicitor general, and the department of justice generally has long thought part of its responsibility is to defend those statutes in court. solicitor general also owes obligations to the courts, and in particular to the supreme court. we are the lead player. people laugh talked about the 10th justice and regardless if that is the term for it, there's no question that the solicitor general has a relationship with the core that is different than any other courts. and that involves a kind of candor and honesty and a kind of direct missed with the court that i think judges seldom see. we will go into the court sometimes and we will confess error, or we will write briefs that will say we could say this is the most meaningful thing in the world, but it is just a marginal thing. there's an important obligation to the court. as you said, my client is none of those actors. my client is the united states. in some sense, that means one is representing the most fundamental principles and understandings of our constitutional system. that. too, is something that needs to be thought about. i think that the great solicitors general, and there have been very many of them, are people who have been able to balance all those competing interests, and to accommodate them in a good and wise way. that is where the challenge of the job really is. >> i will try to save a few minutes for the audience questions. questions, not speeches. [laughter] as you're listening, i want people to be thinking about the possibility. >> justice souter has famously said that cameras would come into the supreme court over his dead body. justice sotomayor seems to have the opposite view. if members as to whether they should allow c-span to televised hearings, what would you say and why? >> i have a feeling they will not ask me. [laughter] i have a feeling that this is one -- they are going to make this decision themselves, and they probably should make this decision themselves. they're the folks that best know the dynamics of the court. i would not pretend to give them advice on this. i will say this. i have thought about this question. i was confirmed by the senate on march 21, and literally the day after that was the supreme court set in. i went to every argument. i watched the court in a much more sustained way than i previously had. what i was struck by was that if cameras were in the courtroom, the american public would see an extraordinary event. this court is so smart and prepared, and so engaged, and everybody who gets up to the podium is -- the toughest questions are thrown at that person. there's a debate of really extraordinary intellectual depth and richness. i do not know if people remember years ago when c-span first came on. they put those cameras in the legislative chambers. it was a little bit embarrassing before they got this right because it was clear that nobody was there. i think if you put the cameras in the courtroom, people would see. wow. they would see an institution of their government working at a really high level. that is one plus factor for doing it. >> tell me in a little bit about an occasional practice that we see, not always very happily, when a solicitor general confesses error. we have heard the advocates, the justice department managed to persuade us that they were right, and the next thing that happens is we hear the solicitor general say the court of appeals were wrong and we were wrong. tell us a little bit about that process and how the solicitor general goes about making that kind of decision. and, specifically, the fact that the justice department has misled the lower courts. >> i did this once last month in the supreme court. >> not a ninth circuit case? [laughter] >> there's still time. >> so far, so good. >> i do not remember which court this case came out of. it was a criminal case and the petition was honestly not very good. it was rambling. it was hard to tell what kind of argument was being made. >> i remember that brief well. [laughter] >> honestly, the most natural thing in the world might have been for the solicitor general office to waive its rights to even oppose the petition and just let it go. one of my deputies, a tremendous man named michael -- he probably knows more about federal criminal law than anybody in the country. he took a look at this petition and he realized that although it was not written appropriately, and you could never have told that there was a strong claim in it, but when he looked at what has happened in the district court, he realized that there was a meritorious constitutional claim that this criminal defendant now in prison had regarding his sentencing. he decided that the sentencing was a violation of due process. so he brought it to me and he talked about it. we ended up writing the court. we said, we did not catch this. we did something wrong at the trial stage and then we did not catch this at the appellate stage. now we have taken a new look at this, and we have realized that this man has a really good claim and that he should not be in prison right now. we filed that with the court and the court accepted that. they vacated the decision below. i can understand why you think you sort of misled two courts. and then you have argued again for it. and i understand how you might think that was so important, so why did you not do that first? the answer is that sometimes you make mistakes and you do not touch them for a while. the question becomes, what do you do when you do catch them? i think we did the right thing. sometimes you are representing what is right. you are serving as the conscience of the system. it was one of the proudest days of my tenure when i signed the approval for that petition. >> i should say, and only speaking for myself, keep doing it. if we get it wrong, for whatever reason, the important thing is to get it right in the anend. >> kelli? >> your first argument will be on september 9, when the hillary clinton campaign financing cases we heard before the supreme court. i'm curious how we will prepare for that argument, your first as solicitor general, and what you are going to wear? solicitor general traditionally where's the morning coat and striped pants. [laughter] >> i will take those in order. how will i prepare? one prepares very thoroughly for one of these arguments. i will read everything that might be relevant and then i will read it again. and think hard about the kinds of questions that they're likely to throw at me. this is a case that is being re-argued, and the court has set a particular question, whether two of the previous pre cedents ought to be overturned. one is some limits by corporations and labor unions. for many years, there's been restrictions on corporate and union expenditures. and the question that the court clearly wants to think about now is whether those restrictions violate the first amendment. contrary to what they've said on past occasions. this will be an important case for the federal government, and an important case for our democracy. i will read a lot and i will try to think of every possible question they can throw at me in this argument. i will try to think of the answers i can give. i will try to come up with the best answer. i will go through several moot courts, which is very difficult in our office. i think the quality of representation at our office is exceedingly high. people ask why. one reason is that we prepare people better than anybody else does. everybody in the solicitor general office has been subjected to at least two, sometimes three, moot court sessions where the rest of the office throws questions at them and plays different justices. the office knows the supreme court so well that i think we do a very good job of stimulating what the actual supreme court argument is going to be like. most people say that if you can get through the moot courts, your on your way because they're harder than the supreme court actually. i will do all those things. what will i wear? this is the big question of the washington supreme court bar. it probably tells you something about the washington supreme court bar. [laughter] this has garnered so much attention. as you said, the solicitor general has traditionally worn a morning. . there have been women in the solicitor general office. everybody in the office wears these outfits. there are women in the solicitor general's office and they have taken a variety of approaches. some wear what i call normal clothes. some have suits made up for them. i have kept it kind of a secret. i have ostentatiously kept a secret. if i told you, i would have to shoot you. [laughter] >> i want to ask the follow up question that i know david would want to ask. will include jimmy chu shoes? >> it is too high of the heel for me to wear in an oral argument. >> we got some actual information. you heard it here first. [laughter] you clerked for a truly great supreme court justices. in many ways, underrated, perhaps, by the passage of time. justice thurgood marshall, who himself was solicitor general. and an incredible advocate before the supreme court. i was fortunate enough to meet justice marshall. and after the poker game, you may not remember the second time that we met was when i was visiting one of my former clerks at the supreme court. and he walked me around to justice marshall's chambers. he had done a sweat shirt and blue jeans. and there was elena kagan. tell us a little bit about -- insofar as you can without disclosing confidence -- about the influence justice marshall has had on you, your career, and your life. he was a man who almost terrorist the notion -- he almost a cherished the notion, the oh, shucks, and then he would come out of left field with something incredibly incisive. >> i will tell you something about what justice marshall means to me by telling you this story. there's a tradition at the justice department -- i am looking at ray fisher and he knows this story very well. when you come into the office, you are given a list of portraits of former attorneys general. you can't pick which portraits you want on your ball. there's a hierarchy. -- you can take which portraits you want on your wall. the attorney general goes first. then the deputy attorney general goes next. i'm not even third. i'm for three of the associate attorney general, and then the solicitor general. by the time the attorney general and the deputy and the associate had taken nearly everybody that anybody in this room knows about, i was given a list. i had never heard of anybody on this list. i thought, i could go out and research who all these people are and what they did, or i could just chuck this practice and say, i should have the portrait of the great solicitor general in my office. i went to the photography office of the department of justice. there was a great photograph of justice marshall, a young justice marshall. and they blew it up and made this great portrait. it is a black-and-white portrait. it is an official portrait. as people know, he was a wonderfully good looking young man. and, anyway, this portrait of justice marshall is the only portraits in my office. every day i'd take inspiration from somebody -- i think you're right. he was underestimated as a supreme court justice. as a figure in the law, i think you is the greatest lawyer of the 20th century by far. if your measure is who has done most to advance justice and to move the law in a positive direction over a lifetime, i do not see how anybody else compares. it is inspirational to me to have him up there. you are right, judge kozinski. by the time i clerk for him, he was an elderly man. he turned 80 this year i clerked for him. in some ways, he looked 80. he was as sharp as sharp comes. he did have this talent that you talked about. he could say, i do not know anything, i am just sort of bumbling my way through life. >> [laughter] >> then he would come up with these questions during oral argument that pierced to the very heart of the case. i'm reminded of this one. there was some talk this last time around sotomayor when around -- when judge sotomayor -- some talk of how little trial court experience. i think many of justice marshall's questions reflected the fact that he was a great trial lawyer, and he really understood how cases were litigated. and he could sometimes get everybody to think of the case in a whole different way because of that. >> we have about five minutes left to answer questions from the audience, now would be the time. please identify yourself. >> my name is chris jennings. i'm a member of the board of the historical society, ninth circuit. i would like to ask a question. you mentioned earlier that you defend congress in laws that they have enacted, even if the executive branch is trying to change them. what thoughts go through your mind when the law you are defending, when it was signed by the president, he executed a sign the memorandum in which he took great exception to the whole idea of the law. i cannot give you a specific, but just the idea of that. >> the question of signing statements and their legitimacy is a hot one, and continues to be. they have been used by presidents over time, both republican presidents and democratic presidents. they became particularly controversial for various reasons administration in the reasons. -- various reasons in the bush administration. they were used frequently in the clinton years as well. for now, they are continuing to be used. i'm not sure exactly how many have been done, but i think at least one, and maybe more has been done since president obama took office. in terms of the solicitor general's responsibilities, the question is, is there a law on the books? has it been passed by congress? has it been signed by president, even if the president has stated certain reservations? is there is, the have a presumption is that we will defend that law. it is not a in in variable rule. there are some. . one set of exceptions has to do -- is the surrounding law has changed such that if you look at the statute, the statute is not unconstitutional, then you have a different set of responsibilities. the other sets of exceptions has to do with the rule of the solicitor general as representative of the executive branch, and of the president. if there's a statute that interferes with executive prerogatives, the historical practice of the office has been to assert those executives from the tips. the statute seems to infringe upon the president's constitutional functions and abilities, the practice of the solicitor general's office has been, at that point, when you have the very dramatic conflict between your obligation to defend statutes and your obligation to defend executive prerogatives as part of the executive branch, you go with the latter. >> from the solicitor general's perspective, if you are at liberty to tell us, and focusing on the cases as to which the supreme court has already granted cert, what do you see as the biggest issues from the solicitor general's? >>? -- the solicitor general's perspective? >> my first in september is a very important case. there are a number of other cases which involve the constitutionality of different kinds of federal statutes, which are cases that we always take very seriously. i should have mentioned when we were talking earlier about what criteria i use when i ask the court to thecert, one of the most important is if the federal statute has been declared unconstitutional. we almost always do that immediately. there are a number of cases which involve the constitutionality of federal statutes. there's one involving the constitutionality of a public company accounting oversight board of sarbanes oxley. and i think the decision in that case as to whether certain kinds of government structures, especially regarding the nature of our economic life, our constitutional. they will be extremely important. there's another case which concerns the constitutionality of the federal statute regarding a civil commitment of sexually dangerous persons. they're a couple of other cases involving federal statutes in the october sitting. one has to do with a congressional decision to transfer land on which there is a veterans memorial in the form of a cross, and whether that's a violation of the establishment clause. another has to do with the statute banning depictions of various forms of animal cruelty and whether that's a violation of the first amendment. when there's a federal statute at issue, it comes to us as a very important case. there's a very important patent case in the courts this year. it involves what kind of business practices can be patented. the intellectual property bar will look carefully at that. there's a case that may or may not be important to sports fans everywhere. it involves the application of the antitrust laws to the nfl. it might end up being a very small case. i think the nfl would like it to be a large case, in which she gets the kind of license to act as a single entity for all purposes, notwithstanding the antitrust laws. that will be watched very closely by some segments of the bar, and by sports fans. >> what are the odds in vegas? [laughter] >> and that is what is coming to me right now. there are several important criminal cases, as there always are. >> one last question. >> i'm a lawyer in san diego. obviously, is more than a full- time job for you to do all the things you need to do. it is also a full-time job for several weeks to prepare for argument. i wonder how you is in deciding how many cases you are you and how important it is for you to personally argue those cases given all the other demands on your time? >> it's a great question, and it is one i'm still trying to come to terms with. i feel like i definitely have a full-time job. as you said, there's a very significant part of it that i have not done. we have not talked about all the other things that the solicitor general has to do. the solicitor general supervises all upheld litigation in the -- all appellate litigation in the united states. just to give you a sense of the overall responsibilities. i'm trying not to let this go to my head, but there's not an appeal taken in any court in the united states by the u.s. government which i have not approved. i have to approve every single appeal. i make all the decisions with respect to what we are filing amicus briefs on, not just in the supreme court, but in the appellate courts where we might intervene up and down the system. there's a lot that crosses my desk. then there is this other very visible part of my job. and also very time confusing part of the job, which is the actual arguments before the court. solicitors general in the past, and i will also, think that is an important part of the job. it is important that the most important cases be argued by the solicitor general, in part just to signal to the court how important the government believes those cases are. i think of the court has liked the fact that there is the face of the united states government in its court room, and that has mattered to the court. i think that has generally been an effective thing for the united states government. on the other hand, i cannot do it all. there are 22 other lawyers in my office who are extraordinary lawyers. and who also want to the chance of doing those arguments. solicitor general one solicitor said to me, you will be a hero in the office if you do fewer than i did because there will be more to go around for the rest of the people. i think most solicitors general in recent memory have done not quite a case each month. if there are seven or eight sittings each year, they have done between five and seven cases themselves. >> in light of your incredibly important and busy job, we are honored and pleased that you chose to join us. i really appreciate it. thank you for your very informative and entertaining and useful discussion with us today. >> it was a pleasure to be here. thank you for inviting me. [applause] >> coming up in just a couple of minutes, a look at how attorneys approach cases involving national security and classified information. it takes place that catholic university law school in washington. we will hear from two former inspectors general from the cia. that begins in eight minutes on c-span. until then, topics of today's state department briefing include president obama's speech on middle east peace and reports that the president of honduras has returned to that country. the spokesman talks for about 15 minutes with reporters. we will show you as much of this as we can before our life event at catholic >> good afternoon. the secretary is in new york. she has a number of meetings today that she is arranging before the president arrives later this afternoon. she plans to have bilateral meetings with foreign ministers from south korea, czech republic, and japan. she will be meeting with the presidents of costa rica and georgia. and is also going to participate in the trilateral strategic dialogue with japan and australia. my colleagues have established a press office in new york. obviously, any questions related to these meetings, i would refer to them. i think briefings are being arranged for most of these meetings. with that, i will turn it over to your questions. >> can you tell was a little bit about this trilateral summit that obama is going to have with the israeli and palestinian leaders, and what do they hope to accomplish given that both sides have said this is not really a return to talks? is this just symbolic? robert gibbs says they do not have any great expectations. >> i think anything that helps advance our efforts toward our ultimate goal of resuming a meaningful negotiations that would lead to a regional peace -- any such meetings would be helpful and valuable. and this is exactly what they plan to do tomorrow in new york. as the white house said over the weekend, it is also an indication of the president's own deep commitment to finding a way forward to this comprehensive peace. and it shows that he is personally engaged in the effort. >> what will the new this year? this will be the first time for president obama to address the u.n. as far as terrorism is concerned. dictators are still on the ri se. >> there's not much i can add to what has been said. on different occasions, you have the secretary on friday. you had ambassador rice at the white house briefing room on friday to the assistant secretary for international organizations had a briefing in new york today as well. the secretary looks forward to participating in the president's program over the next few days. the president will have a speech to the u.n. general assembly on wednesday. he will lay out some of our priorities. some of the priorities have already been laid out in terms of issues like nonproliferation and climate change, the need to address the problems of climate change, and the need to address the issues of food security. i will let the president speak for himself in a couple of days. >> is there anything new this year compared to the past, or the last 8 years? >> i do not know if it is new or not, but i think that an important departure from the practice of a few years is that we are going to have a meeting of the un security council at the head of state and government level. i just think that indicates the importance this administration gives to the need for a multilateral approach to that important issues of our day, especially relating to security issues. >> i just wanted to follow up with you. the whole idea of what we could possibly expect out of this, since the palestinians have said the will be no new negotiations until the israelis to a settlement freeze, what can we realistically expect to come out of this? >> this meeting will happen tomorrow. it will be two bilateral meetings and the trilateral meeting. again, i think it just shows that we are ready to engage at the highest levels of our government to try to bring about something that we have all wanted, that all sides have wanted for decades. that is a lasting regional peace. i am not going to tell you what necessarily we expect to achieve out of this. i think that to the question for the white house. >> i just wanted to get you to respond to an article in britain's "sunday times" newspaper. it talks about a letter dated december 10, 2003. the suggestion here is that the negative has been that he has been singled out as pretty much the sole source of the proliferation problem pakistan has, whereas the suggestion is that there was a much broader problem in terms

Related Keywords

Honduras , Australia , East Timor , Vermont , United States , Minnesota , China , California , Austria , San Diego , Slovak Republic , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , Mexico , Arizona , Temple University , Pennsylvania , Czech Republic , Poland , Cuba , Spain , Los Angeles , New York , Moscow , Moskva , Malaysia , Canada , Philippines , Japan , New Hampshire , Burlington , Germany , Texas , Afghanistan , Philadelphia , Boston , Massachusetts , Indiana , Virginia , Georgia , Green Mountain , Michigan , Brussels , Bruxelles Capitale , Belgium , Taiwan , Mississippi , Pakistan , United Kingdom , Northern District , Pulau Pinang , Iraq , Slovenia , Israel , Costa Rica , Petersburg , Sankt Peterburg , Montreal , Quebec , Prague , Praha , Hlavníesto , Somalia , Capitol Hill , North Dakota , Berlin , Utah , Slovenian , Americans , America , Soviets , Israelis , Israeli , Austrian , Japanese , American , Polish , Canadian , Timor , Russian , Czechoslovakia , Britain , Czech , Canadians , Spanish , Soviet , German , Palestinian , Lorraine Cortez Vazquez , Thomas Edison , Robert Gibbs , Chris Jennings , Thurgood Marshall , Benjamin Franklin , Leland Schwartz States , Nancy Pelosi , Joe Biden , Ronald Reagan , Jimmy Chu , States Wendy , John M Mchugh , Andrew Cuomo , John Potter , Lorraine C Miller , Joe Barton , John Bullard , Robert Kennedy , Anthony Kennedy , Charles Murray , James Madison , Emerson Hall , Milton Friedman , Sarbanes Oxley , Chuck Schumer , Angela Merkel , Jim Douglas , Ray Fisher , Kelly Sager , Craig Jones , John Sampson , Erie Canal , Chris Schroeder , Max Baucus , Cris Schroeder , Paul Scott Murphy , David Paterson , Thomas Jefferson , Jill Biden , Barack Obama , Jim Buchanan , Las Vegas , John King , Julius Genachowski , Sonia Sotomayor , Melissa Pat Joanne , Hillary Clinton , Elena Kagan ,