days, many irons in the fire. i share the view that i understand the frustration, folks who care about these issues feel, i care about these issues, the president cares about these issues, the vice-president has about these issues and i hope that next year when we have this conference, that question gets asked, it is going to get the same kind of applause. we have more progress, more things to show for it and hopefully the applause a year from now is applause about the accomplishments we have made. ..

legal policy, where do you think we need to be going? >> >> i think overall this is, as you watch how he approaches the nas interrogation techniques, the military commission, though set of issues, this is somebody, i don't know how many of you heard his speech on national archives, he believes very deeply in this document and he gets it. he understands what it means for people in this country. and i think as with the choice

of the supreme court justice because of who he is and where he comes from, you're going to come, you have rac more of a decision-making that's happening in the administration are i think as we come into office we come in with both a number of serious problems we are going to have to react to which is part of what leads to that question of its reactive on some issues that have come up, and a very clear agenda on health care, education, the economy. but i think over time, hopefully we will see more of a movement. spencer coming out of your office. >> that certainly is the hope. one thing that's interesting that i didn't appreciate i think before is how much is reactive, you know, how much you have matters that are coming to you. and how you have a finite period of time in a day and you have to figure out what do i have to do today and what has to get crossed off the list today and

what can i do tomorrow. and so certainly thinking about this in terms of the big picture is important, but it's also important to react and deal with what's on your plate in a given day and i think that's something i didn't have full appreciation for before, before starting the job. spirit preeta. >> progressive. so much of progressive at least in my lifetime has been set by a sense of court as being levers of social change. and i think, you know, partly because i think president obama has revitalized politics, and partly because we now have two branches of government. we have the executive branch as well. i think there's going to have to be a lot more developed and continued development and about the role of core politics and the intersect of democracy and

using political processes and persuasion through politics as much as the judicial realm. i think the other piece i would just add, you know, this feels to me and maybe just because of where i am, this feels to me such a unique and different time in terms of the modern regulatory state. we are at this kind of transformational moment, almost kind of like after the civil war, after the new deal period. and i think we are saying that the restructuring a lot of government on a lot of different realms. i think at some point that's going to have to start shaping our judicial philosophy going forward. i mean, i was just reading again a while ago the metaphysical club, the lumen and book about the rise of pragmatism that came about after the civil war state judicial philosophy. i was very struck by that and how it struck me as a similar moment now, maybe more pragmatic judicial and more focused on making government more workable. this is something that, you know, the court can play a role

in promoting. >> is there, and, i'm kind of combining some questions here, but the president has shown his desires and his ability to be quite aggressive using executive authority or at some of that has been vested with the vice president and the task of the class task force and in the work he is doing with respect to the recovery bill. is there a danger in going too far in that? camera concentrate too much power in the presidency, or where do you think the limits of that are, or would you say you're not even going far enough? and if the congress can get its act together, you know, bus through some of the problems that preeta was alluding to. >> as i said in my opening remarks, i do think both because of the kind of problems we face and because we have the first president and vice president came from the legislative branch since 1960, you do have a president and vice president and

administration very focus on working with congress. and i think our major policy initiatives, the economic policy issues, health policy, energy policy, financial regulatory reform, education policy, are all things that are going to be done in conjunction with congress. i think when you look at what the president did in his first 100 days and the 25 day since then and hopefully the next 100 days after that, it is going to be a great of legislative output. the problem is unmatched for any period other than new deal. so i think that we take a backseat to no one in working with congress, and that is our primary focus. there are areas where the president can act on his own executive authority. we are exploring those areas. the president has issued some executive orders. some refer to bush policies which are more affirmative in nature, and we continue to look at areas where he can act to do that. but i would say the vast majority of our time and energy

and focus in working with congress to try to bring about real change in health and the economy and energy and an education. >> noel, do you think the president, you know, on to take the full sweep of the power that he can exercise under the constitution and go forward with it under the statute of the united states? >> i think it depend on the circumstances. when you have the congress of your party there is really no reason why the president politically should put everything on his shoulders as if things go wrong he also bears all the blame. that's the genius of our system. you have one president, and when the president actions are based only on the president's decision, he alone bears the blame and he alone reach the glory. when you're in a position to be able to share it with another branch of the government and the congress it makes perfect sense to do that. that's what president bush did during the periods of time what he and the congress that were of his party, and i am not and also

prize that that is exactly what president obama is doing while he has a congress of his own party. but i expect that there are going to be areas where president obama just like what president bush can't accomplish his policy working with congress. a good example is that don't ask, don't tell policy. i haven't taken the temperature of congress. i don't know where the majority of it is, but if the congress is aware its president is, as i understand the law in that area, the president as commander-in-chief could change that policy fairly quickly if he wanted to pixel at the end of the day i think the president ought to be prepared to fully assert his power when he needs to come but you don't have to be stupid about it and you shouldn't do it when you don't need to. >> does anybody want to take that particular case up? >> you guys are cowards. , on. [laughter] >> i can't get a rise out of you

all? is the president prepared to do that if it's also in congress? >> okay. [laughter] >> can't get a rise out of this crowd. >> good question. often the conversation is about transparency is about the administration communicating with the public and the public being able to see what the administration is doing. the question is how does the public really communicant with the administration. how does a regular citizen or member of a cs major policy concern or issue no to the administration. lisa, do you want to? [inaudible] one of the things that goes along with transparency, this administration is using technologies in ways that you have not seen before, and has a very vibrant website and is really encouraging interplay on the website. so i think that obviously is one with it the other way as sort of the traditional way which

especially for acs member scott talking to all of us. we really do want to hear ideas. this is an administration that is very eager to hear good ideas right now, so i don't recommend regular mail to the white house because just last week received an invitation to an end i drove party. [laughter] >> it was being irradiated someplace. e-mailed answer the website and talking to all of us. >> i think this white house, it's a very, very vibrant part of the white house. not just in terms of meeting but actually bringing feedback back. and they have e-mail that is actually public at who got go. somebody actually checks it every minute. don't think it's one of these dummy mailboxes. some of processes that. is a very vibrant operation and i think the technology piece is going to get more and more

vibrant. it turns out for the folks that are coming from the campaign there are all kind of restriction on federal government websites that didn't apply. and so those are being worked through new rules are being promulgated as they need to get the make sense. there's a process underway, and i think the tech tools will only get better as the year progresses. >> i think it may be fair to characterize this, again, i tried to pull a couple of questions together, that the bush presidency ended up being consumed by iraq and he was single-minded in his focus on the war on terror, if you want to call it that. but particularly the war in iraq. and this president made is going in somewhat the opposite direction that he has helped her, he has education, he has the budget, financial migratory reform, he's got iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, iran, middle east, north korea. is there a danger in the public

kind of losing the idea of what he is actually trying to do? how do you balance bringing your transformative drive to call it under policymaking to remain in touch with people's concerns, preferences, understanding about where his presidency is going? >> but what the president is doing is he receives every night a dozen letters from people who have written to the office of presidential correspondence, and he reads them every night. i have seen him put a note on, say, to tim geithner, is our program helping this person. he is fighting the bubble in a way that i have not seen, i do know, with president bush but i think because of coming in as he did, he's really trying very hard to stay in touch with people and what people are

thinking. and that's just one, it's a concrete way that he is doing it. >> i think in terms of the agenda as the president was saying he really doesn't have a choice. he can't tell the economy to wait until he has fixed health care. you can't tell health care to wait until he fixes the economy. he certainly can't tell financial regulatory to wait until he has fixed all these things. these are all problems that demand solutions, that demand solutions now. and i think the strategy is going to prove to be extremely successful. the same thing with global problems. we have two wars going on. those can't be parked and told to wait and the same with iran and north korea. i will say that, you know, in the first year of the clinton administration, john will remember this, we spent an enormous amount of time debating what order in which to attack

different problems. long meetings about welfare, before health care, before nafta, nafta before this. and in the end i felt looking in retrospect we spent more time fighting over the order in which we're going to approach problems than we really did in getting those problems solved. sometimes we outfought ourselves a little bit in the sequence game. and to our detriment. so i think both out of necessity and i think out of a sense that it's possible and in some ways even more effective, the president's attacking all these problems simultaneously and i think we will have success on all of them, or the vast majority of them in bringing about change in all these areas. >> where do you see the biggest potential, biggest pit fall forestalling in the tremendous agenda? >> i think they suspect are rough week on health care. >> i think all these things have

a certain quality of the perils of pauline, you know, sort of the ominous music playing in the background. and then finally ultimately a happy ending. and i think we will get you a happy ending on health care and energy. i think regulatory reform also will come good. but these are problems the country needs to address. these are problems we need to solve. these are not optional exercises. these are not, you know, things we are tackling just because they are good sport or good fun. and i think that necessity of addressing them is going to ultimately compel action. >> getting back to the cards, how can progressive activists who are lobbyist for workers rights, universal health care and the like persuade the administration to treat lobby is no different than other representatives and leaders of the organization when it comes to government employment and policy engagement? can we at least make it a station between lobbyist for

nonprofits and lobbyist for commercial? [laughter] >> spencer, do you want to go after that when? >> well, you know, i worked a bit on these issues during the transition. and it really was difficult. there are some issues that we struggled with. and it really came down to, it is very difficult to say okay, these are the good lobbyists that one likes and these are the bad lobbyists, you know, let's get them out of here. the president made a commitment to really clean up washington in terms of not focusing on special influence and special access, but really listening to all americans. and, you know, he has been very strong in his commitment, and certainly there has been some criticism across quarters.

and i certainly understand. i certainly appreciate your you know, as a question can i come back to acs and give a talk or, you know, there's some things that seem to slow one down, but just the prophylactic nature and the message to the american public that we are going to do things differently that we are not going to have a closed door session with some executives from a particular agency or a particular industry that no one will have access to. that the public will not have access to, which is making a sea change with regard to those issues. so i understand that it's complex. i understand there's some people who are really committed, who devoted their lives to public interest lobbying and some other issues. and i understand that there is some difficult cases, but just in terms of the overall change of the administration, and what

we are doing with regard to ethnics and what we are doing with regard to sending a message to the american people. you know, i think we are in the right place and we are moving in the right direction. >> we are basically about out of time, and i'm going to go down the line, maybe starting with you, spencer. i would say that there is, as i am looking at all these questions, there is a significant amount of skepticism about military tribunal in the crowd, and a lot of questions about that. there's a couple of questions about whether the administration is being too and it's a portrait there's a lot of skepticism about the continuation of the policy on state secrets, and there's some more questions about that. these are some of the things we talked about. here is my favorite question that was brought. so i offer you a little bit of time just to close up, get some final thoughts, and maybe

reflect on this, which is my favorite question of the date which is what does the obama presidency mean to you. [laughter] >> so if you can take any of those topics. i'm sorry i didn't get, i mean we had hundreds of questions here so i'm sorry we didn't get to the. but if anybody wants to talk about f-efka, back to the military tribunals, state secrets, feel free. want to answer that question. what is the obama presidency mean to you. you will get an answer that to. >> i think it really does mean free change. there's some things that our government things, components, turf battles, all this kind of stuff. but i think it really does mean change and i think it, for me, it means the fact that there are so many people who are in this room who are going to have an opportunity to contribute,

participate in terms of government service. and i just really look at it as an opportunity for all of us. whatever time we have, it's really finite in terms of making a difference whether it's four, eight years, maybe longer in terms of, i don't know. that it is finite. and for those of you who have been engaged in one way or another, you know, maybe you're not part of the administration right now. what i would just say, please stay engaged. we've got a period of time to maintain the faith, continued to both pay attention, and also continue, you know, this is a marathon. it's not a sprint. the days seem like sprints, but, you know, we are going to need you in september, whether it's to accept a position or to do something. and so i would just encourage

you all to stay engaged, offer your talents, offer your talents both in terms of terms but also your service in terms of joining the administration. please stay supportive and please stay engaged. >> i didn't get a chance when i started this to tell you how honored i am to be here today. and i am. i can remember about eight years ago when we in the federal society gathered in this very room and how he laid we were that the president that was aborted had just been elected and many of us have played such a key role in that election, and i can only imagine the joy that you all feel now being in a similar position. i congratulate you on that, enjoy it. it's wonderful. and unfortunately it doesn't last for ever. [laughter] >> on the question what is president obama mean to me. that's a pretty easy one. right now i spent my livelihood

representing tobacco companies, oil companies, employers that have massive numbers of employees. so when i see things like legislation that imposes fda legislation on tobacco companies, emerging energy legislation that's going to post massive registry under legislation on the oil industry, and also efca. i see enormous amounts of business. [laughter] >> that's what the obama presidency means to me. [applause] >> and we are really happy to keep you busy. [applause] >> seriously, i mean, if you look at what this administration has done in 125 days, whatever it has been now, i mean, on the signing of the lilly ledbetter pay act to banning torture

designing stem cells, schip kenaf tobacco regulation. this is what it means. it needs standing there with the president when he is signing these, looking at them yesterday signed a memorandum on extending same-sex benefits and same-sex couples. people are in tears. these are real people, all of us are really impacted by this. and that's what it means. this change is not abstract. it is a very, very old and there will be a lot more of it. it's hard. especially in the arena, some are very, very difficult and people of real good faith are trying with a real belief in this comp petitions are working on them and some of this is, you know how but. give us your ideas and stay with us as we work through them. >> well, as i appreciate noel scanner but i'm not sure what the whole elected thing eight years ago. [applause]

>> in my head i was trying not to use that had crowd i was with. >> not over it yet. [inaudible] >> i do think that, it's hard to add to the things spencer said about president obama's presidency means. but i will say that, you know, to seek -- i think what this presidency means, yes, change. but change anytime when donations are desperately needs needs the change. i think it's the combination of the man, the agenda, and the

moment that are so powerful for me and so moving for me. and so why i am willing to get up early in the morning and stay late at night, miss my kids, do all the things i do to serve. because i think you have an extraordinary leader. this is an extraordinary person from his judgment and talent and ability to lead the country. an agenda, a policy program that really can put the country out of the cycle of boom and bust economic that we have been on an out of the various problems we have had on the domestic front and international front and put us on the right footing. at a time when we really couldn't need it anymore as a nation and as a world, where the man for this kind of change and action is so acute and so urgent. and i think when you put those three things together, but i do believe we are at a historic moment and witnessing a historic presidency unfold.

and as spencer said, those of us who work on it everyday are honored to be part of it, but that change won't be possible, it will be possible without its supporters, its allies, its thinkers, its advocates who aren't part of the administration stay engaged, state-supported and offering those suggestions, ideas and encouragement. so again, i think, you know, one thing we wondered from early on was what would happen to acs if there ever were a progressive president, would it remain relevant, would it remain and tactile. would it remain important. and seeing the crowd here tonight, the crowd at this convention, i'm so glad to see your answer is a resounding yes. and i hope it continues to be so for a long time to come. >> as summer begins a couple of

supreme court decisions coming out. report here from washington post.com, the supreme court ruling nearly a voting rights case a challenge to the land rights act, from a key provision from the civil rights law. the court also ruled today to uphold the federal government, their permit to dump waste from an alaskan gold mine into a nearby lake even though all the fish would be killed. that decision was 6-3 overturned the federal appeals court decision on that. the court also made it today special education students to be reimbursed for the cause of private schooling for their children. that decision 6-3 whose parent sought to force the local public school to pay $5200 a month to send their son to private school. a couple of decision on this monday morning from the supreme court. over in the senate today they will convene at 2 p.m. eastern for general speeches before returning to work on a bill to

bring more foreign tourists to the u.s. also this week senators plan to debate the 2010 homeland security spending bill continuing marking up health care legislation. lights in the coverage is here on c-span2. u.s. house is not in today. to return tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. eastern for morning our speeches before beginning legislative business at 2 p.m. they spend worktime. >> the fcc should be a model for transparency, openness and fairness. tonight on the communicators a discussion on julius genachowski president obama's choice to be the federal communications commission. with andrew feinberg.

what the fcc would look like under a new chairman tonight at eight eastern on the commute hitters. >> how is c-span funded? >> through donations? >> you know, grants and stuff like that. >> may be from sponsors? >> it might get some government funding. >> viewers? >> how is c-span funded? 30 years ago america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiative, no government mandate, no government money. >> up next bridget branson who started virgin atlantic airways 25 years ago speaking on the airline industry. he opposes the possible merger of british airways.